FabSwingers.com forum: Has Modern science lost its credibility ?

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Science is suppose to explain everything however it fails at explaining black holes. Stephen Hawkings attempted to understand them using einsteins theory of relativity but failed miserably. Other scientists came along invented a thing called quantam physics in hope of connecting it to einsteins theory of relativity to explain black holes they failed as well. so now the scientists explain everything away with dark matter something that cant be seen, heard, weighed, measured or felt, so science has hit a brick wall could be the greatest conspiracy theory of them all but can it recover its credibility ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Science is suppose to explain everything however it fails at explaining black holes. Stephen Hawkings attempted to understand them using einsteins theory of relativity but failed miserably. Other scientists came along invented a thing called quantam physics in hope of connecting it to einsteins theory of relativity to explain black holes they failed as well. so now the scientists explain everything away with dark matter something that cant be seen, heard, weighed, measured or felt, so science has hit a brick wall could be the greatest conspiracy theory of them all but can it recover its credibility ? "

Science can only be credible if I can be tried and tested. Alot of what we call scientific fact is theory and sometimes even speculative guess work under the guise of science.

I also think we depend on what scientists say far too much, as opposed to using our own initiative.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ce WingerMan
over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ

I pray to Odin and await the end of the universe, but I only do that on the 29 day cycle that coincides with ma mate's missus every 4 years in February

*courtesy of the useless information department*

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 12/04/18 04:32:12]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Black Magic 84: I agree

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

People believe in science yet it can't explain everything. Closed minds.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yeah i dont really buy into what all these so called great minds say about time and space and black holes and all that stuff, its just random unproven bullshit based on other peoples unproven random bullshit.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Science will always be a work in progress...it will constantly be revised and updated (which is a strength rather than a weakness).

When dealing with the very small and the very far away there will always be elements of conjecture and analogy but these will be subject to experimental and mathematical testing to reach the closest match to reality.

Science is not perfect but it is the only antidote we have to the hocus pocus of religions and pseudo science.

It has given us the power to manipululate materials and energy which create the high tech world we live in today.

Most ironically,it makes possible the devices you are using to discuss it's veracity now.

It's not perfect, but it really is the best we have.

So there.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ubiousOatcakeMan
over a year ago

Aberdeenshire

Jesus wept.

Just because you don’t understand something, it doesn’t mean it’s random, made up bullshit. The theories about time and space aren’t just a massive rolling game of Chinese Whispers. They are rooted in information which is proven to be true.

Science is not something you ‘believe’ in. Science is about the recording and analysis of verifiable, recordable, data; experiments which can be reproduced to find the same results.

To say that scientists have closed minds is to fail to understand scientific methods and the whole peer review system. When experiments don’t support a theory, it is discounted.

As for science having ‘failed’, the Large Hadron Collider confirming the existence of the Higgs boson was a massive step in confirming just how accurately theoretical physicists have modelled the universe.

Back to school, OP. The entire premise of your thread is, in a word, bollocks.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ackspopCouple
over a year ago

Wymondham

1/10

See me

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

There just seems to be theories and no actually answers. We can all come up with theory's, answers is what we want.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Jesus wept.

Science is not something you ‘believe’ in. Science is about the recording and analysis of verifiable, recordable, data; experiments which can be reproduced to find the same results.

To say that scientists have closed minds is to fail to understand scientific methods and the whole peer review system. When experiments don’t support a theory, it is discounted.

Back to school, OP. The entire premise of your thread is, in a word, bollocks."

They use the LHC to fire Maltesers into each other, the Higgs boson was a myth.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"There just seems to be theories and no actually answers. We can all come up with theory's, answers is what we want."

And when an answer is found, it usually ends up leaving us with more new questions creating a perpetual cycle of employment... jobs for the boys (and girls)!

They're quite clever really.

I like the idea that there are theories to be proved or disprovedand and new discoveries to be made. Exciting stuff!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rumpyMcFuckNuggetMan
over a year ago

Den of Iniquity

Look I'll settle this . We don't know..The End .

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

I don't think it has lost credibility, but in some cases it has certainly lost humility.

There will always be more we don't understand than that we do, and science is only one way to search for and identify truth.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eus n EuropaCouple
over a year ago

louth

"Science will always be a work in progress...it will constantly be revised and updated (which is a strength rather than a weakness).

Science is not perfect but it is the only antidote we have to the hocus pocus of religions and pseudo science.

It has given us the power to manipululate materials and energy which create the high tech world we live in today.

Most ironically,it makes possible the devices you are using to discuss it's veracity now.

It's not perfect, but it really is the best we have.

So there.

Good reply if religion had its way we would still belive in a geocentric universe, bloody hell it took the Cathlic church 350 years to acknowledge that Galileo was right 3 cheers for Pope John Paul II what a far sighted guy he was.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Jesus wept.

Deliberate irony Oatcake?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I don't think it has lost credibility, but in some cases it has certainly lost humility.

There will always be more we don't understand than that we do, and science is only one way to search for and identify truth."

Is that an error or, am I reading it wrong?

You seem to be suggesting that there are other ways to find the answers to questions about black holes and the mysteries of the universe?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Science is not supposed or expected to explain everything though,each question that is answered just leads to more questions.A voyage of discovery that can be likened to an infinitely long corridor with an infinite number of doors,each door that is opened leads to another infinite corridor with an infinite number of doors.There will always be more questions than answers.

The failure of science to provide all the answers is not really a failure at all.The answers may not be apparent,,,,yet but that may be because we haven't asked the right questions,,,yet.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We can't know everything - that's why we have science. The scientific framework is there as an exploration tool. If you want the answers to everything See religion.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Look I'll settle this . We don't know..The End ."

Can Science answer the question of why gas has gone up 5%?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I don't think it has lost credibility, but in some cases it has certainly lost humility.

There will always be more we don't understand than that we do, and science is only one way to search for and identify truth.

Is that an error or, am I reading it wrong?

You seem to be suggesting that there are other ways to find the answers to questions about black holes and the mysteries of the universe?"

Some may look for the answers by means of faith in a creator,they may be satisfied with the explanation (of black holes for example) that god made it that way.

Mankind can only look for the answers in what we can actually detect.If god really did make it that way,we can only try to discover how god did that.The answer that god (or the universe) moves in mysterious ways that are beyond our understanding may be true but it is not a good enough answer for a human race with enquiring minds.

We probably will never know all the answers to life the universe and everything.Quite possibly we are not even supposed to know,we are really quite an insignificant little speck in the universe after all.It might be extreme arrogance on our part to think that we have the capability of understanding all of it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"I don't think it has lost credibility, but in some cases it has certainly lost humility.

There will always be more we don't understand than that we do, and science is only one way to search for and identify truth.

Is that an error or, am I reading it wrong?

You seem to be suggesting that there are other ways to find the answers to questions about black holes and the mysteries of the universe?"

I don't know about black holes, but certainly other 'mysteries', yes. And science is as fallible as any human endeavour - surely you do not dispute that fact?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I don't think it has lost credibility, but in some cases it has certainly lost humility.

There will always be more we don't understand than that we do, and science is only one way to search for and identify truth.

Is that an error or, am I reading it wrong?

You seem to be suggesting that there are other ways to find the answers to questions about black holes and the mysteries of the universe?

I don't know about black holes, but certainly other 'mysteries', yes. And science is as fallible as any human endeavour - surely you do not dispute that fact?"

Science is fluid... Today's theory or truth and our understanding might be different tomorrow. Science (as we all should) learns and understands as much from its mistakes as its success. I don't see being fallible as a negative, just part of the process.

I get the feeling that you are eluding to the more spiritual aspects of life rather than the physical world.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ardiffCoupleNJCouple
over a year ago

Pontypridd/Rhyfelin

"Jesus wept.

Science is not something you ‘believe’ in. Science is about the recording and analysis of verifiable, recordable, data; experiments which can be reproduced to find the same results.

To say that scientists have closed minds is to fail to understand scientific methods and the whole peer review system. When experiments don’t support a theory, it is discounted.

Back to school, OP. The entire premise of your thread is, in a word, bollocks."

Agreed!

OP sounds like a prospective US Presidential Candidate to me....!!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"I don't think it has lost credibility, but in some cases it has certainly lost humility.

There will always be more we don't understand than that we do, and science is only one way to search for and identify truth.

Is that an error or, am I reading it wrong?

You seem to be suggesting that there are other ways to find the answers to questions about black holes and the mysteries of the universe?

I don't know about black holes, but certainly other 'mysteries', yes. And science is as fallible as any human endeavour - surely you do not dispute that fact?

I get the feeling that you are eluding to the more spiritual aspects of life rather than the physical world."

Not necessarily - a court of law for instance would argue that their method is sound.

I agree science is fluid - many people do not realise that, or tend to forget it. Science has it's own 'true believers'and they do it no credit.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Of course science is fluid,,,Galileo work is superceded by Newton,superceded by Einstein,superceded by Hawkin.

That doesn't mean that Galileo,Newton and Einstein were wrong,,,just that their work was incomplete. (they only had 1 lifetime each,give them a break).

There will always be new discoveries,there will always be more to learn than we know already.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eus n EuropaCouple
over a year ago

louth

"Of course science is fluid,,,Galileo work is superceded by Newton,superceded by Einstein,superceded by Hawkin.

That doesn't mean that Galileo,Newton and Einstein were wrong,,,just that their work was incomplete. (they only had 1 lifetime each,give them a break).

There will always be new discoveries,there will always be more to learn than we know already.

Nice one Gina none of these great scientists have been proved wrong in fact most of everything the said or predicted is pvoven correct.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I don't think it has lost credibility, but in some cases it has certainly lost humility.

There will always be more we don't understand than that we do, and science is only one way to search for and identify truth.

Is that an error or, am I reading it wrong?

You seem to be suggesting that there are other ways to find the answers to questions about black holes and the mysteries of the universe?

I don't know about black holes, but certainly other 'mysteries', yes. And science is as fallible as any human endeavour - surely you do not dispute that fact?

I get the feeling that you are eluding to the more spiritual aspects of life rather than the physical world.

Not necessarily - a court of law for instance would argue that their method is sound.

I agree science is fluid - many people do not realise that, or tend to forget it. Science has it's own 'true believers'and they do it no credit."

What's true and what's just isn't always the same thing.

Self proclaimed "true believers", in whatever field or aspect I find are unsettling, just like any closed minded fanatics. They're probably good in a army but, apart from that, probably not the sort of people you want endorsing any cause and, usually do more harm than good.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

What's true and what's just isn't always the same thing.

Indeed not.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eus n EuropaCouple
over a year ago

louth

"I don't think it has lost credibility, but in some cases it has certainly lost humility.

There will always be more we don't understand than that we do, and science is only one way to search for and identify truth.

Is that an error or, am I reading it wrong?

You seem to be suggesting that there are other ways to find the answers to questions about black holes and the mysteries of the universe?

Some may look for the answers by means of faith in a creator,they may be satisfied with the explanation (of black holes for example) that god made it that way.

I am sure that God made the Earth the Sun and everthing in the univers, my only qustion is, Did he have the option?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rumpyMcFuckNuggetMan
over a year ago

Den of Iniquity

"Look I'll settle this . We don't know..The End .

Can Science answer the question of why gas has gone up 5%?"

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It’s all about Jesus and witch craft dude.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The Saviour said concerning the Last days that...Knowlegde would increase apon the earth, that men would be ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

In response to the op. Science is at risk of losing its credibility due to a dominant voice amongst its fan base who romanticise it, misunderstand it, and present it as something it isn't. It is not an oracle of truth. It is not a replacement for religion. It is not self assured and certain of what it knows. It has no successes to its name, only failures. It is simply a bunch of people looking at evidence, trying to use the very best reasoning available to them in their era, and positing what they believe to be plausible explanations of what's going on. That's all.

If we could all settle down and grasp that, without one half trying to deny it and the other wanting to put it on an altar, maybe we'd finally understand it.

Science is the very best guess we have on a limited subset of issues. It's just a guess. Sometimes more grounded. Sometimes ridiculous conjecture. But just a guess. And yet... it's the very best guess currently going. This suggests to me that we should definitely listen to it and, where it makes sense, heed its advice. But that we shouldn't let it define us or our reality. And that we should always expect more from it in the future

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"In response to the op. Science is at risk of losing its credibility due to a dominant voice amongst its fan base who romanticise it, misunderstand it, and present it as something it isn't. It is not an oracle of truth. It is not a replacement for religion. It is not self assured and certain of what it knows. It has no successes to its name, only failures. It is simply a bunch of people looking at evidence, trying to use the very best reasoning available to them in their era, and positing what they believe to be plausible explanations of what's going on. That's all.

If we could all settle down and grasp that, without one half trying to deny it and the other wanting to put it on an altar, maybe we'd finally understand it.

Well said, though I do not agree science has no successes, I think it has plenty - just failures a-plenty too (I'm talking in the broader sense not just theoretical physics).

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Well said, though I do not agree science has no successes, I think it has plenty - just failures a-plenty too (I'm talking in the broader sense not just theoretical physics)."

Thanks

It was my obtuse way of saying nothing in science wholly succeeds. Success infers the solution has been finally discovered, it is fully known, the truth of a theory has been totally proven. Even if I'm typing this on a bit of tech that requires quantum phenomenon to work a certain way. This doesn't mean our theories on that phenomenon are successful i.e that they are true.

Instead, science is more about discovering what isn't true, trying to procure interesting failures that teach us something. Just clarifying what I meant

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"I don't think it has lost credibility, but in some cases it has certainly lost humility.

There will always be more we don't understand than that we do, and science is only one way to search for and identify truth.

Is that an error or, am I reading it wrong?

You seem to be suggesting that there are other ways to find the answers to questions about black holes and the mysteries of the universe?"

No all ime saying is scientists to date cannot explain or understand black holes and are now using bull shit called dark matter in a desperate attempt to maintain credibility. They say dark matter must exist yet they admit they cannot see it, feel it weigh it, measure it, or hear it. Given these admissions how could they possibly know dark matter exists.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

To quote Dara O'Briain;

"Science knows it doesn't know everything, or else it would stop"

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

Science is a method that is concerned with obtaining knowledge about the world. It is astonishingly successful. Everyone "believes" in science. If you use this website, get on a plane or eat food that you didn't pluck off a wild bush, you believe in science.

Those who don't believe in science wouldn't log on to this site to communicate with people far away, wouldn't get on planes to travel to the USA and wouldn't go to Tesco to get their food. . They would simply pray to God to make people or food appear and magically transport them to New York.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's a tool for exploring the universe and without it we would be stumbling around in the dark.With science we have a torch..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eus n EuropaCouple
over a year ago

louth

"I don't think it has lost credibility, but in some cases it has certainly lost humility.

There will always be more we don't understand than that we do, and science is only one way to search for and identify truth.

Is that an error or, am I reading it wrong?

You seem to be suggesting that there are other ways to find the answers to questions about black holes and the mysteries of the universe?

Whilst we cannot prove or disprove Dark Matter at the the present time the same couold be said for many sub attomic phenomena which theory predicted and are now poven!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I don't think it has lost credibility, but in some cases it has certainly lost humility.

There will always be more we don't understand than that we do, and science is only one way to search for and identify truth.

Is that an error or, am I reading it wrong?

You seem to be suggesting that there are other ways to find the answers to questions about black holes and the mysteries of the universe?

Sorry, that was directed at Friskymare.

Dark matter... it's just scientific algebra. They know that something exists to occupy that space and that it has to have a value. They've called it dark matter, which is pretty descriptive, instead of X or y. When they have worked out what X or y is they will be able fill in the blanks.

I like the description further up the thread that science is a torch.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Dark matter... it's just scientific algebra. They know that something exists to occupy that space and that it has to have a value. They've called it dark matter, which is pretty descriptive, instead of X or y. When they have worked out what X or y is they will be able fill in the blanks."

Better still... the theory must return the result of 100 but instead returns the result of 25. So either there is a big thing missing from it that accounts for the remaining 75 or the theory is wrong

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Science is a method that is concerned with obtaining knowledge about the world. It is astonishingly successful. Everyone "believes" in science. If you use this website, get on a plane or eat food that you didn't pluck off a wild bush, you believe in science.

You sound assured that science and technology was discovered by us humans and not handed to us. If you look at the big picture the earth is said to have existed for approx. 350 billion years although scince cannot actually prove this. But going with this theory the dinosaurs existed 65 million years ago we humans have only been around for approx. 20 000 years.

So we have been here alledley for say 20,000 years ten thousand years ago we were still living in caves. Out of that twenty thousand years we have discovered the technologies you speak of within the last 100 years. The maths of human probability aligned to human capability don't add up and seem odd at best.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hetalkingstoveMan
over a year ago

London

350 billion years?!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ethnmelvCouple
over a year ago

Cardiff

"I don't think it has lost credibility, but in some cases it has certainly lost humility.

There will always be more we don't understand than that we do, and science is only one way to search for and identify truth.

Is that an error or, am I reading it wrong?

You seem to be suggesting that there are other ways to find the answers to questions about black holes and the mysteries of the universe?

Some may look for the answers by means of faith in a creator,they may be satisfied with the explanation (of black holes for example) that god made it that way.

I am sure that God made the Earth the Sun and everthing in the univers, my only qustion is, Did he have the option? "

...so how come you are so sure this is true?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *dam_TinaCouple
over a year ago

Hampshire

If you look at the big picture the earth is said to have existed for approx. 350 billion years "

Not according to the Barenaked Ladies

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Better still... the theory must return the result of 100 but instead returns the result of 25. So either there is a big thing missing from it that accounts for the remaining 75 or the theory is wrong

It's a process of elimination, theories are like buses... Another one will be along in a minute! It will either be proved or disproved eventually. Each time we gain a better understanding. Sometimes we may even get an answer.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Better still... the theory must return the result of 100 but instead returns the result of 25. So either there is a big thing missing from it that accounts for the remaining 75 or the theory is wrong

Were that it were so. Unfortunately theories are like stories. There isn't a finite supply of them for us to whittle down through and sort. We merely proceed from one imagining to the next, with no end in sight and no idea of whether we're getting closer or further away from the truth. That's the beauty of science and why I have tremendous appreciation for it. It really is the most wonderful human endeavour

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Better still... the theory must return the result of 100 but instead returns the result of 25. So either there is a big thing missing from it that accounts for the remaining 75 or the theory is wrong

Maybe not in a minute then but, they do occur every now and again.

I'm not disagreeing with you though, and do find it interesting and wonderful.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eus n EuropaCouple
over a year ago

louth

"I don't think it has lost credibility, but in some cases it has certainly lost humility.

There will always be more we don't understand than that we do, and science is only one way to search for and identify truth.

Is that an error or, am I reading it wrong?

You seem to be suggesting that there are other ways to find the answers to questions about black holes and the mysteries of the universe?

Some may look for the answers by means of faith in a creator,they may be satisfied with the explanation (of black holes for example) that god made it that way.

I am sure that God made the Earth the Sun and everthing in the univers, my only qustion is, Did he have the option?

...so how come you are so sure this is true?

I am sure that God made the Earth the Sun and everthing in the universe, my only qustion is, Did he have the option?

Simple's it was only ment as a statement for the benifit of those folks who firmly belive that Their God made the Earth the Sun and everthing in the universe

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I don't think it has lost credibility, but in some cases it has certainly lost humility.

There will always be more we don't understand than that we do, and science is only one way to search for and identify truth.

Is that an error or, am I reading it wrong?

You seem to be suggesting that there are other ways to find the answers to questions about black holes and the mysteries of the universe?

Some may look for the answers by means of faith in a creator,they may be satisfied with the explanation (of black holes for example) that god made it that way.

I am sure that God made the Earth the Sun and everthing in the univers, my only qustion is, Did he have the option?

...so how come you are so sure this is true?

I am sure that God made the Earth the Sun and everthing in the universe, my only qustion is, Did he have the option?

Simple's it was only ment as a statement for the benifit of those folks who firmly belive that Their God made the Earth the Sun and everthing in the universe"

Seeing as an omnipotent and omniscient being would know the future.God wouldn't have a choice.It would be impossible for him to change his mind as he knew his future self would create the Universe.

It's probably a problem all omnipotent and omniscient beings have to deal with.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ethnmelvCouple
over a year ago

Cardiff

"I don't think it has lost credibility, but in some cases it has certainly lost humility.

There will always be more we don't understand than that we do, and science is only one way to search for and identify truth.

Is that an error or, am I reading it wrong?

You seem to be suggesting that there are other ways to find the answers to questions about black holes and the mysteries of the universe?

Some may look for the answers by means of faith in a creator,they may be satisfied with the explanation (of black holes for example) that god made it that way.

I am sure that God made the Earth the Sun and everthing in the univers, my only qustion is, Did he have the option?

...so how come you are so sure this is true?

I am sure that God made the Earth the Sun and everthing in the universe, my only qustion is, Did he have the option?

Simple's it was only ment as a statement for the benifit of those folks who firmly belive that Their God made the Earth the Sun and everthing in the universe

Seeing as an omnipotent and omniscient being would know the future.God wouldn't have a choice.It would be impossible for him to change his mind as he knew his future self would create the Universe.

It's probably a problem all omnipotent and omniscient beings have to deal with.

That is so true, a terrible burden but one I’m happy to bear

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *fcdTV/TS
over a year ago

Southend

I think my IQ dropped about 20 points reading some of the replies on here. Most people here clearly have no idea what science even is yet they feel able to comment on how it fails. They don't even understand it's naming conventions, such as 'theory'. Go read a book on the subject and stop embarrassing yourselves.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *loswingersCouple
over a year ago

Gloucester

"Jesus wept.

Science is not something you ‘believe’ in. Science is about the recording and analysis of verifiable, recordable, data; experiments which can be reproduced to find the same results.

To say that scientists have closed minds is to fail to understand scientific methods and the whole peer review system. When experiments don’t support a theory, it is discounted.

Back to school, OP. The entire premise of your thread is, in a word, bollocks."

I fail to see the relativity of black holes and bollocks .

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

My bollocks have never been near a black hole (sadly).

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eus n EuropaCouple
over a year ago

louth

"My bollocks have never been near a black hole (sadly).

We all live in hope

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The reason the Men of this world stumble in their quest to understand the Universe is in their arrogance and pride they leave out the God whom organised the elements that make up the universe...

Common sense dictates that an Intelligence far greater than our understanding organised the Heavens and this but one of many earths He has created from the elements so that His offspring can progress...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's one thing to say that there are forces in the universe that are betond the understanding of mere humans.I expect most would agree on that but, those who would claim to have a special insight into those forces or even to know the 'mind' of those forces,have a lot of work ahead of them to prove that. (not that that's ever stopped them).

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hetalkingstoveMan
over a year ago

London

Seeing as an omnipotent and omniscient being would know the future.God wouldn't have a choice.It would be impossible for him to change his mind as he knew his future self would create the Universe.

It's probably a problem all omnipotent and omniscient beings have to deal with.

Yep, it's not possible to be both omniscient and omnipotent, they're mutually exclusive. Silly God!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The reason the Men of this world stumble in their quest to understand the Universe is in their arrogance and pride they leave out the God whom organised the elements that make up the universe...

Why would a god need a gender?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Jesus wept.

Science is not something you ‘believe’ in. Science is about the recording and analysis of verifiable, recordable, data; experiments which can be reproduced to find the same results.

To say that scientists have closed minds is to fail to understand scientific methods and the whole peer review system. When experiments don’t support a theory, it is discounted.

Back to school, OP. The entire premise of your thread is, in a word, bollocks."

I wax trying to put together my thoughts on this and another's respons about science being only credible thing and religion/spiritual aspects pure conjecture hocus pocus. You summed it all up beautifully.

I will add this those who just rely upon science are those with closed minds. Science evolves and changes as man increases in knowledue and understanding ... it's not static and therefore not infallible. It is after all one way of describing something in a way to help understand it at that time. 20 yrs later it could be proven that our theories were wrong and hense ' science' as we knew it was wrong.

Many here lack the understanding that we are all spiritual beings and are closed to things usually they don't understand rather than be open to new and greater understanding. Science cannot explain everything. It can only explain that which falls inside it's own laws... which are being added to as man's knowledge and understanding increase.

One should be more open to that which we don't understand rather than show arrogance of think one knows it all.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The reason the Men of this world stumble in their quest to understand the Universe is in their arrogance and pride they leave out the God whom organised the elements that make up the universe...

Why would a god need a gender?

Scripture says we are created in His likeness, so there must be Male and female Eternal beings...Living in family units and giving their offspring opportunities to become like them

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford

You know theoretical physics?

The clue is in the name.....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford

"Jesus wept.

Science is not something you ‘believe’ in. Science is about the recording and analysis of verifiable, recordable, data; experiments which can be reproduced to find the same results.

To say that scientists have closed minds is to fail to understand scientific methods and the whole peer review system. When experiments don’t support a theory, it is discounted.

Back to school, OP. The entire premise of your thread is, in a word, bollocks.

One should be more open to that which we don't understand rather than show arrogance of think one knows it all.

Agree - Science is dynamic and changes incramentally on a daily basis.

It is the opposite of dogmatic, as some like to claim.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Jesus wept.

Science is not something you ‘believe’ in. Science is about the recording and analysis of verifiable, recordable, data; experiments which can be reproduced to find the same results.

To say that scientists have closed minds is to fail to understand scientific methods and the whole peer review system. When experiments don’t support a theory, it is discounted.

Back to school, OP. The entire premise of your thread is, in a word, bollocks."

I concur. Well said.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

Yep, it's not possible to be both omniscient and omnipotent, they're mutually exclusive.

How so?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

Agree - Science is dynamic and changes incramentally on a daily basis.

It is the opposite of dogmatic, as some like to claim. "

It is supposed not to be for sure, but some of it's proponents are extremely dogmatic.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Agree - Science is dynamic and changes incramentally on a daily basis.

It is the opposite of dogmatic, as some like to claim.

It is supposed not to be for sure, but some of it's proponents are extremely dogmatic."

That is a very good point. Just go to any scientific conference for proof.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yep, it's not possible to be both omniscient and omnipotent, they're mutually exclusive.

How so?"

Just wondered that too. Must be a finite human mind that says that... how else would they know?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"Jesus wept.

Science is not something you ‘believe’ in. Science is about the recording and analysis of verifiable, recordable, data; experiments which can be reproduced to find the same results.

To say that scientists have closed minds is to fail to understand scientific methods and the whole peer review system. When experiments don’t support a theory, it is discounted.

Back to school, OP. The entire premise of your thread is, in a word, bollocks.

One should be more open to that which we don't understand rather than show arrogance of think one knows it all.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

Yep, it's not possible to be both omniscient and omnipotent, they're mutually exclusive.

How so?

Just wondered that too. Must be a finite human mind that says that... how else would they know?

I don't think the argument is based on any kind of logic.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford

Agree - Science is dynamic and changes incramentally on a daily basis.

It is the opposite of dogmatic, as some like to claim.

It is supposed not to be for sure, but some of it's proponents are extremely dogmatic."

If you think it's dogmatic, you haven't understood the scientfic process.

Also, you probably haven't been around any scientists who work in the same field - they love to tear each others theories to bits.

I think the "dogma" to which you ar referring is their defence of the scientific process as the best method we currently have for understanding the natural world. It's usually frustration coming through when people suggest sub-critical methodologies or supposition....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hetalkingstoveMan
over a year ago

London

[Removed by poster at 12/04/18 23:21:46]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

If you think it's dogmatic, you haven't understood the scientfic process.

Nonsense, I can simply identify dogmatic attitudes when I see them!

synonyms: opinionated, peremptory, assertive, imperative, insistent, emphatic, adamant, doctrinaire, authoritarian, authoritative, domineering, imperious, high-handed, pontifical, arrogant, overbearing, dictatorial, uncompromising, unyielding, unbending, inflexible, rigid, entrenched, unquestionable, unchallengeable; intolerant, narrow-minded, small-minded

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford

One should be more open to that which we don't understand rather than show arrogance of think one knows it all.

Also; science (and scientists) don't think they have "explained everything", I have no idea where anyone can get that idea from.

If science had "explained everything" then scientists wouldn't have any work to do and science would be over. But it isn't and never will be.

The part that scientists take issue with is people trying to pass off as fact explanations of things we "can't explain" (and some we can) with no credible evidence whatsoever.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

Yep, it's not possible to be both omniscient and omnipotent, they're mutually exclusive.

How so?

If I'm omnipotent and I know beyond any doubt that tomorrow I'm going to have eggs for breakfast, then I don't have the power to do anything except have eggs for breakfast. I can't have cereal. So I can't be omnipotent."

Haha, yup.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

One should be more open to that which we don't understand rather than show arrogance of think one knows it all.

Also; science (and scientists) don't think they have "explained everything", I have no idea where anyone can get that idea from.

If science had "explained everything" then scientists wouldn't have any work to do and science would be over. But it isn't and never will be.

The part that scientists take issue with is people trying to pass off as fact explanations of things we "can't explain" (and some we can) with no credible evidence whatsoever. "

Another great point. And I think I heard someone recently say that the universe is under no obligation to make sense to us.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hetalkingstoveMan
over a year ago

London

Yep, it's not possible to be both omniscient and omnipotent, they're mutually exclusive.

How so?"

If I'm omniscient and I know beyond any doubt that tomorrow I'm going to have eggs for breakfast, then I don't have the power to do anything except have eggs for breakfast. I can't have cereal. So I can't be omnipotent.

(Reposted as got omnipotent/omniscient wrong in first sentence!)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Did you know there are more atoms in a glass of water, than there are glasses of water in all the oceans?!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford

If you think it's dogmatic, you haven't understood the scientfic process.

Nonsense, I can simply identify dogmatic attitudes when I see them!

Science is none of those things. In fact, to write a paper that successfully survives the peer-review process, you couldn't be any of those things. All assertions must be evidenced, theories change. Almost every paper written challenges some some findings or other. You can be open-minded, but you must find evidence for your assertions.

Religion can be most or all of those things.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If you think it's dogmatic, you haven't understood the scientfic process.

Nonsense, I can simply identify dogmatic attitudes when I see them!

Religion can be most or all of those things. "

I know many in my field who fall smack, bang under the definition of dogmatic. These tend to be the exception though. Most are open minded to compelling evidence.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford

If you think it's dogmatic, you haven't understood the scientfic process.

Nonsense, I can simply identify dogmatic attitudes when I see them!

Religion can be most or all of those things.

I know many in my field who fall smack, bang under the definition of dogmatic. These tend to be the exception though. Most are open minded to compelling evidence. "

Sure, individuals can be dogmatic, but you know as well as I do that as soon as their peers smell the chance, they'll rip their work to pieces.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *emmefataleWoman
over a year ago

dirtybigbadsgirlville

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

Nonsense, I can simply identify dogmatic attitudes when I see them!

Science is none of those things.

Did you read what I wrote? I said science SHOULD NOT be, but many who would claim to be scientists were nonetheless.

Are you really trying to claim that all people in all fields of science are full of open-minded humility, none are arrogant and spouting dogma?

You seem to be trying to describe the best attirubes of the scientific method without any acknowledgement of it's weaknesses or the human failings of those who work in the field.

A subjective selection of evidence I would call that....;-)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

If you think it's dogmatic, you haven't understood the scientfic process.

Nonsense, I can simply identify dogmatic attitudes when I see them!

Religion can be most or all of those things.

I know many in my field who fall smack, bang under the definition of dogmatic. These tend to be the exception though. Most are open minded to compelling evidence.

Sure, individuals can be dogmatic, but you know as well as I do that as soon as their peers smell the chance, they'll rip their work to pieces. "

Science is far bigger than academia.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I know many in my field who fall smack, bang under the definition of dogmatic. These tend to be the exception though. Most are open minded to compelling evidence.

Sure, individuals can be dogmatic, but you know as well as I do that as soon as their peers smell the chance, they'll rip their work to pieces. "

Fuck, yeah. You’re right though, dogma presents itself in individuals and occasionally in groups, not in ‘science’

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford

If you think it's dogmatic, you haven't understood the scientfic process.

Nonsense, I can simply identify dogmatic attitudes when I see them!

Religion can be most or all of those things.

I know many in my field who fall smack, bang under the definition of dogmatic. These tend to be the exception though. Most are open minded to compelling evidence.

Sure, individuals can be dogmatic, but you know as well as I do that as soon as their peers smell the chance, they'll rip their work to pieces.

Science is far bigger than academia."

Science is the attempt to explain the natural world using evidence based research, so yes, it is.

I don't think there's anything to stop you from submitting articles to journals if you are not employed in academia.

What is isn't, is supposition and conjecture.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"I know many in my field who fall smack, bang under the definition of dogmatic. These tend to be the exception though. Most are open minded to compelling evidence.

Sure, individuals can be dogmatic, but you know as well as I do that as soon as their peers smell the chance, they'll rip their work to pieces.

Fuck, yeah. You’re right though, dogma presents itself in individuals and occasionally in groups, not in ‘science’

Yup, that's what I said -

"It is supposed not to be for sure, but some of it's proponents are extremely dogmatic."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

Science is the attempt to explain the natural world using evidence based research, so yes, it is.

You are thinking of a WAY smaller field than I am here - the field of medical practice for instance, rather than solely medical research.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I know many in my field who fall smack, bang under the definition of dogmatic. These tend to be the exception though. Most are open minded to compelling evidence.

Sure, individuals can be dogmatic, but you know as well as I do that as soon as their peers smell the chance, they'll rip their work to pieces.

Fuck, yeah. You’re right though, dogma presents itself in individuals and occasionally in groups, not in ‘science’

Yup, that's what I said -

"It is supposed not to be for sure, but some of it's proponents are extremely dogmatic.""

Fair enough. Of course, the collective is far bigger than any one individual. Plus just think of how many fields there are and how many work in each. Typically dogmatic types are few but vocal.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"I know many in my field who fall smack, bang under the definition of dogmatic. These tend to be the exception though. Most are open minded to compelling evidence.

Sure, individuals can be dogmatic, but you know as well as I do that as soon as their peers smell the chance, they'll rip their work to pieces.

Fuck, yeah. You’re right though, dogma presents itself in individuals and occasionally in groups, not in ‘science’

Yup, that's what I said -

"It is supposed not to be for sure, but some of it's proponents are extremely dogmatic."

Fair enough. Of course, the collective is far bigger than any one individual. Plus just think of how many fields there are and how many work in each. Typically dogmatic types are few but vocal. "

Yes, particularly on swingers site forums sometimes!

But I have seen a lot of dogmatism in medical and veterinary practice.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"I know many in my field who fall smack, bang under the definition of dogmatic. These tend to be the exception though. Most are open minded to compelling evidence.

Sure, individuals can be dogmatic, but you know as well as I do that as soon as their peers smell the chance, they'll rip their work to pieces.

Fuck, yeah. You’re right though, dogma presents itself in individuals and occasionally in groups, not in ‘science’

Yup, that's what I said -

"It is supposed not to be for sure, but some of it's proponents are extremely dogmatic."

Fair enough. Of course, the collective is far bigger than any one individual. Plus just think of how many fields there are and how many work in each. Typically dogmatic types are few but vocal. "

Like that bloody Dawkins, dreadfully dogmatic and subjective!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford

Science is the attempt to explain the natural world using evidence based research, so yes, it is.

You are thinking of a WAY smaller field than I am here - the field of medical practice for instance, rather than solely medical research."

The entire of the natural world - forces, substances and living things is a small field?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hubnwife_36dd_ukCouple
over a year ago

chester

Spot on Dubious Oatcake.

Science has had many periods when its ability to explain something has been stalled due to factors such as an inability to devise suitable experiments, lack of suitable measuring equipment and technologies and lack of good theories to test.

Anyone putting in the effort to understand just a smidgen of its history would realise that new knowledge and understanding doesn't come along in some kind of steady flow. There can be a breakthrough after something has stymied the best brains for years.

Given the problems science is now trying to find answers to it is hardly surprising that it is proving difficult.

Some of the greatest minds that have tried have concluded that perhaps some of the answers may remain forever beyond our capabilities to frame and test them.

None of that means science has lost its credibility. Its magnificent and enlightening and useful discoveries don't vanish because it is now up against the mothers of all problems.

Science can however easily lose its credibility with a public whose understanding of science is in far too many cases not even at a basic level so their viewpoint is swayed by "quack" pseudo-scientists writing and blogging on the subject.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

[Removed by poster at 13/04/18 00:00:16]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

Science is the attempt to explain the natural world using evidence based research, so yes, it is.

You are thinking of a WAY smaller field than I am here - the field of medical practice for instance, rather than solely medical research.

The entire of the natural world - forces, substances and living things is a small field?"

The 'attempt to explain' is miniscule compared to the millions of those who have graduated in the sciences and are out there applying it - yes.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

Science is the attempt to explain the natural world using evidence based research, so yes, it is.

You are thinking of a WAY smaller field than I am here - the field of medical practice for instance, rather than solely medical research.

The entire of the natural world - forces, substances and living things is a small field?

The 'attempt to explain' is miniscule compared to the millions of those who have graduated in the sciences and are out there applying it - yes."

And I would say that in general those who work at 'the coal face' and are trying to expand our understanding (rather than utilise the understanding we already have) may be kept more humble by that quest - but not always.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Science can however easily lose its credibility with a public whose understanding of science is in far too many cases not even at a basic level so their viewpoint is swayed by "quack" pseudo-scientists writing and blogging on the subject."

Exactly this. These "quack" pseudo-scientists are, unfortunately, science's fans, its dogmatic advocates, those who insist we must "believe" in science, as if science had anything to do with belief.

It is fair enough that a bunch of silly creationists misrepresent and misunderstand science. That's to be expected and makes very minimal impact on our culture. What is really wrecking science are the sheer mass of science enthusiasts who've read a couple of popular science books and think they now suddenly know and represent and defend science

This, to me, is where the popular misconception that science is dogmatic, based on rock solid fact, merely refining the small details of its almost true and almost complete picture of our reality, and atheist comes from. It is none of these things. Indeed, that it isn't is exactly why it's such an amazing enterprise

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rumpyMcFuckNuggetMan
over a year ago

Den of Iniquity

This is my train of thought on this . It's long so bear with me . The Universe itself was supposedly started by the big bang. Before that there was nothing. Well this cannot be as something , Not even light or 1 atom , can be created from nothingness. It's impossible . Also the theory that the Universe has always been here and never started and will never end is also impossible as everything has to start somewhere. YET one of these scenarios must be true even though they are both impossible. Makes you wonder I think .

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Science's fans are one source of the misnomer that science is dogmatic. As per Frisky's point, there is also a profoundly dogmatic spirit that comes from scientists *when talking to non-scientists*. This is an important distinction. You'll find many scientists are bizarrely schizophrenic, capable of switching from the most profound arrogance on an issue to the most profound humbleness the moment another scientist enters the room.

The basis of this is undoubtedly an "us vs them" mindset that pervades science. This has numerous historical and cultural roots. In short, there is not only a lot of work to be done in better presenting science to the masses, but a cultural rift that needs healing too. It doesn't take a genius to see the two are linked and that those who put science on an altar are further contributing to its alienation and cultural isolation. Just my 2p

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

I presume all those people who decry science live naked in caves and live off blackberries and grass.

Because, you know what, the only reason we are not all wallowing around in our own Shit and dying of infectious diseases at 22 is because human beings thought about the world and applied logic and reason to make it better. That's science.

No God, spirit or any other non human entity, real or imagined, has ever done achieved anything remotely close to what human beings applying scientific principles have achieved.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Science is the latest news on current scientific findings. As one theory is understood more so it will undoubtedly bunk or alter another scientific theory (based on 1000's 100's or 10's of years of research) As it is an ever evolving field no theory can be 100% accurate as that's the nature of knowledge. To expand upon and to learn more about that field

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Science uses the scientific method which does not proove theories it disproves theories.

Mathematics proves things which is why science has scientific theories and maths have proofs.

This started to fall apart when godel prooved it was impossible to create a complete set of axioms in mathematics.

In 1900 a mathematishion called David Herbert gave a talk which is a probably the most important talk in maths or science because it set out 23 problems in maths that had not been solved.

At the conference was the worlds best mathematishions so they started to work on the problems and have solved a few.

This lead to different areas of logic science and computers being invented.

Wikipedia is your freind

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

"Science is the latest news on current scientific findings. As one theory is understood more so it will undoubtedly bunk or alter another scientific theory (based on 1000's 100's or 10's of years of research) As it is an ever evolving field no theory can be 100% accurate as that's the nature of knowledge. To expand upon and to learn more about that field

What I find bizzare is the idea that science is some kind of dogma like a religion. It isn't. It's a way of approaching knowledge that says we should base our beliefs about the external world on rigorously tested evidence.

Everyone believes in science in that sense. Science isn't hostile to the notion of God per se, it just applies the same standard of evidence to it as anything else.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Everyone believes in science in that sense. Science isn't hostile to the notion of God per se, it just applies the same standard of evidence to it as anything else. "

I agree that as humans we feel the need for evidence based facts (With some fields of science this isn't always as accessible for the layman) thus a lot of people bunk religion as it doesn't (As far as we know) provide enough tangible evidence to purport its claims. Which I feel is fair. Otherwise we'd all believe anything (Flat earth, reptilians, faith in the government) Science is necessary to out bullshit, then build up on the findings (Until that gets bunked)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"This is my train of thought on this . It's long so bear with me . The Universe itself was supposedly started by the big bang. Before that there was nothing. Well this cannot be as something , Not even light or 1 atom , can be created from nothingness. It's impossible . Also the theory that the Universe has always been here and never started and will never end is also impossible as everything has to start somewhere. YET one of these scenarios must be true even though they are both impossible. Makes you wonder I think ."

Who can possibly know what existed before the universe existed and what will exist after it has gone. This may not be the first universe and it may not be the last.

Perhaps nothing can be created from nothing but,isn't it more likely that,at the moment of the big bang,everything already did exist. (In a form unrecognisable to us,maybe)?

Nobody can know for certain and the only people who can definitely be said to be wrong are those who claim to already have all the answers.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Its only human nature to question everything, we cant just accept something for what it is and I think this may be true for the whole space and life question, why are we here? Why is this even a question cant we just accept it, there's probably not even an answer for this dumb made up question that only humans care about. Even if we did find out that there is a god we'd only end up questioning that aswell and pick at it, the answers are never good enough for us. We all know if you took away the sun then our planet would die, we are not too close to the sun that we burn and we are not too far that we would freeze, just balancing in the sweet spot to create the right conditions, unlike our neighbouring planets. Leave a plate of food out in the right conditions and within a week you get mould, in a couple of years you'd get a mushroom or two, what would happen if you left that plate for a few hundred billion years in the right conditions would you get trees and flowers and shit and its own little atmosphere? We may only be gods leftover sunday roast haha. If we learned anything from jurassic park its that "life finds a way".

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Science isn't hostile to the notion of God per se, it just applies the same standard of evidence to it as anything else. "

This infers science has a stance on god. It doesn't. The evidence for a god is neither abundant nor lacking. That which science is exploring is either manifested by a god, in which case all of science requires a god. Or it is manifested by some other means, in which case science does not require it. Unfortunately the issue of what manifested everything is most likely to remain forever beyond science's grasp. So the issue remains firmly a philosophical issue only. Not a scientific one at all.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

"Science isn't hostile to the notion of God per se, it just applies the same standard of evidence to it as anything else.

The claim that, for example, God can intervene in the natural world in answer to prayers is one that is possible to investigate scientifically.

If proper tests showed that what people prayed for consistently happened that would be strong evidence that God exists.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

No God, spirit or any other non human entity, real or imagined, has ever done achieved anything remotely close to what human beings applying scientific principles have achieved. "

Hahaha...what were those synonyms for dogmatic again.......opinionated, peremptory, assertive, imperative, insistent, emphatic, adamant, doctrinaire, authoritarian, authoritative, domineering, imperious, high-handed, pontifical, arrogant, overbearing, dictatorial, uncompromising, unyielding, unbending, inflexible, rigid, entrenched, unquestionable, unchallengeable; intolerant, narrow-minded, small-minded......yup, that seems to cover it!!

And you know this *fact* because?? Or maybe you are just a true believer - no decent scientist would make such an arrogant, idiotic statement lol, it's WAY beyond their brief!

I have no idea what there was before the big bang, but if it turns out there was just spirit, you're going to look such a tit!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"Science isn't hostile to the notion of God per se, it just applies the same standard of evidence to it as anything else.

Wise words.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

No God, spirit or any other non human entity, real or imagined, has ever done achieved anything remotely close to what human beings applying scientific principles have achieved.

And you know this *fact* because?? Or maybe you are just a true believer - no decent scientist would make such an arrogant, idiotic statement lol, it's WAY beyond their brief!

I have no idea what there was before the big bang, but if it turns out there was just spirit, you're going to look such a tit!

Rather than going for an ad hominem attack, perhaps you could tell me one thing that any non human entity has done to make my life better?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

No God, spirit or any other non human entity, real or imagined, has ever done achieved anything remotely close to what human beings applying scientific principles have achieved.

And you know this *fact* because?? Or maybe you are just a true believer - no decent scientist would make such an arrogant, idiotic statement lol, it's WAY beyond their brief!

I have no idea what there was before the big bang, but if it turns out there was just spirit, you're going to look such a tit!

Rather than going for an ad hominem attack, perhaps you could tell me one thing that any non human entity has done to make my life better? "

No honey, that's not my brief. But before you get too rooted in a dogmatic certainty balanced precariously on the scientific method, I refer you again to a para from the Quantum Physics article I quoted last week:

"Simply by observing a particle's path – even if that observation should not disturb the particle's motion – we change the outcome.

The physicist Pascual Jordan, who worked with quantum guru Niels Bohr in Copenhagen in the 1920s, put it like this: "observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it… We compel [a quantum particle] to assume a definite position." In other words, Jordan said, "we ourselves produce the results of measurements."

If that is so, objective reality seems to go out of the window."

I repeat your starter for 10 - How??

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

No God, spirit or any other non human entity, real or imagined, has ever done achieved anything remotely close to what human beings applying scientific principles have achieved.

And you know this *fact* because?? Or maybe you are just a true believer - no decent scientist would make such an arrogant, idiotic statement lol, it's WAY beyond their brief!

I have no idea what there was before the big bang, but if it turns out there was just spirit, you're going to look such a tit!

Rather than going for an ad hominem attack, perhaps you could tell me one thing that any non human entity has done to make my life better?

"Simply by observing a particle's path – even if that observation should not disturb the particle's motion – we change the outcome.

If that is so, objective reality seems to go out of the window."

I repeat your starter for 10 - How??"

You do realise that we only know about quantum physics because of scientific investigation?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

No God, spirit or any other non human entity, real or imagined, has ever done achieved anything remotely close to what human beings applying scientific principles have achieved.

And you know this *fact* because?? Or maybe you are just a true believer - no decent scientist would make such an arrogant, idiotic statement lol, it's WAY beyond their brief!

I have no idea what there was before the big bang, but if it turns out there was just spirit, you're going to look such a tit!

Rather than going for an ad hominem attack, perhaps you could tell me one thing that any non human entity has done to make my life better?

"Simply by observing a particle's path – even if that observation should not disturb the particle's motion – we change the outcome.

If that is so, objective reality seems to go out of the window."

I repeat your starter for 10 - How??

You do realise that we only know about quantum physics because of scientific investigation? "

Lol, I have no problem with science...only the dogmatic.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

No God, spirit or any other non human entity, real or imagined, has ever done achieved anything remotely close to what human beings applying scientific principles have achieved.

And you know this *fact* because?? Or maybe you are just a true believer - no decent scientist would make such an arrogant, idiotic statement lol, it's WAY beyond their brief!

I have no idea what there was before the big bang, but if it turns out there was just spirit, you're going to look such a tit!

Rather than going for an ad hominem attack, perhaps you could tell me one thing that any non human entity has done to make my life better?

"Simply by observing a particle's path – even if that observation should not disturb the particle's motion – we change the outcome.

If that is so, objective reality seems to go out of the window."

I repeat your starter for 10 - How??

You do realise that we only know about quantum physics because of scientific investigation?

Lol, I have no problem with science...only the dogmatic."

As I say, science is not a dogma, it's a method for finding out about the physical world. And it's astonishingly successful as we can see all around us.

Insofar as people claim there is a spiritual world, not subject to scientific investigation, they are correct by definition if all they mean is that they feel some sort of spirit within themselves.

It's when they start making claims that are essentially scientific that problems arise. To use my prayer example, if you say prayer is effective, you are making a claim about something that is said to have an effect on the physical world. That's something that can be tested as to its truth or otherwise by use of the scientific method and I can't think of any other way to establish if it's true or not.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

No God, spirit or any other non human entity, real or imagined, has ever done achieved anything remotely close to what human beings applying scientific principles have achieved.

And you know this *fact* because?? Or maybe you are just a true believer - no decent scientist would make such an arrogant, idiotic statement lol, it's WAY beyond their brief!

I have no idea what there was before the big bang, but if it turns out there was just spirit, you're going to look such a tit!

Rather than going for an ad hominem attack, perhaps you could tell me one thing that any non human entity has done to make my life better?

"Simply by observing a particle's path – even if that observation should not disturb the particle's motion – we change the outcome.

If that is so, objective reality seems to go out of the window."

I repeat your starter for 10 - How??

You do realise that we only know about quantum physics because of scientific investigation?

Lol, I have no problem with science...only the dogmatic.

As I say, science is not a dogma, it's a method for finding out about the physical world. And it's astonishingly successful as we can see all around us.

Insofar as people claim there is a spiritual world, not subject to scientific investigation, they are correct by definition if all they mean is that they feel some sort of spirit within themselves.

I repeat: "Simply by observing a particle's path – even if that observation should not disturb the particle's motion – we change the outcome.

Just think about this for five minutes.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

No God, spirit or any other non human entity, real or imagined, has ever done achieved anything remotely close to what human beings applying scientific principles have achieved.

And you know this *fact* because?? Or maybe you are just a true believer - no decent scientist would make such an arrogant, idiotic statement lol, it's WAY beyond their brief!

I have no idea what there was before the big bang, but if it turns out there was just spirit, you're going to look such a tit!

Rather than going for an ad hominem attack, perhaps you could tell me one thing that any non human entity has done to make my life better?

"Simply by observing a particle's path – even if that observation should not disturb the particle's motion – we change the outcome.

If that is so, objective reality seems to go out of the window."

I repeat your starter for 10 - How??

You do realise that we only know about quantum physics because of scientific investigation?

Lol, I have no problem with science...only the dogmatic.

As I say, science is not a dogma, it's a method for finding out about the physical world. And it's astonishingly successful as we can see all around us.

Insofar as people claim there is a spiritual world, not subject to scientific investigation, they are correct by definition if all they mean is that they feel some sort of spirit within themselves.

I repeat: "Simply by observing a particle's path – even if that observation should not disturb the particle's motion – we change the outcome.

Just think about this for five minutes."

I have.

If I jump out of a top floor window can I fly rather than plummet to the ground if I decide that's what I want to do?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

No God, spirit or any other non human entity, real or imagined, has ever done achieved anything remotely close to what human beings applying scientific principles have achieved.

And you know this *fact* because?? Or maybe you are just a true believer - no decent scientist would make such an arrogant, idiotic statement lol, it's WAY beyond their brief!

I have no idea what there was before the big bang, but if it turns out there was just spirit, you're going to look such a tit!

Rather than going for an ad hominem attack, perhaps you could tell me one thing that any non human entity has done to make my life better?

"Simply by observing a particle's path – even if that observation should not disturb the particle's motion – we change the outcome.

If that is so, objective reality seems to go out of the window."

I repeat your starter for 10 - How??

You do realise that we only know about quantum physics because of scientific investigation?

Lol, I have no problem with science...only the dogmatic.

As I say, science is not a dogma, it's a method for finding out about the physical world. And it's astonishingly successful as we can see all around us.

Insofar as people claim there is a spiritual world, not subject to scientific investigation, they are correct by definition if all they mean is that they feel some sort of spirit within themselves.

I repeat: "Simply by observing a particle's path – even if that observation should not disturb the particle's motion – we change the outcome.

Just think about this for five minutes.

I have.

If I jump out of a top floor window can I fly rather than plummet to the ground if I decide that's what I want to do? "

I'm sorry if that is the depth of your thought and limit of your application of logic I cannot help you further.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

No God, spirit or any other non human entity, real or imagined, has ever done achieved anything remotely close to what human beings applying scientific principles have achieved.

And you know this *fact* because?? Or maybe you are just a true believer - no decent scientist would make such an arrogant, idiotic statement lol, it's WAY beyond their brief!

I have no idea what there was before the big bang, but if it turns out there was just spirit, you're going to look such a tit!

Rather than going for an ad hominem attack, perhaps you could tell me one thing that any non human entity has done to make my life better?

"Simply by observing a particle's path – even if that observation should not disturb the particle's motion – we change the outcome.

If that is so, objective reality seems to go out of the window."

I repeat your starter for 10 - How??

You do realise that we only know about quantum physics because of scientific investigation?

Lol, I have no problem with science...only the dogmatic.

As I say, science is not a dogma, it's a method for finding out about the physical world. And it's astonishingly successful as we can see all around us.

Insofar as people claim there is a spiritual world, not subject to scientific investigation, they are correct by definition if all they mean is that they feel some sort of spirit within themselves.

I repeat: "Simply by observing a particle's path – even if that observation should not disturb the particle's motion – we change the outcome.

Just think about this for five minutes.

I have.

If I jump out of a top floor window can I fly rather than plummet to the ground if I decide that's what I want to do?

I'm sorry if that is the depth of your thought and limit of your application of logic I cannot help you further."

I was taking up the phrase "we ourselves produce the results of own measurements" if that doesn't mean that what happens in the physical world is dependent on subjective mind states, I don't know what it does mean.

I don't pretend to understand quantum physics, but it's quite clear that all of us operate on the basis of the conventional scientific method which posits an objective predictable world.

If you saw someone collapse in front of you and in imminent danger of death, you wouldn't try to pray or think him well or rely on any kind of subjective mind state. You would call a doctor who would use good old fashioned objective medical science to get him well.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Op hasn't been online for more than 3 hours, do you think 'they' got him ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Op hasn't been online for more than 3 hours, do you think 'they' got him ? "

I liked his threads.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *SAchickWoman
over a year ago

Hillside desolate

Aw was that the conspiracy theory guy? His threads were interesting

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It would seem he lost his credibility

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hetalkingstoveMan
over a year ago

London

I don't pretend to understand quantum physics

Nor do the people who try to use it as a way to open the door to spiritual mumbo-jumbo. It's pure conjecture and wish fulfillment.

Back when humanity didn't understand the weather or the stars, we had gods to explain them.

Before we understood mental illness, we thought demons and possession existed.

Now the sphere of things we don't understand has been reduced, people are moving onto uncertainty about quantum physics to try and find room for made up stuff.

One day we'll unwrap quantum physics and just like every other time we came to understand something, there'll be no gods or spirits or magic behind it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *anDare70Man
over a year ago

kirkby

Eloquent and appropriate response

Nicely done

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *fcdTV/TS
over a year ago

Southend

"Before that there was nothing. Well this cannot be as something , Not even light or 1 atom , can be created from nothingness. It's impossible . "

Quantum physics would disagree with you on that one. The deeper you look at this stuff i.e. the true nature of matter, how things work at the quantum level and all the apparent impossibilities that throws up, the weirder it gets.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

I don't pretend to understand quantum physics

Nor do the people who try to use it as a way to open the door to spiritual mumbo-jumbo. It's pure conjecture and wish fulfillment.

Back when humanity didn't understand the weather or the stars, we had gods to explain them.

Before we understood mental illness, we thought demons and possession existed.

Now the sphere of things we don't understand has been reduced, people are moving onto uncertainty about quantum physics to try and find room for made up stuff.

One day we'll unwrap quantum physics and just like every other time we came to understand something, there'll be no gods or spirits or magic behind it."

I appreciate people who go on about it on here know as much about it as I do. They just latch on the indeterminacy to try to cast doubt on the scientific method.

Which as I have said is ironic given that quantum physics is a triumph of scientific reasoning...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Around 1900 different types of Logic were created/discovered that is different from aristotlian logic(common sense).

Learning non aristotlian logic can help people think better.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't pretend to understand quantum physics

Nor do the people who try to use it as a way to open the door to spiritual mumbo-jumbo. It's pure conjecture and wish fulfillment.

Back when humanity didn't understand the weather or the stars, we had gods to explain them.

Before we understood mental illness, we thought demons and possession existed.

Now the sphere of things we don't understand has been reduced, people are moving onto uncertainty about quantum physics to try and find room for made up stuff.

One day we'll unwrap quantum physics and just like every other time we came to understand something, there'll be no gods or spirits or magic behind it."

Nevertheless, I'm sure we won't be underwhelmed by it!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread