NationStates Jolt Archive

Now then those of you who have talked with me on other religious threads know that I don't particulary like religion. But I have come to realize something, science can only go so far. Science explains the what . If you want to understand the why, that is where religion comes in. Faith is for understanding why someone did something. I'm sorry this is a bad way explaining things. Think of it this way. There is a square which is divided down the middle both ways. Now the right hand side of the squareis called the Right Hand and the left side is called the Left Side. The Right Side is science or the study of trying to figure how something works. It studies things empiricaly. The Left Hand side is the study of the mind. It is all about interpetation (that is spelled wrong) or psycology. It tries to understand what goes on through a persons mind. Each side has a bottom and top. The top is the singular and bottom is the plural or group. Now then, life used to be all about the Left Hand. All about the why. Religion ruled then. Then the time came when the Right Hand or science came to power. We are in that time now. Life is now all about the what. Each Hand can only go so far. The domination of one Hand over the other is both good and bad. Good because it explores different parts of the universe. Bad becaues it completely ignores the other Hand. The only way to truly understand what goes in the universe you must look at things from both points of veiw, the Left and Right Hands. I would like if you think that this is true. I'm just curious.

This is just a very rough explanation. For a more detailed and understandable explanaition (well mabey not more understandable) read A Breif Hiistory of Everything by Ken Wilbur.

There is no need to compare the two.

They are different animals for different purposes and each should stay away from the other.

Only a balanced mix of science and a personal faith and views of God is the way to go.

If you only believe in science, then you are blind beyond your five senses and only acknowledge what you can see, hear, taste, feel, and smell. Which means you only believe what men in labcoats tell you.

If you only believe in religon, then you are blind beyond what your book of faith tells you and you only acknowledge your faith. Which means you only believe what your book tells you.

Only a balanced mix of science and a personal faith and views of God is the way to go.

If you only believe in science, then you are blind beyond your five senses and only acknowledge what you can see, hear, taste, feel, and smell. Which means you only believe what men in labcoats tell you.

If you only believe in religon, then you are blind beyond what your book of faith tells you and you only acknowledge your faith. Which means you only believe what your book tells you.

I like your quote above very much. I would have to also add that science is not always the truth. Even as much as we would like to believe it, if you took all of the scientist over the last 100 years, you would still have them arguing over many subjects.

On the otherhand, I pray that my faith would be unwaivering for eternity.

I like your quote above very much. I would have to also add that science is not always the truth. Even as much as we would like to believe it, if you took all of the scientist over the last 100 years, you would still have them arguing over many subjects.

Should we compare that to every faith over the last 100 years? The scientific method is a way of devising accurate models for natural processes. As part of that, incorrect assumptions are bound to be made, tested, and rejected. As this happens our knowledge increases; debate is healthy in science, not a sign of anything negative.

The only way to truly understand what goes in the universe you must look at things from both points of veiw, the Left and Right Hands. I would like if you think that this is true. I'm just curious.

No, it's not true. The idea that because two opposing points occupy extremes the right answer must lie between them is called the Fallacy of the Golden Mean.

I would have to also add that science is not always the truth. Even as much as we would like to believe it, if you took all of the scientist over the last 100 years, you would still have them arguing over many subjects.

On the otherhand, I pray that my faith would be unwaivering for eternity.

better to argue about things in order to better understand them than to hold false beliefs unwaiveringly.

Only a balanced mix of science and a personal faith and views of God is the way to go.

If you only believe in science, then you are blind beyond your five senses and only acknowledge what you can see, hear, taste, feel, and smell. Which means you only believe what men in labcoats tell you.

If you only believe in religon, then you are blind beyond what your book of faith tells you and you only acknowledge your faith. Which means you only believe what your book tells you.

No. I only believe in science, and i'm not blind. I don't need to believe in god. Why should I? What is the point in there being a god? I don't buy into that. I think an atheist can very much be open to the reality.

The idea that because two opposing points occupy extremes the right answer must lie between them is called the Fallacy of the Golden Mean.

and is one of the major empty platitudes that people like to bring up when they don't actually have anything worth saying on some topic

No. I only believe in science, and i'm not blind. I don't need to believe in god. Why should I? What is the point in there being a god? I don't buy into that. I think an atheist can very much be open to the reality.
Okay then, how are you not blind beyond your 5 senses? You say yourself that you think it's impossible for there to be a God.

I know it's possible for there to not be a God and yet I have faith He exists.

Science and Religion are the same thing, in a sense. They are two ways of trying to explain the universe, and its contents. Science does this much more objectivly, and empirically. It makes theories based on evidence, and uses logical conjecture as little as possible, and then makes sure the conjecture is seen as conjecture, to simply try to fill in the blanks with the most logical answer.

Science, however, is much different. It takes a limited view of science/scientific evidence, and then brings in lots of conjecture, some logical, alot coincidentally or not at all logical, and brings it as the truth. So to recap:

Science: Says that it is not fact, but instead the best theory possible with evidence. Attempts to add logical conjenture as little as possible.

Religion: Says it is fact, and for most, you go to eternal damnation if you dont believe it. Adds lots of conjecture, some based on empirical observations, but most of it unsubstantiated.

It just makes sense to look to science for answers. Religion provides conjecture. Any of its empirical evidence comes from science.

Btw, for people saying religion answers the why, it really doesnt. The bible says god created everything, humans, light, etc. It doesnt really say why he wanted to, or why he exists. If you want to nitpick, yes, religions answers some lower level why's. So does science. Why do humans eat? They will die if they dont. Science answers why's as the evidence points to them. Why look to religion for why's, when you either get unsubstantiated claims, or substantiated ones that are substantiated by science?

There is no need to compare the two.

They are different animals for different purposes and each should stay away from the other.

You mean different tools right? Animals don't exactly have "purpose" other than to survive. And many times they can get along with different animals.

Anyway, they are both very important, but religion is more so, I think. I'm not saying that science hasn't done many great things or that religion hasn't done very nasty things. But right now, in more peaceful parts of the world, there is a good balance. The average person will believe in a deity, and they'll believe in science. Now, if we'd never had science, we would never have gotten as far as we have, but we would have still survived. Religion gives people a purpose. It gives them a reason for following rules and laws. Take that away, and most people won't see the point in order any more. They'll think nothing really matters, so no harm will come if I steal, beat, rape, or kill. Religion, if nothing else, keeps people in check. Without it, there would be even more wars than those that religion has caused. Not declared wars between nations, but wars between the very peoples within those nations. It's a fact that part of the brain, in most people, requires more of an answer. It requires faith to work.

Take away religion, and people will still cloud themselves with falsehoods, ones even more damaging than religion has caused. Without religion, people would fail to see the largest truth: if there is no higher scheme, than the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.

Okay then, how are you not blind beyond your 5 senses?

Five senses aren't enough for you?

Okay then, how are you not blind beyond your 5 senses? You say yourself that you think it's impossible for there to be a God.

I know it's possible for there to not be a God and yet I have faith He exists.

If he's blind, then you're blind, though you are thinking really hard about what you would see, if you could. Again, religion is conjecture. We all have conjecture, but religion says its conjecture is fact. If you believe in something, without empirical evidence outside of science, that seeing what you want to see, not seeing what is there. Looking at reality is what lets you see, not looking at what you think might be.

Five senses aren't enough for you?

i like my sense of balance and my sense of the position of my hands, too. isn't the official count of senses at like 8 or 9 for humans?

You mean different tools right? Animals don't exactly have "purpose" other than to survive. And many times they can get along with different animals.

Anyway, they are both very important, but religion is more so, I think. I'm not saying that science hasn't done many great things or that religion hasn't done very nasty things. But right now, in more peaceful parts of the world, there is a good balance. The average person will believe in a deity, and they'll believe in science. Now, if we'd never had science, we would never have gotten as far as we have, but we would have still survived. Religion gives people a purpose. It gives them a reason for following rules and laws. Take that away, and most people won't see the point in order any more. They'll think nothing really matters, so no harm will come if I steal, beat, rape, or kill. Religion, if nothing else, keeps people in check. Without it, there would be even more wars than those that religion has caused. Not declared wars between nations, but wars between the very peoples within those nations. It's a fact that part of the brain, in most people, requires more of an answer. It requires faith to work.

Take away religion, and people will still cloud themselves with falsehoods, ones even more damaging than religion has caused. Without religion, people would fail to see the largest truth: if there is no higher scheme, than the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.

Hence why every atheist and agnostic in the united states is a criminal?

Hence why every atheist and agnostic in the united states is a criminal?

I said most people couldn't handle it. There are those who can, of course. But I'm talking people in general.

Five senses aren't enough for you?
Nah. 5 senses only lets you comprehend only what you need to comprehend to survive. Beyond that...it's either science that can prove it somehow or faith.

I said most people couldn't handle it. There are those who can, of course. But I'm talking people in general.

Atheist and agnostic criminal rates are right around those of religious people, I wouldnt be surprised if they were lower. If your belief is right, than its a huge coincidence that the people who decide to not believe, are those who are intelligent enough to realize there is a real point for following laws, not just eternal damnation. It would have to be pretty hard to get such comparable crime rates, etc.

If you spent every minute that you spent on religion, being educated on why laws are in place and how they work, then crime rates would go down, if anything.

Nah. 5 senses only lets you comprehend only what you need to comprehend to survive. Beyond that...it's either science that can prove it somehow or faith.

But the problem with the 'science does not tell us why' argument is that religion doesn't actually tell us why either. Genesis might tell us we were created by God, but it does not tell us why that God created us, or why that God created things as he did.

If you try to ask of religion why there's an asteroid belt, or why no animals have three legs, you cannot generate a satisfactory answer. If you want to ask why God decided to create the Earth / universe and what he was doing before that, there is no answer [other than the highly dubious conclusion that God created us because he wanted us to worship him, which leads to the conclusion that God is either highly insecure or hugely egotistical].

Nah. 5 senses only lets you comprehend only what you need to comprehend to survive. Beyond that...it's either science that can prove it somehow or faith.

So people who arent religious, dont have minds? They cant think? They only observe what science says, and block out all other thoughts?

No. Just because they dont believe in some almighty being in the sky, doesnt mean they dont have their own conjecture on what might be. The difference is, they realize that its conjecture, and its only a guess based on what they know. Its not being blind, its being smart.

But the problem with the 'science does not tell us why' argument is that religion doesn't actually tell us why either. Genesis might tell us we were created by God, but it does not tell us why that God created us, or why that God created things as he did.

If you try to ask of religion why there's an asteroid belt, or why no animals have three legs, you cannot generate a satisfactory answer. If you want to ask why God decided to create the Earth and what he was doing before that, there is no answer [other than the highly dubious conclusion that God created us because he wanted us to worship him, which leads to the conclusion that God is either highly insecure or hugely egotistical].
You assume I believe everything in every Holy Book, and that I'm Christian.

I'm Muslim.

I believe in evolution, I believe in the Big Bang.

And if you were God, you'd have a very huge ego too. :D

So people who arent religious, dont have minds? They cant think? They only observe what science says, and block out all other thoughts?

No. Just because they dont believe in some almighty being in the sky, doesnt mean they dont have their own conjecture on what might be. The difference is, they realize that its conjecture, and its only a guess based on what they know. Its not being blind, its being smart.
Actually, I was going to add in my post that I had no clue where atheists could fall in. Your not going to believe in God, yet you will only accept science...:confused:

Balance.

I'm an Italian Catholic, but without Science we'd still all be running around screaming about the Black Plague.

Atheist and agnostic criminal rates are right around those of religious people, I wouldnt be surprised if they were lower. If your belief is right, than its a huge coincidence that the people who decide to not believe, are those who are intelligent enough to realize there is a real point for following laws, not just eternal damnation. It would have to be pretty hard to get such comparable crime rates, etc.

If you spent every minute that you spent on religion, being educated on why laws are in place and how they work, then crime rates would go down, if anything.

Since the laws of most countries are based on the laws of whatever religion was followed by the ruling body (in the West that's usually Christianity) I can say that I'm fairly certain part of the reason laws exist is because of religion.

And for the most part, the people who have the belief of non-belief (atheism) are those who understand that, whether or not there is a higher power, there needs to be order. But most people, right now, believe in some kind of deity or higher power. Take that away from them, and there's nothing left for them.

Okay then, how are you not blind beyond your 5 senses? You say yourself that you think it's impossible for there to be a God.

I know it's possible for there to not be a God and yet I have faith He exists.

Why is it being blind if I don't believe in god? You hold an arrogant view.

And if you were God, you'd have a very huge ego too. :D

Well, if you're omnipotent what more could you possibly want? It's not like being worshipped is actually going to do anything for you. If that's why we exist, why give us minds and allow us to choose not to believe?

And all points stand. The Qu'ran can't tell us why Allah made the world the way it is rather than any other way; asking questions of any religion quickly runs you into the brick wall of 'because he's God and that's just what he decided to do.'

Why is it being blind if I don't believe in god? You hold an arrogant view.

Colodia said that you're blind beyond your five senses. Wouldn't you say that's true, seeing as how you believe there isn't anything else to see anyway?

Why is it being blind if I don't believe in god? You hold an arrogant view.
Just pointing out that you refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a God.

I never said you HAD to believe in God. Just remember that compared to the maybe limitless amount of knowledge the universe can teach us, we know shit.

Sheesh. Making me think and everything at 12:16 and crap. How evil of you guys.

Colodia said that you're blind beyond your five senses. Wouldn't you say that's true, seeing as how you believe there isn't anything else to see anyway?

I don't there is anything more to life. And I believe the notion of god and holding the view someone is blind if they don't believe in.. well is arrogant.

Science has always been the more trustworthy.

Religion doesnt use facts, unless you can prove that a diety has supreme power, and is the direct cuase of whatever question your trying to answer with it.
Since you cant prove religion..its useless in a real life sense for getting true answers out of it.
All you get is conjecture.

Why is Allah the true God, but Odin isnt?
Why is Jesus the saviour, and not Ra?

Theres always been religions, and eventually they all fall by the wayside.

Know why?

Because none of them are real.

Odin, Thor, Zeus, Allah, God, whatever the name...its all a fairy tale.

Science holds the true answers of the universe.

Sheesh. Making me think and everything at 12:16 and crap. How evil of you guys.

Hey, for me it's 2:16 and I can handle it.

Well, if you're omnipotent what more could you possibly want? It's not like being worshipped is actually going to do anything for you. If that's why we exist, why give us minds and allow us to choose not to believe?

And all points stand. The Qu'ran can't tell us why Allah made the world the way it is rather than any other way; asking questions of any religion quickly runs you into the brick wall of 'because he's God and that's just what he decided to do.'
*shrug*

Who says God made the world because he wanted to?

What if God made the world because it was his 8th grade science project? One he got a C- on?

Since the laws of most countries are based on the laws of whatever religion was followed by the ruling body (in the West that's usually Christianity) I can say that I'm fairly certain part of the reason laws exist is because of religion.

And for the most part, the people who have the belief of non-belief (atheism) are those who understand that, whether or not there is a higher power, there needs to be order. But most people, right now, believe in some kind of deity or higher power. Take that away from them, and there's nothing left for them.

That might have been a century ago, but not now. Religion plays a small part in most peoples lives. Take religion from them, and they will withdraw. They wont become lawless, or orderless. They will just have some trouble re-adjusting. I dont know one person who follows rules only because of religion.

And no, laws werent devised by religion(I would make the argument that people made religion, and hence the laws through, but I dont want to say the laws came from religion at all). Some of the early laws came from religion, but come on. There cant be more than one religion, really, can there? Then most religions were made up, and hence, laws evolved from common sense, being incorporated in religion. While its harder to pinpoint older law starts, you can look at newer things, like Leviathan, etc(The prince maybe, or am I thinking wrong?)

*shrug*

Who says God made the world because he wanted to?

What if God made the world because it was his 8th grade science project? One he got a C- on?

Then why was his universe created?

You need an end-game why, if you want to say religion answers the why.

Science and Religion. Which is more important?


After running some computer models and some tests in my lab, I have determined that Science is 26.35% more important than Religion.

(+/- 3.4%)

Who says God made the world because he wanted to?

How can an omnipotent being be compelled do do something he / she / it doesn't want to do? As far as I'm aware only H P Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos ever made the suggestion that the universe wasn't created by concious effort, and I'm not up for letting Azathoth into my life just now, thanks.

After running some computer models and running some tests in my lab, I have determined that Science is 26.35% more important than Religion.

(+/- 3.4%)


Were you carrying the one?

I don't there is anything more to life. And I believe the notion of god and holding the view someone is blind if they don't believe in.. well is arrogant.

But you just said yourself you don't believe in anything more, so why does it bother you? Why do other people's faith bother your faith so much. And before you jump all over me about it not being faith, I've seen you're posts, here and elsewhere, and you cannot deny that your denial of a higher power is based on faith. There is no proof either way, so believing either way is relying on faith. The difference between those who believe in a higher power and those who don't is that we admit we require faith.

Then why was his universe created?

You need an end-game why, if you want to say religion answers the why.
Did I ever say religon answers the why? :) I don't think so.

Nah, religon doesn't answer the why part. It can answer the "What's beyond" part. But not always the why part.

Or we can substitute every "why" answer for "God was 10 years old at the time and thought that it would be cool."

But you just said yourself you don't believe in anything more, so why does it bother you? Why do other people's faith bother your faith so much. And before you jump all over me about it not being faith, I've seen you're posts, here and elsewhere, and you cannot deny that your denial of a higher power is based on faith. There is no proof either way, so believing either way is relying on faith. The difference between those who believe in a higher power and those who don't is that we admit we require faith.

I don't. I just like being called arrogant.

And remember the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. I don't need to disprove a negative. :cool:

How can an omnipotent being be compelled do do something he / she / it doesn't want to do? As far as I'm aware only H P Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos ever made the suggestion that the universe wasn't created by concious effort, and I'm not up for letting Azathoth into my life just now, thanks.


Even if he saves?

How can an omnipotent being be compelled do do something he / she / it doesn't want to do? As far as I'm aware only H P Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos ever made the suggestion that the universe wasn't created by concious effort, and I'm not up for letting Azathoth into my life just now, thanks.
Ahh, I really need to read up on this Cthulhu thing. Is that the book's title? Cthulhu? Is it a series?

Even if he saves?

No. Beckham will net the rebound.

Ahh, I really need to read up on this Cthulhu thing. Is that the book's title? Cthulhu? Is it a series?

It's a whole series of stories by different authors. The most well-known in the canon is The Call Of Cthulhu.

Actually, I was going to add in my post that I had no clue where atheists could fall in. Your not going to believe in God, yet you will only accept science...:confused:

We only accept science as "fact", and not really then. We have faith in science, because its based on intelligence observation, using the evidence to best explain something with minimum conjecture. We change our beliefs when we need to, when new information is found.

We have faith in science, you have faith in religion(and science, it seems, though to a lower standard). Just because we dont have faith in conjecture, doesnt make us blind. If you have faith in religion, thats fine. But just because you have more answers, doesnt mean you see more.

In short, faith and thought arent one. We have faith in science. We have beliefs on other things. We realize that our beliefs are conjecture, and up to a much lower standard of faith, because its based on our best thought alone.

No. Beckham will net the rebound.


so, if Im hearing you right, Beckham < Azathoth.

I don't. I just like being called arrogant.

And remember the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. I don't need to disprove a negative. :cool:

And yet, you're the one making the claim, as the claim that there is a god is much older than the claim that there is absolutely no god. You're the one going against basic human thought, therefore the proof lies on you. This "I don't need to disprove a negative" is an excuse for atheists the same way "we can't comprehend it" is an excuse for theists. Since you claim to be the scientists, please, give us proof.

so, if Im hearing you right, Beckham < Azathoth.

There is no God but Azathoth and David Beckham is his prophet.

And yet, you're the one making the claim, as the claim that there is a god is much older than the claim that there is absolutely no god.

Appeal to tradition. The argument that powered flight is impossible is much older than the argument that it is possible, does that mean powered flight is impossible?

While you're at it, can you demonstrate that claim [that there has always been faith in a God] is true, since it appears to be the lynchpin of your argument?

You mean different tools right? Animals don't exactly have "purpose" other than to survive. And many times they can get along with different animals.

Actually animals serve purposes in many parts of the world. So the reference is valid.


Anyway, they are both very important, but religion is more so, I think. I'm not saying that science hasn't done many great things or that religion hasn't done very nasty things. But right now, in more peaceful parts of the world, there is a good balance. The average person will believe in a deity, and they'll believe in science. Now, if we'd never had science, we would never have gotten as far as we have, but we would have still survived. Religion gives people a purpose.

Not everybody is Religous and yet they seem to have purposes. The main one is surviving.


It gives them a reason for following rules and laws.

Not really. Many "religous" people break the laws all the time. People tend to have this habbit of wanting to fit in so following rules is easy.


Take that away, and most people won't see the point in order any more.

The rule of law keeps order. Backed with a police force.


They'll think nothing really matters, so no harm will come if I steal, beat, rape, or kill. Religion, if nothing else, keeps people in check.

Religion may help define "moral" codes; however, Religion does not give a person a "moral" code.


Without it, there would be even more wars than those that religion has caused. Not declared wars between nations, but wars between the very peoples within those nations. It's a fact that part of the brain, in most people, requires more of an answer. It requires faith to work.

Actually faith is a bad platform with problem solving. Faith provides and answer then asks for the proof.


Take away religion, and people will still cloud themselves with falsehoods, ones even more damaging than religion has caused. Without religion, people would fail to see the largest truth: if there is no higher scheme, than the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.

Ahh so people can't be good unless they are religious?

Yanno...

Another reason why Science is superior is the lack of "Finger-In-The-Ear" syndrome.

As was mentioned by another poster, science changes as new proof is presented.
Religion, is stagnant, and does not change with the times.
The laws of religions are usually set in stone, and fairly unyeilding.

So, when something like "Evolution" comes into the scene, religion must stick its proverbial fingers in its ears and yell, "I CANT HEAR YOU! LA LA LA!!"

It has to ignore that wich is true, in order to believe itself, or make itself hold up.

One must ignore logic, as we know it, to have a true faith in most religions.

After running some computer models and some tests in my lab, I have determined that Science is 26.35% more important than Religion.

(+/- 3.4%)


You have a problem with your significant digits. If it's +/- 3.4, you can only report the number to one decimal place. Should be 26.4 +/- 3.4.

And, people, please don't use the word "truth" when refering to science. Science doesn't offer truth, it offers facts. Facts can change, but truth cannot. "Proof", too. Science finds evidance, not proof. Proof is irrifutible. Anything in science can be called out for refutation. It REALLY bothers me when people use "truth" and "proof" when talking about science.
To recap:
Proof, truth = religion
Evidance, fact = science.
Thank you.

Yanno...

Another reason why Science is superior is the lack of "Finger-In-The-Ear" syndrome.

As was mentioned by another poster, science changes as new proof is presented.
Religion, is stagnant, and does not change with the times.
The laws of religions are usually set in stone, and fairly unyeilding.

So, when something like "Evolution" comes into the scene, religion must stick its proverbial fingers in its ears and yell, "I CANT HEAR YOU! LA LA LA!!"

It has to ignore that wich is true, in order to believe itself, or make itself hold up.

One must ignore logic, as we know it, to have a true faith in most religions.
Not if you have a balance of both.

Evolution? I believe it.
Big Bang? It most likely happened.


C'mon....don't make me look bad just cuz I believe in God...:(

Since the laws of most countries are based on the laws of whatever religion was followed by the ruling body (in the West that's usually Christianity) I can say that I'm fairly certain part of the reason laws exist is because of religion.

And for the most part, the people who have the belief of non-belief (atheism) are those who understand that, whether or not there is a higher power, there needs to be order. But most people, right now, believe in some kind of deity or higher power. Take that away from them, and there's nothing left for them.

Debatable.

The laws of Hamurabi delt with trade and farming I belive....

Proof, truth = religion
Evidance, fact = science.

So all religions are true?

Now then those of you who have talked with me on other religious threads know that I don't particulary like religion. But I have come to realize something, science can only go so far. Science explains the what . If you want to understand the why, that is where religion comes in. Faith is for understanding why someone did something. I'm sorry this is a bad way explaining things. Think of it this way. There is a square which is divided down the middle both ways. Now the right hand side of the squareis called the Right Hand and the left side is called the Left Side. The Right Side is science or the study of trying to figure how something works. It studies things empiricaly. The Left Hand side is the study of the mind. It is all about interpetation (that is spelled wrong) or psycology. It tries to understand what goes on through a persons mind. Each side has a bottom and top. The top is the singular and bottom is the plural or group. Now then, life used to be all about the Left Hand. All about the why. Religion ruled then. Then the time came when the Right Hand or science came to power. We are in that time now. Life is now all about the what. Each Hand can only go so far. The domination of one Hand over the other is both good and bad. Good because it explores different parts of the universe. Bad becaues it completely ignores the other Hand. The only way to truly understand what goes in the universe you must look at things from both points of veiw, the Left and Right Hands. I would like if you think that this is true. I'm just curious.

This is just a very rough explanation. For a more detailed and understandable explanaition (well mabey not more understandable) read A Breif Hiistory of Everything by Ken Wilbur.

well said. if the square is life, then you need both sides to make it.

You have a problem with your significant digits....

None of my digits were significant. Well... except the one one I'm holding up right now.

Not if you have a balance of both.

Evolution? I believe it.
Big Bang? It most likely happened.


C'mon....don't make me look bad just cuz I believe in God...:(


You dont look bad.

In fact...its a credit to your character.

Its easy for us atheists(who are probably right) to say we dont believe.
But its hard to say you have a faith, and not back down from us, or start thumping a bible, wich spoils any good debate.

So all religions are true?

I didn't say that. Religons deal in the realm of truth. Whether or not they are actually true, I don't know.

And yet, you're the one making the claim, as the claim that there is a god is much older than the claim that there is absolutely no god. You're the one going against basic human thought, therefore the proof lies on you. This "I don't need to disprove a negative" is an excuse for atheists the same way "we can't comprehend it" is an excuse for theists. Since you claim to be the scientists, please, give us proof.

Actually no. Atheism has been around for a very long since the beginning of religion. You are the one who is accusing me of false things. Atheism has always existed. And no the proof lies on you. You are the one going against common sense. You are hideously wrong, and hideously blind.

You have a problem with your significant digits. If it's +/- 3.4, you can only report the number to one decimal place. Should be 26.4 +/- 3.4.

And, people, please don't use the word "truth" when refering to science. Science doesn't offer truth, it offers facts. Facts can change, but truth cannot. "Proof", too. Science finds evidance, not proof. Proof is irrifutible. Anything in science can be called out for refutation. It REALLY bothers me when people use "truth" and "proof" when talking about science.
To recap:
Proof, truth = religion
Evidance, fact = science.
Thank you.

Would you care to have someone look up a given number of scientific theories wich have been proven to be true?

I'll bet you anything its way more than the Bible.

There is no God but Azathoth and David Beckham is his prophet.



Appeal to tradition. The argument that powered flight is impossible is much older than the argument that it is possible, does that mean powered flight is impossible?

While you're at it, can you demonstrate that claim [that there has always been faith in a God] is true, since it appears to be the lynchpin of your argument?

Was it not then proven that powered flight is possible? The burden fell on the scientists to prove that, is that not right? Did it not work?

And I did not say that there has always been faith in a god, but that the stubborn faith in god is older than the stubborn faith that there is no god. Certainly there was a time when people were neither, and then they needed explanations, because going through the motions of hunting and gathering wasn't good enough.

You dont look bad.

In fact...its a credit to your character.

Its easy for us atheists(who are probably right) to say we dont believe.
But its hard to say you have a faith, and not back down from us, or start thumping a bible, wich spoils any good debate.
The whole finger-in-ear thing really does get annoying. It makes it difficult to debate with them at all.

But it's the same with many atheists that deny any ounce of even the slightest possibility of God.

So I'm kind of stuck in a fetal position in the corner of a dark room. :(

*cries himself to sleep*

Actually no. Atheism has been around for a very long since the beginning of religion. You are the one who is accusing me of false things. Atheism has always existed. And no the proof lies on you. You are the one going against common sense. You are hideously wrong, and hideously blind.

You spit out the same bullshit all the time Mesa. I'm not the scientist. I don't know much about science. The burden doesn't fall on the ordinary joe, it falls on the scientist.

Would you care to have someone look up a given number of scientific theories wich have been proven to be true?

I'll bet you anything its way more than the Bible.

Go for it. Science doesn't offer truth. Science offers facts. We don't
"proove things true", we show "evidance that they are fact".

You spit out the same bullshit all the time Mesa. I'm not the scientist. I don't know much about science. The burden doesn't fall on the ordinary joe, it falls on the scientist.

You are the one spewing bullshit. And that doesn't surprise me. You're inflammatory, overly fundamentalist and factless. It isn't my fault you haven't met the burden of proof since YOU ARE MAKING THE DAMN CLAIM.

Was it not then proven that powered flight is possible? The burden fell on the scientists to prove that, is that not right? Did it not work?

And I did not say that there has always been faith in a god, but that the stubborn faith in god is older than the stubborn faith that there is no god. Certainly there was a time when people were neither, and then they needed explanations, because going through the motions of hunting and gathering wasn't good enough.


Certainly you know of pre-christianic religions?

Mithas?

These were predominant throughout the middle-east at the time, and as long as there has been religions, there have been people who have said "Phooey".

Yanno...

Another reason why Science is superior is the lack of "Finger-In-The-Ear" syndrome.

As was mentioned by another poster, science changes as new proof is presented.
Religion, is stagnant, and does not change with the times.
The laws of religions are usually set in stone, and fairly unyeilding.

So, when something like "Evolution" comes into the scene, religion must stick its proverbial fingers in its ears and yell, "I CANT HEAR YOU! LA LA LA!!"

It has to ignore that wich is true, in order to believe itself, or make itself hold up.

One must ignore logic, as we know it, to have a true faith in most religions.

If that's true, than how come religion has been changing over the past millenium. Slowly at first, but now it's becoming more flexible as its becoming more personal. The belief that we can't know everything makes up for our mistakes in the past. Religion isn't the same as it was.

Go for it. Science doesn't offer truth. Science offers facts. We don't
"proove things true", we show "evidance that they are fact".


Tell you what.....

I can name one off the top of my head, and I'll bet you cant name one of a religious nature to be as equally proven.


Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

If that's true, than how come religion has been changing over the past millenium. Slowly at first, but now it's becoming more flexible as its becoming more personal. The belief that we can't know everything makes up for our mistakes in the past. Religion isn't the same as it was.


Its become much more divided, certainly.

These days, its the extremeists and the more normal followers of Islam, and Christianity.
They seem to get more militant in their beliefs everyday.

Theres more varieties of the same religion these days...but for the most part..the core is still there.
Its like different toppings on a pizza..

Its still pizza.

You are the one spewing bullshit. And that doesn't surprise me. You're inflammatory, overly fundamentalist and factless. It isn't my fault you haven't met the burden of proof since YOU ARE MAKING THE DAMN CLAIM.

Mesa, you're argument is not going to fly with the ordinary person. They're going to blow you off and continue to believe what they believe, with no more thought of you. Whether or not I'm making the claim doesn't matter. I can't prove it, and I'll be the first to admit it. So I'm asking you to take up the responsibility, since you seem more educated. Now your reply will tell me, ultimately what kind of person you are. Make a good impression.

The whole finger-in-ear thing really does get annoying. It makes it difficult to debate with them at all.

But it's the same with many atheists that deny any ounce of even the slightest possibility of God.

So I'm kind of stuck in a fetal position in the corner of a dark room. :(

*cries himself to sleep*

"No sane person can be a true atheist, as no sane person can truly believe in God. For to do either, implies a surety of ideas that can not exist in a rational mind."

-Louis Hobbs-

Mesa, you're argument is not going to fly with the ordinary person. They're going to blow you off and continue to believe what they believe, with no more thought of you. Whether or not I'm making the claim doesn't matter. I can't prove it, and I'll be the first to admit it. So I'm asking you to take up the responsibility, since you seem more educated. Now your reply will tell me, ultimately what kind of person you are. Make a good impression.

dude, you don't have a damn right to speak for every ordinary person. I myself am an ordinary person. I'm not a scientist. Unless you consider me working towards my political science degree as that. You can't prove your claims therefore atheism will grow and grow until your religion gets wiped out.

Tell you what.....

I can name one off the top of my head, and I'll bet you cant name one of a religious nature to be as equally proven.


Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

I'm not saying that religious things ARE true. I'm saying that religion claims to OFFER truth. Plus, I believe Einstein himself showed that relativity wasn't exactly right. There's a lot of evidance to support relativity, but no scientific theory is ABSOLUTLY irrifutible, which is the requirment for "truth".

The whole finger-in-ear thing really does get annoying. It makes it difficult to debate with them at all.

But it's the same with many atheists that deny any ounce of even the slightest possibility of God.

So I'm kind of stuck in a fetal position in the corner of a dark room. :(

*cries himself to sleep*

Well...this atheist will tell you this much.

Im pretty damn sure he aint there.

But, Im also sure that Ive been wrong once before.
Im not pretentious enough to think I have all the answers.
I just know what feels right to me.

dude, you don't have a damn right to speak for every ordinary person. I myself am an ordinary person. I'm not a scientist. Unless you consider me working towards my political science degree as that. You can't prove your claims therefore atheism will grow and grow until your religion gets wiped out.

Yet you're the one who claims to be grounded in science. And no, you are not the ordinary person, since the ordinary person does believe in a higher power. You're the minority, the special case, the person who goes against the grain.

I'm not saying that religious things ARE true. I'm saying that religion claims to OFFER truth. Plus, I believe Einstein himself showed that relativity wasn't exactly right. There's a lot of evidance to support relativity, but no scientific theory is ABSOLUTLY irrifutible, which is the requirment for "truth".


No..its been proven to be right, even by other physicists.

Heres another....

Newtons theory of Gravity.

That ones hard not ignore.

or "an object on motion will stay in motion, until acted upon by an equal or greater force."

That one is rock solid too.

See..science offers truth.

Religion offers conjecture.

Yet you're the one who claims to be grounded in science. And no, you are not the ordinary person, since the ordinary person does believe in a higher power. You're the minority, the special case, the person who goes against the grain.

Most ordinary people I know believe in science. And yes I am an ordinary person. YOu want to spew more crap? I'm not a minority. I'm not a special fucking case. There are millions of atheists in this country. Mature a bit, then talk to me.

Tell you what.....

I can name one off the top of my head, and I'll bet you cant name one of a religious nature to be as equally proven.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

If I am following you right.

The Theory of Relativity is accepted as it could be true. Evidence suggests it but there isn't enough "facts" for everybody to automattically accept it. If there were then it would be the Law of Relativity. Even now some are starting to question it as they attempt to take space travel in another direction.

New things are discovered all the time. As such you have to adjust stuff that you thought was valid. For example the recent concession for Hawkings over an argument with an associate over what a black hole really did.

So to say science is truth well not really.....

Was it not then proven that powered flight is possible? The burden fell on the scientists to prove that, is that not right? Did it not work?

It was proven by simply examining the way birds flew that the correct balance of aerodynamics would allow an object heavier than air to fly. People continued to stubbornly deny it was possible for any object to fly until the times of man-made gliders. They continued to state it was impossible for a powered aircraft to fly based on the size of contemporary steam engines, imagining, presumably, that no engine could ever be made smaller or lighter.

During this entire time, birds flew powered by muscles, and simple calculations could easily demonstrate that powered flight would be a simple matter of correctly arranged aerofoils and props of a given mass rotating at a given speed. That was the proof, the Wright Brothers' Flyer was just the icing on the cake.

Regarding disbelief in a creator, we have no available evidence that a creator exists or is necessary. Your claim is therefore like claiming powered flight is possible with no birds and no calculations; it's simply not logical to assume something exists purely because people want it to. The burden of proof is on you because you are arguing from a position with no evidence other than pure tradition.

And I did not say that there has always been faith in a god, but that the stubborn faith in god is older than the stubborn faith that there is no god.

Can you show me this is true? Even if you can, age is no guarantee of truth. The stubborn faith that Blacks are inferior to whites is older than the stubborn faith they are not, does this mean racism is correct?

Most ordinary people I know believe in science. And yes I am an ordinary person. YOu want to spew more crap? I'm not a minority. I'm not a special fucking case. There are millions of atheists in this country. Mature a bit, then talk to me.

Yet there are many times that number who are not atheists. Perhaps in other aspects, you are not a minority, but you are in this sense.

No..its been proven to be right, even by other physicists.

Heres another....

Newtons theory of Gravity.

That ones hard not ignore.

or "an object on motion will stay in motion, until acted upon by an equal or greater force."

That one is rock solid too.

See..science offers truth.

Religion offers conjecture.

I am an agnostic and a science fan, but I have to break some bad news to you. Both theories start to break down at the quantum level. They are rock solid for 99.9999999999999999% of what we observe - but they aren't perfect.

Yet there are many times that number who are not atheists. Perhaps in other aspects, you are not a minority, but you are in this sense.

No I'm not. And if I'm not an ordinary person, what am I? I'm an ordinary person like everyone else. There are many millions of atheists, agnostics and non-religious people. We are talking perhaps up to 1 billion globally.

No..its been proven to be right, even by other physicists.


If that was the case, then we would be calling it the Law of Relativity.

It's accepted as true by many and there are a few that question it.


Heres another....

Newtons theory of Gravity.

That ones hard not ignore.

or "an object on motion will stay in motion, until acted upon by an equal or greater force."

That one is rock solid too.

See..science offers truth.

Religion offers conjecture.

Again. Theory vs. Law. Gravity is accepted as true because there is strong evidence to suggest it. Nobody has proven it conclusivly.

No..its been proven to be right, even by other physicists.

Heres another....

Newtons theory of Gravity.

That ones hard not ignore.

or "an object on motion will stay in motion, until acted upon by an equal or greater force."

That one is rock solid too.

See..science offers truth.

Religion offers conjecture.

Well, Newton's laws of motion were shown to be incorrect by Einstein. The theory of gravity and the laws of motion couldn't explain the motion of the planet Mercury, which is why Einstein developed the theory of relativity. Relativity still has many parts that we have found little to no evidance for. The thing about science that makes it SUPERIOR to religion is that it does not claim to know truth. Religion claims to know truth. This is one of the basic tenants of science. We cannot proove. We can disproove, we can fins evidance, but we cannot proove.

No I'm not. And if I'm not an ordinary person, what am I? I'm an ordinary person like everyone else. There are many millions of atheists, agnostics and non-religious people. We are talking perhaps up to 1 billion globally.

I don't think anybody would call you ordinary.

I don't think anybody would call you ordinary.

explain yourself, or get reported.

If I am following you right.

The Theory of Relativity is accepted as it could be true. Evidence suggests it but there isn't enough "facts" for everybody to automattically accept it. If there were then it would be the Law of Relativity. Even now some are starting to question it as they attempt to take space travel in another direction.

New things are discovered all the time. As such you have to adjust stuff that you thought was valid. For example the recent concession for Hawkings over an argument with an associate over what a black hole really did.

So to say science is truth well not really.....

Well...

Let me put it this way, using Einstein again....

Many other not so well known physicists have used Einstein's theories in thier own work, and many of them have had similar success in find answers they were looking for.
Dr. Ronald Mallet, of UConn for instance...

So..in this way....one scientific principle lends creedence to another, and thus, if both principles are found to have the same result, time and time again...even if it cannot be proven in EVERY situation, it can be taken for as close to the truth as we humans can know.
As of yet, anyway.

Religions do not lend creedence to each other very well.
You must accept them wholly, or not at all.
They cant be tested, for different results.

explain yourself, or get reported.

No. Be my guest.

Well, Newton's laws of motion were shown to be incorrect by Einstein. The theory of gravity and the laws of motion couldn't explain the motion of the planet Mercury, which is why Einstein developed the theory of relativity. Relativity still has many parts that we have found little to no evidance for. The thing about science that makes it SUPERIOR to religion is that it does not claim to know truth. Religion claims to know truth. This is one of the basic tenants of science. We cannot proove. We can disproove, we can fins evidance, but we cannot proove.


I think you may not have heard of the "Scientific Method".

Its a simple outline of how to "prove" a theory.
However, many theories simply cant be proven, becuase the numerical equations cannot be suplicated in a laboratory to test them.

If that was the case, then we would be calling it the Law of Relativity.

It's accepted as true by many and there are a few that question it.



Again. Theory vs. Law. Gravity is accepted as true because there is strong evidence to suggest it. Nobody has proven it conclusivly.

Here's another point of science knowladge people don't generally tend to understand. Theories don't become laws. A law is not better than a theory. A law is a description (usually mathematical) of a situation. It doesn't explain why, only what happens. A theory attempts to explain why a thing works the way it does.

I am an agnostic and a science fan, but I have to break some bad news to you. Both theories start to break down at the quantum level. They are rock solid for 99.9999999999999999% of what we observe - but they aren't perfect.


is anything perfect?

I'd say that 99.9999999999% is more trustworthy than 0.000000000, would you?

Well...

Let me put it this way, using Einstein again....

Many other not so well known physicists have used Einstein's theories in thier own work, and many of them have had similar success in find answers they were looking for.
Dr. Ronald Mallet, of UConn for instance...

So..in this way....one scientific principle lends creedence to another, and thus, if both principles are found to have the same result, time and time again...even if it cannot be proven in EVERY situation, it can be taken for as close to the truth as we humans can know.
As of yet, anyway.

Religions do not lend creedence to each other very well.
You must accept them wholly, or not at all.
They cant be tested, for different results.

Exactly. You get it. "AS CLOSE TO TRUTH AS WE HUMANS CAN KNOW". We can't know truth (so far as we know) so science doesn't claim to be true.

It was proven by simply examining the way birds flew that the correct balance of aerodynamics would allow an object heavier than air to fly. People continued to stubbornly deny it was possible for any object to fly until the times of man-made gliders. They continued to state it was impossible for a powered aircraft to fly based on the size of contemporary steam engines, imagining, presumably, that no engine could ever be made smaller or lighter.

During this entire time, birds flew powered by muscles, and simple calculations could easily demonstrate that powered flight would be a simple matter of correctly arranged aerofoils and props of a given mass rotating at a given speed. That was the proof, the Wright Brothers' Flyer was just the icing on the cake.

Exactly my point though, actually more than one of my points. One is that the proof lies on the person going against the grain, as was this case. The other is that people are loath to give up their beliefs. Take away the entirety of their beliefs, and you'll see quite a bit of violence. Please people do not use examples of athiests who are not violent, I know these things. They likely wouldn't be atheist if they couldn't handle the belief that there is no god.

Regarding disbelief in a creator, we have no available evidence that a creator exists or is necessary. Your claim is therefore like claiming powered flight is possible with no birds and no calculations; it's simply not logical to assume something exists purely because people want it to. The burden of proof is on you because you are arguing from a position with no evidence other than pure tradition.

Neither is there proof against the existence. Instead of the burden going to those who, in general, don't understand as much about science and therefore the truth will never come, shouldn't the burden go to those who claim to be grounded in science? They seem like they'd be able to make more use of it. It only seems logical.



Can you show me this is true? Even if you can, age is no guarantee of truth. The stubborn faith that Blacks are inferior to whites is older than the stubborn faith they are not, does this mean racism is correct?

Actually that example isn't very good. See, many blacks likely held strict belief that they were at least equal to other people, and were stubborn in this belief. This would have developed before whites believed in the inferiority of blacks. And there are other, older examples you could have used, such as the belief certain tribes in Africa hold that they are superior to other tribes.

Here's another point of science knowladge people don't generally tend to understand. Theories don't become laws. A law is not better than a theory. A law is a description (usually mathematical) of a situation. It doesn't explain why, only what happens. A theory attempts to explain why a thing works the way it does.

Ok. But in order to provide the description the why question was asked first.

Which laws were never theories?

I think you may not have heard of the "Scientific Method".

Its a simple outline of how to "prove" a theory.
However, many theories simply cant be proven, becuase the numerical equations cannot be suplicated in a laboratory to test them.

By the way, the "scientific method" that you were taught in school is a crock. Most scientists don't follow one method in devising every experiment. In fact, no one method can be called on to design every experiment. The scientific method was made up because school children have a difficult time understanding how science works.

No I'm not. And if I'm not an ordinary person, what am I? I'm an ordinary person like everyone else. There are many millions of atheists, agnostics and non-religious people. We are talking perhaps up to 1 billion globally.

Okay, so that's 1 billion out of approximately we'll say 6.5 billion. If that's not a minority, then, praytell, what is it?

Heres an example of whn science cant prove anything at all..


Speaking of Dr. Mallet...

His big interest is in time travel.
He recently constructed a machine that could accelerate sub-atomic particles faster than lightspeed, using lasers, in a particular pattern.
Very Hawkins-esque black hole stuff...

Well...his results were unprovable.

The particles were in fact accelerated...however,,,his intent, was to send them backwards in time....well..they did in fact dissapear...but exactly where..or when they went....you cant prove.

Basicaly he is either the Father of Time travel....or possibly...Teleportation.

Who knows?

Neither is there proof against the existence. Instead of the burden going to those who, in general, don't understand as much about science and therefore the truth will never come, shouldn't the burden go to those who claim to be grounded in science? They seem like they'd be able to make more use of it. It only seems logical.

No. The burden of proof lays on those who make the claim god exists. Damn religious people are so arrogant.

Okay, so that's 1 billion out of approximately we'll say 6.5 billion. If that's not a minority, then, praytell, what is it?

It is a majority. There are several majorities in this world. Including christianity, islam, and non-religious/atheism/agnosticism. Jews and universal unitarians are considered a minority.

By the way, the "scientific method" that you were taught in school is a crock. Most scientists don't follow one method in devising every experiment. In fact, no one method can be called on to design every experiment. The scientific method was made up because school children have a difficult time understanding how science works.


Sure they do.

But at its best, its a simple guideline for experimentation.

I have a friend who is currently the leading scientist in the world, in the field of Chromatography.
Hes expalined what he does to me a few times......most of it escapes me.

He uses those guidelines all the time.

Ok. But in order to provide the description the why question was asked first.

Which laws were never theories?

All of them were never theories.
An example:
Newton's 2nd Law says that F=ma.
It doesn't try to answer why F=ma, it just says that it does.
This is the differance between the theory of gravity and the law of gravity.
The law says F= GMm/d^2
The theory tries to use particles called gravitons to explain why F=GMm/d^2.

And the why question doesn't have to be asked first. Medeleev developed his laws of heredity from observing his plants. He wasn't trying to explain why heredity happens, just describe how it happens.

Exactly. You get it. "AS CLOSE TO TRUTH AS WE HUMANS CAN KNOW". We can't know truth (so far as we know) so science doesn't claim to be true.


Maybe not...but it keeps proving itself correct.

Thats just as good.

It is a majority. There are several majorities in this world. Including christianity, islam, and non-religious/atheism/agnosticism. Jews and universal unitarians are considered a minority.


Where do you get the 1 billion figure?

No. The burden of proof lays on those who make the claim god exists. Damn religious people are so arrogant.

And you are not? I've been reading your pretentious bullshit for the past few days, making excuses for why you shouldn't have to prove your right. You're a whiney bitch who needs to grow up and face the real world. You need to see people for who and what they are and what they are capable of. The average joe faithful is not going to bother to prove god exists because, while he believes in science (or rather, in technology) he's not going to know the specifics of going about proving something. And if you keep using you're excuse, he's going to think you're full of shit.

Sure they do.

But at its best, its a simple guideline for experimentation.

I have a friend who is currently the leading scientist in the world, in the field of Chromatography.
Hes expalined what he does to me a few times......most of it escapes me.

He uses those guidelines all the time.

Okay, your friend might. But most scientist don't.

All of them were never theories.
An example:
Newton's 2nd Law says that F=ma.
It doesn't try to answer why F=ma, it just says that it does.
This is the differance between the theory of gravity and the law of gravity.
The law says F= GMm/d^2
The theory tries to use particles called gravitons to explain why F=GMm/d^2.

And the why question doesn't have to be asked first. Medeleev developed his laws of heredity from observing his plants. He wasn't trying to explain why heredity happens, just describe how it happens.

Ah ok. My physics is obviously rudimentary. I knew the laws but not the history of their creation.

Also, isn't it the law of gravitation?

And you are not? I've been reading your pretentious bullshit for the past few days, making excuses for why you shouldn't have to prove your right. You're a whiney bitch who needs to grow up and face the real world. You need to see people for who and what they are and what they are capable of. The average joe faithful is not going to bother to prove god exists because, while he believes in science (or rather, in technology) he's not going to know the specifics of going about proving something. And if you keep using you're excuse, he's going to think you're full of shit.

You are the one posting pretentious bullshit. Afterall look at your religion. you are the whiney one who needs to grow up and face the real world. Lets face it, your religion prevents you in doing so. You are the one who needs to see the real world. i'm atheist therefore I see the real world. I'm an average everyday person. you are the one full of it and so is religion. Religion proves nothing and has no evidence. So please stop making excuses for your own shortcomings.

If you are out searching in the universe for the answer to why... for your existence, god's existence, or whatever... then you are going to have to search for eternity. There is no answer. There is no why. Every answer you find is going to have another question behind it. And that question is, of course, why?

Simply put, there is no "The Meaning of Life" written 'cross the stars. But that does not mean that there is no meaning. ;)

Where do you get the 1 billion figure?

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Okay, your friend might. But most scientist don't.


Not as an absolute, no...

But just as you lear martial arts, starting with the basics...I'd imagine that you use this the same way.

It probably just comes natural to most of them....part of how they do what they do.

It is a majority. There are several majorities in this world. Including christianity, islam, and non-religious/atheism/agnosticism. Jews and universal unitarians are considered a minority.

But if we're talking strictly religious vs. non-religious (and please remove agnostic from that group, I used to be agnostic and would not have approved of you lumping me with those who are absolutely "certain" there is no god, because they accept that there might or might not) and since we're talking about the belief of whether or not god exists and not specific religions than it's at about 5.5 billion to your 1 billion.

But if we're talking strictly religious vs. non-religious (and please remove agnostic from that group, I used to be agnostic and would not have approved of you lumping me with those who are absolutely "certain" there is no god, because they accept that there might or might not) and since we're talking about the belief of whether or not god exists and not specific religions than it's at about 5.5 billion to your 1 billion.

Again don't twist numbers or statistics. Oh you used to be agnostic... who brainwashed you? One thing for your own sake: that 1.1 billion is growing rapidly. And christianity is growing very slowly.

You are the one posting pretentious bullshit. Afterall look at your religion. you are the whiney one who needs to grow up and face the real world. Lets face it, your religion prevents you in doing so. You are the one who needs to see the real world. i'm atheist therefore I see the real world. I'm an average everyday person. you are the one full of it and so is religion. Religion proves nothing and has no evidence. So please stop making excuses for your own shortcomings.

You don't even know my religion. Hell for all you know I could be an atheist playing Devil's Advocate, trying to get you to restructure your argument.

While both always clash neither can be compared. Science explains the mystery of the universe and all that, we'd be lost without it, but ppl need religion-it makes life seem less meaningless.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Oh... I thought we were talking about Atheists. Half of that group were Theists.

Again don't twist numbers or statistics. Oh you used to be agnostic... who brainwashed you? One thing for your own sake: that 1.1 billion is growing rapidly. And christianity is growing very slowly.

Islam is also growing rapidly. As are the new age-y religions.

Maybe not...but it keeps proving itself correct.

Thats just as good.

Not "just as good", "practically as good." For practical purposes, it is correct. In science, if the answer is 3.9, then 4 tends to be good enough. But don't try to pull that in math. Mathematicians arn't interested in practicality, they want exact...icaliity. Science can't hold itself to the same level of exactitude as math, because of it's empirical nature, so we can't ever know if we're exactly right. If you don't know if it's exactly right, you can't call it true.
Mathematicians deal in truth just like religon.

You don't even know my religion. Hell for all you know I could be an atheist playing Devil's Advocate, trying to get you to restructure your argument.

You need to restructure your own horrid arguments before you start lecturing people.

Not as an absolute, no...

But just as you lear martial arts, starting with the basics...I'd imagine that you use this the same way.

It probably just comes natural to most of them....part of how they do what they do.

Okay, I'll agree with that. Some scientists may use some uniform method when begining their careers. I didn't. I don't know anyone who did. But, I guess some people might.

Not "just as good", "practically as good." For practical purposes, it is correct. In science, if the answer is 3.9, then 4 tends to be good enough. But don't try to pull that in math. Mathematicians arn't interested in practicality, they want exact...icaliity. Science can't hold itself to the same level of exactitude as math, because of it's empirical nature, so we can't ever know if we're exactly right. If you don't know if it's exactly right, you can't call it true.
Mathematicians deal in truth just like religon.


Alright then.....Ive done what I could to explain why I feel science deals in truth...

What truth can be gleaned from religion, and how can it be proven equally as well as science?

You need to restructure your own horrid arguments before you start lecturing people.


and you need to quit name calling, and belittling others when you debate.

and you need to quit name calling, and belittling others when you debate.

Oh really? I think you are mistaking the person.. look at what he said:

And you are not? I've been reading your pretentious bullshit for the past few days, making excuses for why you shouldn't have to prove your right. You're a whiney bitch who needs to grow up and face the real world. You need to see people for who and what they are and what they are capable of. The average joe faithful is not going to bother to prove god exists because, while he believes in science (or rather, in technology) he's not going to know the specifics of going about proving something. And if you keep using you're excuse, he's going to think you're full of shit.

Please read all the posts.

Oh really? I think you are mistaking the person.. look at what he said:



Please read all the posts.


Im not going even start with you.

All Im going to say, is that you do this every night, on every thread you enter.
Im pretty sure many of us are tired of it.

This is where I start ignoring you.

Im not going even start with you.

All Im going to say, is that you do this every night, on every thread you enter.
Im pretty sure many of us are tired of it.

This is where I start ignoring you.

Ok. Congrats. YOu are now on my ignore list. You are the second person on there.

To me, it seems that religion fills up the gaps that science doesn't seem to fill in effectively.

Personally, I believe in some form of a creator-god who was smart enough to engineer complex processes such as the big bang, and evolution. In fact, if you're into quantum physics and string theory at all, you should find yourself rationalizing the supernatural.

Stuff like Dr. Emoto's water tests (http://www.whatthebleep.com/crystals/) seem to breathe new life into a section of science that was completely overlooked until about ten years ago.

Alright then.....Ive done what I could to explain why I feel science deals in truth...

What truth can be gleaned from religion, and how can it be proven equally as well as science?

I never claimed that religon is true. I only said that religon claims to be true. I'm not a religious person. I don't think there's a god. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think there is. Religion claims that what it offers is ABSOLUTELY correct. That's what makes something "truth". Science, on the other hand, used to do this, but not anymore. When Newton's laws were disproven, science realized that they don't really know anything for sure. Before Einstein, Newton's laws were thought to be irrifutable. If we were ever sure of anything, that was it...and it was wrong. Since, science has changed it's goals. We don't find the ABSOLUTE right answer. We find the best answer we can find. Please note that the key word is absolute.

Ok. Congrats. YOu are now on my ignore list. You are the second person on there.

Very mature Mesa. "You ignore me? Fine I'll ignore you right back." Backwoods has a point. You do this same thing every night. I've been in a few of the same topics as you. You put down every one who disagrees with you. I tried to be nice to you, this once, and you spat back in my face. I tried to give you insight to those who would disagree. But instead of even saying "thanks, but no thanks" you insult me, which is something I don't respond well to.

I never claimed that religon is true. I only said that religon claims to be true. I'm not a religious person. I don't think there's a god. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think there is. Religion claims that what it offers is ABSOLUTELY correct. That's what makes something "truth". Science, on the other hand, used to do this, but not anymore. When Newton's laws were disproven, science realized that they don't really know anything for sure. Before Einstein, Newton's laws were thought to be irrifutable. If we were ever sure of anything, that was it...and it was wrong. Since, science has changed it's goals. We don't find the ABSOLUTE right answer. We find the best answer we can find. Please note that the key word is absolute.


well then, if we are to assume what you say is true...

Wich sounds to be more sane, and logical:

An ideal that puts forward as much evidence as it can muster..and yet, admit it may be off a bit....

Or...

An ideal that claims to be cast from the very granite, and irrefutable, and makes no effort to provide proof of said claims.

I personally see it as a no-brainer.

Ok. Congrats. YOu are now on my ignore list. You are the second person on there.


In my opinion, you are hyper-sensitive and silly. Not silly in a fun way, either.

What some people who are atheist, and others who are not, seem to fail to realize is that not all religions have a strict code. Some don't even suggest only one deity as the end all be all. Hermeticism accepts all gods as part of a greater divine. It states that all things are part of the divine. Hermeticism is a pretty good religion for New Age thinkers.

http://www.meta-religion.com/Esoterism/Hermeticism/hermeticism.htm

well then, if we are to assume what you say is true...

Wich sounds to be more sane, and logical:

An ideal that puts forward as much evidence as it can muster..and yet, admit it may be off a bit....

Or...

An ideal that claims to be cast from the very granite, and irrefutable, and makes no effort to provide proof of said claims.

I personally see it as a no-brainer.

I agree that science's "facts" are a hell of a lot more reliable that religon's "truth". It is somewhat of a picky point, but science always has to be mindfull of the fact that it doesn't find truth, lest science become a new religon. Scientists must always be free to question every scientific fact. Otherwise, we might miss something important. If Einstein hadn't questioned Newton's "irrifutible" laws, we wouldn't have a better explanation as to how things move. The ability to question is very important in science, and "truth" is beyond question, it is absolute.

What some people who are atheist, and others who are not, seem to fail to realize is that not all religions have a strict code. Some don't even suggest only one deity as the end all be all. Hermeticism accepts all gods as part of a greater divine. It states that all things are part of the divine. Hermeticism is a pretty good religion for New Age thinkers.

http://www.meta-religion.com/Esoterism/Hermeticism/hermeticism.htm


I'll say this for it:

Its much less aggressive than other religions..
Thats something anyway...

I agree that science's "facts" are a hell of a lot more reliable that religon's "truth". It is somewhat of a picky point, but science always has to be mindfull of the fact that it doesn't find truth, lest science become a new religon. Scientists must always be free to question every scientific fact. Otherwise, we might miss something important. If Einstein hadn't questioned Newton's "irrifutible" laws, we wouldn't have a better explanation as to how things move. The ability to question is very important in science, and "truth" is beyond question, it is absolute.


I think Im starting to see your point, but lemme ask ya this:

You say science isnt a religion?

I'd agree...but its close....I ask you...if you were alive on July 20th, 1969....where where you likely?

I think Im starting to see your point, but lemme ask ya this:

You say science isnt a religion?

I'd agree...but its close....I ask you...if you were alive on July 20th, 1969....where where you likely?

I'm only 27 years old. That's the moon landing, right? Or was that later in the year? What happened that day, and why is it important?

I think Im starting to see your point, but lemme ask ya this:

You say science isnt a religion?

I'd agree...but its close....I ask you...if you were alive on July 20th, 1969....where where you likely?

I know this wasn't directed at me but I want to reply anyway. I wasn't alive then, but I'll pretend I was. I'd probably be napping, or reading or something, and not realize what was happening until it was almost over. I say this because there was one time when the house next door to me was on fire, and the firefighters were there and everything, and I didn't realize it because I was watching a movie. Off topic, I know, but you should forgive me, I'm really tired.

Very mature Mesa. "You ignore me? Fine I'll ignore you right back." Backwoods has a point. You do this same thing every night. I've been in a few of the same topics as you. You put down every one who disagrees with you. I tried to be nice to you, this once, and you spat back in my face. I tried to give you insight to those who would disagree. But instead of even saying "thanks, but no thanks" you insult me, which is something I don't respond well to.

I don't think so. You are the one who should get more mature and you are the one who called me an ass and everything. You need to stop. You are the one who has this track record (you've called me this before). I provide proof. I don't put people down except the ones who rant and spit at my face, like what you did. I didn't insult you. I questioned your shaky motives.

I'm only 27 years old. That's the moon landing, right? Or was that later in the year? What happened that day, and why is it important?


The moon landing.

I wasnt alive then either, but most who were..all remember watching it on television.

If thats not a global nearly religious event..Im not sure what is.

Millions of people...with thier attentions drawn to the tv with bated breath, all in the name of science.

I know this wasn't directed at me but I want to reply anyway. I wasn't alive then, but I'll pretend I was. I'd probably be napping, or reading or something, and not realize what was happening until it was almost over. I say this because there was one time when the house next door to me was on fire, and the firefighters were there and everything, and I didn't realize it because I was watching a movie. Off topic, I know, but you should forgive me, I'm really tired.


eh....thats becuase your lazy.

And you didnt know about the fire before hand....they had plenty of warning as to when the landing was going to be.

Besides, most people who where around then, at least tried to watch it...*shrugs*.

The moon landing.

I wasnt alive then either, but most who were..all remember watching it on television.

If thats not a global nearly religious event..Im not sure what is.

Millions of people...with thier attentions drawn to the tv with bated breath, all in the name of science.

Oh, I can imagine. I get a tear in my eye everytime I see video of it. It was an event of epic magnitude. But, what makes it so great is that it was an accomplishment of Man...not god. Scientists always have to be careful not to make science religious in nature. And the general public should be better educated as to why. That's one of the problem in our educational system. Many science teacher don't even understand this. That's why I put my original post. That's why it bothers me so much when people misuse the words proof, truth, fact, and evidance.

Oh, I can imagine. I get a tear in my eye everytime I see video of it. It was an event of epic magnitude. But, what makes it so great is that it was an accomplishment of Man...not god. Scientists always have to be careful not to make science religious in nature. And the general public should be better educated as to why. That's one of the problem in our educational system. Many science teacher don't even understand this. That's why I put my original post. That's why it bothers me so much when people misuse the words proof, truth, fact, and evidance.


Another question:

Are we in agreement then, that science may be trusted infinitely farther than Religion?

Another question:

Are we in agreement then, that science may be trusted infinitely farther than Religion?

I won't say infinatly. Who knows? Maybe everything we know is wrong and the mormons are right, or something. I can't prove absolutly that religon is wrong. But, I will say that science can be trusted a whole hell of a lot more about a whole hell of a lot of things.

I won't say infinatly. Who knows? Maybe everything we know is wrong and the mormons are right, or something. I can't prove absolutly that religon is wrong. But, I will say that science can be trusted a whole hell of a lot more about a whole hell of a lot of things.


Okay "infinitely" was a poor choice of words....

But ..knowing this...

Why do we trust in it?

Is it becuase in it, we find more to be true than many things?

So, even if the people doing the research, wont claim their findings as absolute truth, what difference does it make to the avergae citizen?

I think science deals in practical truths, if not absolute ones.

Okay "infinitely" was a poor choice of words....

But ..knowing this...

Why do we trust in it?

Is it becuase in it, we find more to be true than many things?

So, even if the people doing the research, wont claim their findings as absolute truth, what difference does it make to the avergae citizen?

I think science deals in practical truths, if not absolute ones.

I think what you're calling practical truths are really "facts". They do seem like truths when they always give the answer, but, it only takes one instance to topple that "truth". Maybe we just haven't found that one instance. Truth is un-toppleable. As for why we trust in it, because it is reliable. Because it hasn't been toppled. Because it is the most trustworthy tool we have. I'm sure it doesn't make much difference to the average citizen, but I think it should. Science is a big part of everyone's life, and I think they should understand it. If they did, there wouldn't be such a debate over Intelligent Design and Evolution.

I think what you're calling practical truths are really "facts". They do seem like truths when they always give the answer, but, it only takes one instance to topple that "truth". Maybe we just haven't found that one instance. Truth is un-toppleable. As for why we trust in it, because it is reliable. Because it hasn't been toppled. Because it is the most trustworthy tool we have. I'm sure it doesn't make much difference to the average citizen, but I think it should. Science is a big part of everyone's life, and I think they should understand it. If they did, there wouldn't be such a debate over Intelligent Design and Evolution.


But then cannot we also define a "fact" as something that is true?

Wheres my damn dictionary.......

If he's blind, then you're blind, though you are thinking really hard about what you would see, if you could. Again, religion is conjecture. We all have conjecture, but religion says its conjecture is fact. If you believe in something, without empirical evidence outside of science, that seeing what you want to see, not seeing what is there. Looking at reality is what lets you see, not looking at what you think might be.

Yet scientific and historical evidence backs up the Bible and its claims. I hope you understand that there is nothing in the Bible that has been proven by science to be false. I'm nopt sayign everything has been proven to be true - but nothing has been proven to be false.

But then cannot we also define a "fact" as something that is true?

Wheres my damn dictionary.......

A fact is something that is agreed upon. Facts can change. Truth cannot. Newton's Laws were once facts. Everyone agreed that they were right. But now, scientists agree that relivity is closer to right. The facts changed. But, there is only one way that the universe works. Whatever that way is, that is the truth. So, a fact may not be true.
Easy way to understand the difference:
A fact is what we think.
A truth is how it really is.
We might be wrong, so facts may not be true.
We might not know something, so truth may not be fact.

But then cannot we also define a "fact" as something that is true?

Wheres my damn dictionary.......
from oxford dictionary:
Fact:1-something that has happened or been done.
2-something known to be true or able to be prove.

from oxford dictionary:
Fact:1-something that has happened or been done.
2-something known to be true or able to be prove.

The scientific definition may be different from the general definition.

The scientific definition may be different from the general definition.
I guess it may.

from oxford dictionary:
Fact:1-something that has happened or been done.
2-something known to be true or able to be prove.


ahh..thanks.

So...by definition....if a scientific principle..such as saying that 100 times out of 100 times a five lbs weight dropped from a height of ten feet, will reach x speed...is that not true, and can be proven?

ahh..thanks.

So...by definition....if a scientific principle..such as saying that 100 times out of 100 times a five lbs weight dropped from a height of ten feet, will reach x speed...is that not true, and can be proven?
in that case, I assume it will be true to say he will reach X speed, because it can be prove easily, by dropping the object some times.

ahh..thanks.

So...by definition....if a scientific principle..such as saying that 100 times out of 100 times a five lbs weight dropped from a height of ten feet, will reach x speed...is that not true, and can be proven?

No, it cannot be proven. It can be shown that it has always reached that speed, given those conditions. But, what if, however improbable it may seem, one time it reached a different speed. And that difference couldn't be blamed on measuring error, or something. This is exactly what happened with the Newton's Laws example I keep using. For hundreds of years, no one had ever seen anything that didn't appear to obay Newton's Laws. Scientists were just as convinced of them as you are things will always fall uniformly. But, one day, the absurdly improbable happened. They tried to apply them to Mercury, and it didn't work.

in that case, I assume it will be true to say he will reach X speed, because it can be prove easily, by dropping the object some times.

Please read our whole discussion on "proof" and "truth". It's kinda hard to jump in the middle after all we have been talking about.

No, it cannot be proven. It can be shown that it has always reached that speed, given those conditions. But, what if, however improbable it may seem, one time it reached a different speed. And that difference couldn't be blamed on measuring error, or something. This is exactly what happened with the Newton's Laws example I keep using. For hundreds of years, no one had ever seen anything that didn't appear to obay Newton's Laws. Scientists were just as convinced of them as you are things will always fall uniformly. But, one day, the absurdly improbable happened. They tried to apply them to Mercury, and it didn't work.


But how often do such variables exist, and even under controlled conditions?

Yes it COULD happen....but doesnt...so then....do we redifne what we consider a scientific fact?

After all this time are people finally beginning to understand that Hume was right? His causal theories have been out for quite a while and yet we have science still denying the possibility of these truths. Newton's laws didn't work, but o no, there must be some certain absolute principle in the universe, we just haven't found it yet... that is all science keeps saying. Of course it is much better than the religious "there is an absolute principle, it is God. I have absolutely no proof and there is quite a bit of evidence against it, yet IT EXISTS."

For now I don't believe in science or religion. I believe in me.

Just because A has followed B in each and every instance of B before, it does not mean that A will follow B in the future. I have dropped a pen in the exact same conditions over and it falls to the floor, today I dropped that pen in the exact same conditions and it flew.

For now I don't believe in science or religion. I believe in me.

.

I believe we could create another you with science.

But how often do such variables exist, and even under controlled conditions?

Yes it COULD happen....but doesnt...so then....do we redifne what we consider a scientific fact?

How are you defining a scientific fact.

And, by the way, it happens all the time. It's just not usually as groundshaking as Newt's Laws. Just because you've never seen an instance were the rule doesn't work doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I've never seen Japan...doesn't mean it's not there. A classic example:
Suppose you've never seen an apple. You know nothing about apples. Then one day, you encounter one, and it's green. You may think that all apples are green. Some time goes by, and you see more apple...and their all green. Suppose you live in a place were only green apples grow. You might be really sure that all apples are green, but it only takes one red apple to shatter that belief. The fact that you've never seen a red apple doesn't mean they don't exist.

I believe we could create another you with science.


This "other me" would not be me. The closest it could be is a twin really. It may look like me and everything, but my consciousness is mine alone. That cannot be perfectly replicated no matter how hard science may want it to be. No one else can be me.

This "other me" would not be me. The closest it could be is a twin really. It may look like me and everything, but my consciousness is mine alone. That cannot be perfectly replicated no matter how hard science may want it to be. No one else can be me.


Well...it could be argued that if an exact clone of you were made, and given the same upbringing, it would be almost exactly like you.
Your brain is hard-wired, and possibly replicable.

Give it a few years.

How are you defining a scientific fact.

And, by the way, it happens all the time. It's just not usually as groundshaking as Newt's Laws. Just because you've never seen an instance were the rule doesn't work doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I've never seen Japan...doesn't mean it's not there. A classic example:
Suppose you've never seen an apple. You know nothing about apples. Then one day, you encounter one, and it's green. You may think that all apples are green. Some time goes by, and you see more apple...and their all green. Suppose you live in a place were only green apples grow. You might be really sure that all apples are green, but it only takes one red apple to shatter that belief. The fact that you've never seen a red apple doesn't mean they don't exist.

No..I guess what Im asking is this: Whats the difference berween a scientific "fact" and one used anywhere else?
If we can assume that a fact, is by definition, something that is true, like according to the Oxford dictionary...

If a result is the same under any possible condition we can conceive...when does it cross the line into "Law"?

Well...it could be argued that if an exact clone of you were made, and given the same upbringing, it would be almost exactly like you.
Your brain is hard-wired, and possibly replicable.

Give it a few years.

The consciousness is not a purely physical object, if it is physical at all. While certain behaviours can be wittled down to nuerons A or B, the entirety of consciousness is to vast and quite possibly for a physical brain to completely possess. Whether this mental entity is of a god or just of my own sheer willpower I do not know. But it is not purely physical and that is why there can only be the one, true me.

The consciousness is not a purely physical object, if it is physical at all. While certain behaviours can be wittled down to nuerons A or B, the entirety of consciousness is to vast and quite possibly for a physical brain to completely possess. Whether this mental entity is of a god or just of my own sheer willpower I do not know. But it is not purely physical and that is why there can only be the one, true me.

I assure you.....it can be all replicated.

Dolly the Sheep had a conciousness..she was a clone.

If we made a clone of you...raised it the same way you were, in a similar environment...it would be so close to "you", you would probably poop yerself.
It would even likely share many of your tastes.

Everything you are is nothing but a series of biochemical reactions.
Ones that can be replicated.

No..I guess what Im asking is this: Whats the difference berween a scientific "fact" and one used anywhere else?
If we can assume that a fact, is by definition, something that is true, like according to the Oxford dictionary...

If a result is the same under any possible condition we can conceive...when does it cross the line into "Law"?

Well, I said somewhere that the scientific definition of a fact is different than the general definition. I would call a scientific fact something that scientists generally agree on. I think in general usage people might use fact and truth interchangably, but, think about it, there is a reason there are 2 words. No 2 words mean exactly the same thing. So, I would not say that a fact is, by definition, true.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "cross the line into Law". A scientific law is really just a description of a situation. It doesn't try to explain why, only what. And, anyway, what if the result is different under conditions that we can't conceive?

Only a balanced mix of science and a personal faith and views of God is the way to go.

If you only believe in science, then you are blind beyond your five senses and only acknowledge what you can see, hear, taste, feel, and smell. Which means you only believe what men in labcoats tell you.

If you only believe in religon, then you are blind beyond what your book of faith tells you and you only acknowledge your faith. Which means you only believe what your book tells you.

And perhaps that's why it's best to use both to search for truth!!

I assure you.....it can be all replicated.

Dolly the Sheep had a conciousness..she was a clone.

If we made a clone of you...raised it the same way you were, in a similar environment...it would be so close to "you", you would probably poop yerself.
It would even likely share many of your tastes.

Everything you are is nothing but a series of biochemical reactions.
Ones that can be replicated.

The walk like a duck, sounds like a duck argument is a poor rebuttal. It may look me, sound like me, and seem to behave like me yet this clone can never be me. It is a new person. In order for this clone to be exactly like me it would have had to been concieved and born and raised in the exact place and exact time as I was. But if it were, then there is no argument here. At this point he would be me only because there would be just one of us... me... if it does not exist in the exact same spacial temporal locations as I have and am now existing in then it is not me.

The walk like a duck, sounds like a duck argument is a poor rebuttal. It may look me, sound like me, and seem to behave like me yet this clone can never be me. It is a new person. In order for this clone to be exactly like me it would have had to been concieved and born and raised in the exact place and exact time as I was. But if it were, then there is no argument here. At this point he would be me only because there would be just one of us... me... if it does not exist in the exact same spacial temporal locations as I have and am now existing in then it is not me.

Let's say that by some crazy future science, you were split in half right down the middle, and each half grew a new half making two whole persons. Which is you?

Well, I said somewhere that the scientific definition of a fact is different than the general definition. I would call a scientific fact something that scientists generally agree on. I think in general usage people might use fact and truth interchangably, but, think about it, there is a reason there are 2 words. No 2 words mean exactly the same thing. So, I would not say that a fact is, by definition, true.

Big

Large.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "cross the line into Law". A scientific law is really just a description of a situation. It doesn't try to explain why, only what. And, anyway, what if the result is different under conditions that we can't conceive?

Then the result is unknowable.
But if so, can we assume it would produce different results?

Let's say that by some crazy future science, you were split in half right down the middle, and each half grew a new half making two whole persons. Which is you?

As soon as we are seperated we cease being the same person. Each "half" would form unique experiences to itself from that point on, regardless of how slight that difference may seem.

There are a few good scifi shows that deal with this very problem... Star Trek TNG: Second Chances, the one where Riker is perfectly duplicated and Farscape , not sure of the ep but Crichton is also perfectly duplicated.

Big

Large.



Then the result is unknowable.
But if so, can we assume it would produce different results?

What do you mean Big/Large? I don't follow...
The result is knowable to the extant that we can know. Humans are fallable creatures. In the absence of perfection, can we know anything perfectly?
Can we assume what would produce different results?

What do you mean Big/Large? I don't follow...
The result is knowable to the extant that we can know. Humans are fallable creatures. In the absence of perfection, can we know anything perfectly?
Can we assume what would produce different results?


The big./ large thing was in reference to when you said that no two words mean exactly the same thing.

Ive enjoyed this discussion..but Im dreadfully tired, and must prepare for a long day off of slacking and wastrelness.
I do so love days when I dont have to work.

The big./ large thing was in reference to when you said that no two words mean exactly the same thing.

Ive enjoyed this discussion..but Im dreadfully tired, and must prepare for a long day off of slacking and wastrelness.
I do so love days when I dont have to work.

Gotcha. It's 530am here. I should hit the hey, too. night.