100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: A "scientific" question | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Plife...what is your point? Science is based on theories. Your mistake is to think that a theory is something "less" it is not. It's called a theory because when there will be a better understanding of it in the future that might change. But in the details, not in the general guideline. The "theory" of evolution is still called a theory because we are still learning. That is the difference with religion where the base concept is that "it is" without a need of research of study, like all faiths. Based on our current knowledge and means of research right now that's the best theory we have, meaning that can be improved,not that is false as you claim but I know there isn't worst deaf than the one who doesn't want to listen. And people of faith feel threatened by logic and reason..since Galileo... Nothing new here. Please, read some history of Galileo. The Catholic church believed and accepted and added to their dogma, the science of the day. Galileo's theories went against the science of the day, so the Catholic church opposed Galileo. The Catholic church wasn't rejecting science, they were rejecting new science. The Catholic church learned their lesson, so now they accept all modern science. They believe in the Big Bang and Evolution and all that stuff. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Catholic church wasn't rejecting science, they were rejecting new science. The Catholic church learned their lesson, so now they accept all modern science. They believe in the Big Bang and Evolution and all that stuff.
If you reject new science... you reject science. If science is not new, then it is static dogma, dead in the water. The Catholic Church does what it feels it must in order to survive as a religion and maintain its power and control, and no more. They would eventually reject the claim that "Jesus Christ is the son of God" if it meant their own survival in the world. They just want to remain in power. Jeannie |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
spqr
on
Fri 02/22/08 12:23 PM
|
|
The Catholic church wasn't rejecting science, they were rejecting new science. The Catholic church learned their lesson, so now they accept all modern science. They believe in the Big Bang and Evolution and all that stuff.
If you reject new science... you reject science. If science is not new, then it is static dogma, dead in the water. The Catholic Church does what it feels it must in order to survive as a religion and maintain its power and control, and no more. They would eventually reject the claim that "Jesus Christ is the son of God" if it meant their own survival in the world. They just want to remain in power. Jeannie Spot on JB. I see the church in general as the most elementary form of control, based on fear and mostly ignorance. That doesn't mean I consider religious people ignorant. If believing makes you feel better good for you, but why you need to try do naively debunk science in order to validate your faith is beyond my comprehension. By based on ignorance I mean that religion uses ignorance of reality to support its dogma. That is why historically it always fought against research and science. It's just the company policy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Sorry for hijacking the thread. i just want to let Spider know that I'm cool with him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 02/22/08 12:35 PM
|
|
The Catholic church wasn't rejecting science, they were rejecting new science. The Catholic church learned their lesson, so now they accept all modern science. They believe in the Big Bang and Evolution and all that stuff.
If you reject new science... you reject science. If science is not new, then it is static dogma, dead in the water. The Catholic Church does what it feels it must in order to survive as a religion and maintain its power and control, and no more. They would eventually reject the claim that "Jesus Christ is the son of God" if it meant their own survival in the world. They just want to remain in power. Jeannie Spot on JB. I see the church in general as the most elementary form of control, based on fear and mostly ignorance. That doesn't mean I consider religious people ignorant. If believing makes you feel better good for you, but why you need to try do naively debunk science in order to validate your faith is beyond my comprehension. By based on ignorance I mean that religion uses ignorance of reality to support its dogma. That is why historically it always fought against research and science. It's just the company policy. I agree. 
I love your picture. 
P.S. especially your bald head. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you have a very skewed view of what science is. Science looks at things skeptically. Something has to be peer reviewed, criticized and debated before it can be considered a theory. In religion, in this example catholicism, if the pope declares something to be true than it automatically is considered such. No skeptical inquiry, no peer review, just acceptance.
Let me put it this way, to be more direct with your question. If God or Jesus were to come down from heaven, perform a bunch of miracles and did so in a way would leave no possible way that it were trickery, I would convert to Christianity on the spot. Your scenarios are implausible. The first one, god actively coming down from heaven and providing evidence of the miracles, is the more plausible as god would be taking an active part in proving his existence. If god came down from heaven and provided undeniable proof of his miracles, any true skeptic would convert to christianity as the evidence would be clear and undeniable. The second scenario would be impossible with our level of technology, how the hell would we see a bible on another planet. These would be undeniable evidence of the existence of god, and science, by it's nature, would accept the fact that god exists if this evidence were to come around. However, since it hasn't, there is no well founded reason to assume that god exists nor mix god in with science. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you have a very skewed view of what science is. Science looks at things skeptically. Something has to be peer reviewed, criticized and debated before it can be considered a theory. In religion, in this example catholicism, if the pope declares something to be true than it automatically is considered such. No skeptical inquiry, no peer review, just acceptance. Let me put it this way, to be more direct with your question. If God or Jesus were to come down from heaven, perform a bunch of miracles and did so in a way would leave no possible way that it were trickery, I would convert to Christianity on the spot. Your scenarios are implausible. The first one, god actively coming down from heaven and providing evidence of the miracles, is the more plausible as god would be taking an active part in proving his existence. If god came down from heaven and provided undeniable proof of his miracles, any true skeptic would convert to christianity as the evidence would be clear and undeniable. The second scenario would be impossible with our level of technology, how the hell would we see a bible on another planet. These would be undeniable evidence of the existence of god, and science, by it's nature, would accept the fact that god exists if this evidence were to come around. However, since it hasn't, there is no well founded reason to assume that god exists nor mix god in with science. Thank you for your answer. I think you are confused about the nature of science. Science does not accept supernatural causation. Science is based on naturalism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plife...what is your point? Science is based on theories. Your mistake is to think that a theory is something "less" it is not. It's called a theory because when there will be a better understanding of it in the future that might change. But in the details, not in the general guideline. The "theory" of evolution is still called a theory because we are still learning. That is the difference with religion where the base concept is that "it is" without a need of research of study, like all faiths. Based on our current knowledge and means of research right now that's the best theory we have, meaning that can be improved,not that is false as you claim but I know there isn't worst deaf than the one who doesn't want to listen. And people of faith feel threatened by logic and reason..since Galileo... Nothing new here. SPQR, The point that I am trying to make is not to disparage science and its process of creating a theory and then trying to prove it as true. I think that's great. What I would like is some honesty in this discussion. Many of the great theory's such as the age of the earth and evolution has not been PROVEN. They are theory's and hypotheses, which is the nature of science, but they are not FACT. It is possible that we will discover something in ten years from now that completely disproves the theory that the earth is a hundred million years old. The age of the earth is currently based on extrapolation of materials that we assume has been stable for the entire period of time. Which means any kind of cataclysmic event or even stronger then normal cosmic rays can have wreaked havoc with the data and our assumptions. That is very different from gravity which is proven FACT and won't be proven false in ten years. For some reason the majority of people are not aware of this distinction and consider it FACT. That troubles me, simply because its an untruth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 02/23/08 09:25 PM
|
|
Presciouslife:
That is very different from gravity which is proven FACT and won't be proven false in ten years.
For more than three centuries, the basics of gravity were pretty well understood, but things are not what they seem. (They never are.) The problem with gravity is the pioneer anomaly. "Imagine the weight of a nagging suspicion that what held your world together, a constant and consistent presence you had come to understand and rely on, wasn't what it seemed. That's how scientists feel when they ponder gravity these days." This information taken from the link below. Now scientists have proposed a new mission to figure out what's up with gravity. Devoted to the problem Slava Turyshev at NASA is devoted to the problem. He is just one of a handful of scientists who are wrestling mentally with the problem everyday. He is not being funded to do the job. Here are the staggering possibilities they are considering that would force wholesale reprinting of all physics books: * Invisible dark matter is tugging at the probes * Other dimensions create small forces we don't understand * Gravity works differently than we think You can read about the problem with gravity here: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_041018.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Presciouslife: That is very different from gravity which is proven FACT and won't be proven false in ten years.
For more than three centuries, the basics of gravity were pretty well understood, but things are not what they seem. (They never are.) The problem with gravity is the pioneer anomaly. "Imagine the weight of a nagging suspicion that what held your world together, a constant and consistent presence you had come to understand and rely on, wasn't what it seemed. That's how scientists feel when they ponder gravity these days." This information taken from the link below. Now scientists have proposed a new mission to figure out what's up with gravity. Devoted to the problem Slava Turyshev at NASA is devoted to the problem. He is just one of a handful of scientists who are wrestling mentally with the problem everyday. He is not being funded to do the job. Here are the staggering possibilities they are considering that would force wholesale reprinting of all physics books: * Invisible dark matter is tugging at the probes * Other dimensions create small forces we don't understand * Gravity works differently than we think You can read about the problem with gravity here: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_041018.html Jeannie, Very interesting stuff about gravity. Thanks for posting it. I think for the point of our discussion the issue is that we know as a fact that gravity exists and that won't change in ten years. We might learn new reasons WHY gravity exists or what its exact mechanisms are. With evolution we are still in the process of figuring out if evolution (amoeba to man) happened. With the age of the earth we are still trying to scientifically figure out its age. The info that we have to date on those two subjects are primarily theory and not conclusive or testable to be called FACT. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could it be that possibly, the supernatural created the natural. Ever since the natural has been trying to create the supernatural.
Are we all part of God? I think so Are we blinded for one reason or another? Yea If God did as spider said it would be the supernatural becoming natural. We all know that is not going to happen. "Thank God" We all seem to want to prove our philosophies of God. Why? Is that the love of God in each of us reaching out to creation. Is this proof of something? to see common threads in eachother and follow the cord back to God? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 02/24/08 07:54 AM
|
|
We all seem to want to prove our philosophies of God. Why?
It is true that the truth is hidden from us. This is done ON PURPOSE. It is done in order for that which is "GOD" to live through us as individual thinking centers. In the alternative, God is only one. Bored, lonely etc. Nothing to do, nothing interesting to create. What God created is interesting. They are thinking centers (souls or point of perception) that do not know their true nature. (They are parts of God broken off) Their true nature is hidden.. on purpose, and they have that creative spark (Will) of God. These thinking centers grow and create independently. That is what expands the Universe. Without growth, the Universal body of God dies. God needs us as much as we need It. Jeannie |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Presciouslife: That is very different from gravity which is proven FACT and won't be proven false in ten years.
For more than three centuries, the basics of gravity were pretty well understood, but things are not what they seem. (They never are.) The problem with gravity is the pioneer anomaly. "Imagine the weight of a nagging suspicion that what held your world together, a constant and consistent presence you had come to understand and rely on, wasn't what it seemed. That's how scientists feel when they ponder gravity these days." This information taken from the link below. Now scientists have proposed a new mission to figure out what's up with gravity. Devoted to the problem Slava Turyshev at NASA is devoted to the problem. He is just one of a handful of scientists who are wrestling mentally with the problem everyday. He is not being funded to do the job. Here are the staggering possibilities they are considering that would force wholesale reprinting of all physics books: * Invisible dark matter is tugging at the probes * Other dimensions create small forces we don't understand * Gravity works differently than we think You can read about the problem with gravity here: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_041018.html Jeannie, Very interesting stuff about gravity. Thanks for posting it. I think for the point of our discussion the issue is that we know as a fact that gravity exists and that won't change in ten years. We might learn new reasons WHY gravity exists or what its exact mechanisms are. With evolution we are still in the process of figuring out if evolution (amoeba to man) happened. With the age of the earth we are still trying to scientifically figure out its age. The info that we have to date on those two subjects are primarily theory and not conclusive or testable to be called FACT. Again, you argue for what is FACT and what is NOT. For someone who insists on testing and proving FACTS, you elect to believe in what some consider myths. In my book, a scientific theory always wins over a myth. The myth of a savior God who is born of a virgin was around for a long time even before the time of Jesus. I will name them all if you like. They are all similar. But the people accepted them as stories, myths. It was not until Rome embraced Christianity that this mythical story of a "son of God" who died for the sins of mankind were attached to a real man and it was declared to be the gospel truth. (Back then anyone who denied this new "truth" was killed.) This is a brutal fact that I'm sure many will not be happy to hear. The New Testament is pure fiction. This is my conclusion. Jeannie |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
actually in some circles science IS deemed to be a religion! anyway you are all wrong! studies in quantum mechanics and partical physics definitely suggest the existence of an omnipresent being.
I think you are confusing religion and spirituality. Religion is the use of the concept of a God to foster intellectual control over humanity, spirituality is the pursuit for the accention to GOD myself i believe in GOD in a sense....I believe the whole universe is the sentient being we call GOD,an organism, if u will, made of matter and space, and he lives vicariously through us. We are a part of him, so is everything, quantum mechanics shows us this. the world around us is; infinite possibilities, and without an observer it stays in this state, but once there is an observation made, the possibilities solidify and create physical substance. The world literally is what u think it is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
actually in some circles science IS deemed to be a religion! anyway you are all wrong! studies in quantum mechanics and partical physics definitely suggest the existence of an omnipresent being. I think you are confusing religion and spirituality. Religion is the use of the concept of a God to foster intellectual control over humanity, spirituality is the pursuit for the accention to GOD myself i believe in GOD in a sense....I believe the whole universe is the sentient being we call GOD,an organism, if u will, made of matter and space, and he lives vicariously through us. We are a part of him, so is everything, quantum mechanics shows us this. the world around us is; infinite possibilities, and without an observer it stays in this state, but once there is an observation made, the possibilities solidify and create physical substance. The world literally is what u think it is. Spot On! If you had read this entire thread you would know that there are some of us that agree completely with you. I am one of them. 
Jeannie |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
actually in some circles science IS deemed to be a religion! anyway you are all wrong! studies in quantum mechanics and partical physics definitely suggest the existence of an omnipresent being. I think you are confusing religion and spirituality. Religion is the use of the concept of a God to foster intellectual control over humanity, spirituality is the pursuit for the accention to GOD myself i believe in GOD in a sense....I believe the whole universe is the sentient being we call GOD,an organism, if u will, made of matter and space, and he lives vicariously through us. We are a part of him, so is everything, quantum mechanics shows us this. the world around us is; infinite possibilities, and without an observer it stays in this state, but once there is an observation made, the possibilities solidify and create physical substance. The world literally is what u think it is. Well said!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
actually in some circles science IS deemed to be a religion! anyway you are all wrong! studies in quantum mechanics and partical physics definitely suggest the existence of an omnipresent being. I think you are confusing religion and spirituality. Religion is the use of the concept of a God to foster intellectual control over humanity, spirituality is the pursuit for the accention to GOD myself i believe in GOD in a sense....I believe the whole universe is the sentient being we call GOD,an organism, if u will, made of matter and space, and he lives vicariously through us. We are a part of him, so is everything, quantum mechanics shows us this. the world around us is; infinite possibilities, and without an observer it stays in this state, but once there is an observation made, the possibilities solidify and create physical substance. The world literally is what u think it is. Well I don't think we can say that G-d is made of matter and space. There is no way to know what G-d is made of. But pretty much everything else you wrote I would say that most religions agree with. The tricky part is, do you believe that G-d has or does communicate with us? Do you believe that G-d is full of love and compassion and actively cares about each and everyone of us? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could it be that possibly, the supernatural created the natural. Ever since the natural has been trying to create the supernatural. Are we all part of God? I think so Are we blinded for one reason or another? Yea If God did as spider said it would be the supernatural becoming natural. We all know that is not going to happen. "Thank God" We all seem to want to prove our philosophies of God. Why? Is that the love of God in each of us reaching out to creation. Is this proof of something? to see common threads in eachother and follow the cord back to God? Hi Think, Glad you are joining the discussion. ;-) What do you mean by the natural trying to create the supernatural? Man trying to create G-d? I particularly love what you wrote: "We all seem to want to prove our philosophies of God. Why? Is that the love of God in each of us reaching out to creation. Is this proof of something? to see common threads in each other and follow the cord back to God?" I couldn't agree with you more. Very nice! ;-) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 02/25/08 01:59 PM
|
|
Well I don't think we can say that G-d is made of matter and space.
Everything in existence and that includes "matter" was once thought to be made up of "particles" at the quantum level. But looking further, we find that the particle cannot be measured or even found. It is simply a standing wave. Therefore we can say what everything is made up of that we think of as matter. It is all waves, it is all vibration. Light and sound. Some religions say that God and all things are made up of light and sound. But I don't think God Itself has a form. I think forms are manifested as light and sound and that is what we call reality. There is no empty space in which matter is placed. All space is full of something. Be it dark matter or something else we cannot see. It is not gravity that holds things together. There is no way to know what G-d is made of. But pretty much everything else you wrote I would say that most religions agree with.
We can know what the known universe is made of. If the known universe is God then we can know what God is made of. But like our own bodies, they are simply the form in which we (spirit) expresses Itself. So, it follows that the Universe, if it is the Body of God, is simply the form in which God expresses Itself. So before you attempt to try to learn what God is made up of you have to discover for certain what God is. If God is intelligent consciousness that simply perceives the I AM awareness, then God has no form at all until that form is manifested.... as a body, or a universe. The tricky part is, do you believe that G-d has or does communicate with us?
Yes, everyday and in every way. God communicates Itself to all. Do you believe that G-d is full of love and compassion and actively cares about each and everyone of us?
God is Love. If God loves Itself, then it loves each and every one of Us. Jeannie |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If God did as spider said it would be the supernatural becoming natural. We all know that is not going to happen. "Thank God"
I am not clear on what you mean exactly by the term "supernatural" Do you mean the unknown or the unseen? Jeannie |
|
|
|
|
