442 replies to this topic

[addx]

SO YOU DO HAVE A FAITH!  However I am not trying to make you look "stupid."  Where do you get that?  You are calling yourself names like you usually do me.  Then you claim I am calling You stupid.  Hnnnnnn. 

 

This topic can't be answered without faith but then faith is part of most things we do..

 

So, what you really saying is that you can not understand my post?

[shadowhawk]

Why are you calling yourself stupid?  You are right, I don't get the reason.

Edited by shadowhawk, 29 August 2014 - 09:01 PM.

[addx]

Why are you calling yourself stupid?  You are right, I don't get the reason.

 

Where did I do that?

 

Youre the one equating evolution with "a tornado hitting a junk yard and producing a jetplane". This attempt of analogy clearly shows your lack of understanding and ignorance.

 

Anyway, this is getting silly.... I feel quite ashamed for getting involved in this 2nd grade level discussion with an imbecil who enjoys and is amused by his own ignorance. Have fun alone, Im out

Edited by addx, 30 August 2014 - 09:23 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Now you are back to your old name calling and it is aimed at me as usual.  Blind random chance is what the tornado hitting a junkyard and producing a jet plane is about.  It takes intelligence which you do not have in your model,

Edited by shadowhawk, 01 September 2014 - 01:26 AM.

[johnross47]

Now you are back to your old name calling and it is aimed at me as usual.  Blind random chance is what the tornado hitting a junkyard and producing a jet plane is about.  It takes intelligence which you do not have in your model,

 

It's aimed at you because once again you have derailed a conversation and made it all about you.

[shadowhawk]

You are the one doing the name calling as you have done hundreds of times and this topic has nothing to do with me. 

[johnross47]

You are the one doing the name calling as you have done hundreds of times and this topic has nothing to do with me. 

 

But that doesn't stop you from ruining it for everyone else. 

[shadowhawk]

So I am ruining it for you?  How so?

[cats_lover]

If universe start with a fluctucion of quantum vacuum (as universe from nothing theory says) and quantum vacuum contains electromagnetic waves.

We assume that the quantum vacuum (and these electromagnetic waves) always existed, or was always there.

 

Whence came the quantum vacuum then?

 

 

 

 

[shadowhawk]

And don't forget the cause and effect chain that is characteristic of it.  The Kalam still stands, and you are not talking about nothing.

[shadowhawk]

[cats_lover]

Inflation of the universe if the main proof that the universe has a beginning, but maybe inflation is a local phenomenon, as far as we can measure this happens; but we can only measure 000,1% of universe (or a lower percentage). How can we claim that the inflation happens in the whole universe?

[shadowhawk]

You have no evidence otherwise.  I could make anything up. 

[mikela]

You have no evidence otherwise.  I could make anything up. 

 

Sounds like most religions 

Edited by mikela, 23 September 2014 - 03:55 PM.

[cats_lover]

 

You have no evidence otherwise.  I could make anything up. 

 

Sounds like most religions 

 

 

It is true, no scientific evidence can support any religion; while some people believe that some scientific facts (as information contained in the DNA, the precise conditions that exist on earth for life, etc) are proof of the existence of a god or support for any religion, from the scientific point of view these phenomena can be casual or have other origins.

I do not know if an theistic/antitheist discussion helps to properly discuss the possible origin of the universe. I really want to understand better this "phenomenon" that maybe is the biggest question in the history of humanity.
 


 

Edited by cats_lover, 23 September 2014 - 04:51 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Why limit it to science?  Science can't even prove itself.  All truth isn't scientific.

[cats_lover]

Why limit it to science?  Science can't even prove itself.  All truth isn't scientific.

 

Well, science have no a clear answer for the question: Why is there SOMETHING rather than NOTHING?

Possible reason for this is:

• Science has not advanced enough to give us this answer
• Current human cognitive capacity is not sufficient to properly analyze this phenomenon
• The answer to this phenomenon is in a place of universe that has not yet been explored
• Or: This phenomenon is outside of science

[shadowhawk]

My point is evidence that establishes the truth of something is not only scientific.  To say religion has no evidence is nonsense.

[cats_lover]

My point is evidence that establishes the truth of something is not only scientific.  To say religion has no evidence is nonsense.

 

No scientific evidence does not mean that a phenomenon is not true.
 

"Evidence that establishes the truth of something is not only scientific"... I agree

 

Anyway, there is no scientific evidence that support religion (none that I know).

[shadowhawk]

Well you cannot measure somethings such as consciousness.  What is its weight?  To ask such a thing ignores the nature of reality.  Science is about measurement.  so can we claim because there is no scientific evidence to measure consciousness its reality is not true.  Such an approach is nonsense and takes consciousness to even observe a measurement.  Is history science?  Is there any scientific proof for history?  Is there any scientific proof for science?

[cats_lover]

Well you cannot measure somethings such as consciousness.  What is its weight?  To ask such a thing ignores the nature of reality.  Science is about measurement.  so can we claim because there is no scientific evidence to measure consciousness its reality is not true.  Such an approach is nonsense and takes consciousness to even observe a measurement.  Is history science?  Is there any scientific proof for history?  Is there any scientific proof for science?

 

Of course science is not the only way to truth. It has gained a lot of strength because the applications of science have radically changed the way we interact with the world (and the way we live our lives). This makes that many people can not see beyond science.
 

I dont know if history is a science, I think it is a non-formal science; anyway "history" is something like a definition, you dont need proof for definitions (I guess).

 

But beyond science we can talk about logic. The logic is a science, and in turn the soul of science is logic. Based on logic, something borning from nothing makes no sense.

[shadowhawk]

Logic does not rule quantum mechanics and logic is not science.  Science is a method not a position.  Philosophy and religion can be both logical and true by the rules of logic.

[cats_lover]

Logic does not rule quantum mechanics and logic is not science.  Science is a method not a position.  Philosophy and religion can be both logical and true by the rules of logic.

 

In quantum mechanics, can something come from nothing?
 

[shadowhawk]

No because something that has become is there.

[cats_lover]

No because something that has become is there.

 

Cool, thanks for sharing your knowledge
 

[shadowhawk]

 

No because something that has become is there.

 

Cool, thanks for sharing your knowledge
 

 

And thanks for sharing your knowledge. 

 

[Lewis Carroll]

Logic does not rule quantum mechanics and logic is not science.  Science is a method not a position.  Philosophy and religion can be both logical and true by the rules of logic.

 

I feel like people tend to view science as not only a method but also a position.

 

It's a position in which one puts there belief in reason and critical thinking rather then faith and tradition.

[Blink]

It's impossible to conceive absolute nothingness. Some may draw the conclusion that something must have always existed.

 

Actually I think this is the same problem we face when trying to conceive our own death or the time before birth.

 

What would it be like to experience nothing at all? The question makes no sense.

 

I have no answers though. To experience the present moment is in itself the biggest mystery.

[shadowhawk]

 

Logic does not rule quantum mechanics and logic is not science.  Science is a method not a position.  Philosophy and religion can be both logical and true by the rules of logic.

 

I feel like people tend to view science as not only a method but also a position.

 

It's a position in which one puts there belief in reason and critical thinking rather then faith and tradition.

 

Science is a method not a position.  Science says nothing about religion or tradition which may also use reason and critical thinking.  However I do agree some want to falsely claim science is at odds with religion and tradition while they are completely different subjects,

 

[shadowhawk]

It's impossible to conceive absolute nothingness. Some may draw the conclusion that something must have always existed.

 

Actually I think this is the same problem we face when trying to conceive our own death or the time before birth.

 

What would it be like to experience nothing at all? The question makes no sense.

 

I have no answers though. To experience the present moment is in itself the biggest mystery.

It is true you can’t conceive nothing if you conceive of it as something.  Nothing is not something to be conceived.    However we can conceive of non existence and talk about it otherwise this conversation would be nonsense.  The question does not ask why there is one thing or another but why there is anything at all.