ConfusedInOC Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Originally posted by alphamale hmmm...what's goin' on with all this intellectual banter XY32? maybe one day we can discuss particle physics and the grand unification theory. How about dark matter and the wormhole theory? Or how about "Intelligent Design?" I like that subject. Link to post Share on other sites
alphamale Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Originally posted by ConfusedInOC How about dark matter and the wormhole theory? where is steven hawkins when u need him?? or maybe Carl "there r billions & billions" Sagan. Oh i forgot, he's dead. Link to post Share on other sites
tokyo Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Originally posted by ConfusedInOC Faith is faith. Then don't confuse it with science then. However, I can give you links, the same ones I read that convinced me to accepted Christ. If you want them I can PM them to you. I don't think I can post them here. Thank you, but there's not much that can convince me to believe. I know what I do not believe in, but you should make sure that you know what you believe in. Confused and Alpha, are you guys trying to show off with your not-existing knowledge of higher science? Link to post Share on other sites
ConfusedInOC Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Originally posted by kooky Then don't confuse it with science then. I'm not. Both are faith based. Thank you, but there's not much that can convince me to believe. I know what I do not believe in, but you should make sure that you know what you believe in. Again, kooky, faith is faith. Be it science or religious based. Unless you've got a PhD in a sceintific field, I'm not convinved YOU know exactly what you think you believe in either. You have some theories, but don't know anymore than faith based religions. Confused and Alpha, are you guys trying to show off with your not-existing knowledge of higher science? Not-exisiting? I think you mean NON. Either way, I don't have a PhD in Astrophysics and never claimed to be an expert. Are you? Link to post Share on other sites
blind_otter Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Originally posted by ConfusedInOC Excellent example. I wonder why Freud ignored this? Because Freud died in 1939. Pol Pot was later in the centery, and Freud was doddering by the time Stalin came into power. Mao was establishing communist China 1931-34, so that was also too far towards the end of Freud's life for him to probably even be that aware of the eventual impact on his work. Link to post Share on other sites
tokyo Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Originally posted by ConfusedInOC I'm not. Both are faith based. AU. Ok, I'll leave it up to someone else to argue with you. Link to post Share on other sites
alphamale Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Originally posted by kooky Confused and Alpha, are you guys trying to show off with your not-existing knowledge of higher science? I am a math 'n science dude KOOKY. Made it thru Calculus level 3 in college and have probably read 150 books on astrophysics, astronomy, cosmology and other sciences. Link to post Share on other sites
blind_otter Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 I dunno. Has there been any recent research on God? Like with statistical data using standardized measurements that are agreed-upon by the religious community? Saying that science and religion are both faith-based is a facile argument at best. Prove it. Ya wouldn't think it but I was a math major for 2 years and also did calc 1-3 and differential equations and all the physics and stuff. I love Richard Feynman. I would have his lovechild. Link to post Share on other sites
ConfusedInOC Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Originally posted by blind_otter Prove it. Can you show me how the universe started that isn't a "theory?" Nope. It's takes just as much faith to believe everything happened by coincidence as it does by the hand of God. Read up on "intelligent design." Makes a lot more sense than everything starting from nothing. Link to post Share on other sites
d'Arthez Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Intelligent design tries to combine the best of two theories, but has glaring weaknesses. If we can come to an understanding of the nature, without relying on God, why would we have to make the assumption of God as one Frenchman is said to have reported to Napoleon? Link to post Share on other sites
ConfusedInOC Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Originally posted by d'Arthez Intelligent design tries to combine the best of two theories, but has glaring weaknesses. Such as?? If we can come to an understanding of the nature, without relying on God, why would we have to make the assumption of God as one Frenchman is said to have reported to Napoleon? I don't believe in assumptions of God. I believe the Bible is God's word. Link to post Share on other sites
ConfusedInOC Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Originally posted by kooky AU. Ok, I'll leave it up to someone else to argue with you. Uh, ok. Link to post Share on other sites
tokyo Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Originally posted by ConfusedInOC Can you show me how the universe started that isn't a "theory?" Nope. "Theory" does not mean coming up with some nutty ideas when you are on drugs, at least not in science. Originally posted by ConfusedInOC I believe the Bible is God's word. AUA. Link to post Share on other sites
d'Arthez Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 But that is not scientific OC. Why would you need to make an assumption of God, if science advances without mentioning God? If God is incomprehensible and influences everything, we cannot come to an understanding of Nature, or the Human Mind. Science would be futile then, as we could not grasp God's influence on things, after they were created. But the whole point of the idea of intelligent design thing, is that God does not influence matter since the creation. But if God does not influence, science does not have to account for the influence of God, in its observations, and mathematical deductions on how Nature works; in short God becomes an assumption in the Universe, which is not needed. Unless you would agree with the argument that the universe is as old as you are, and the rest is a ploy by God to make us think otherwise. That is an argument that cannot be formally rejected; but again, intuitively speaking it does not make much sense. The person you cal "mom" is not your mother, for instance. Link to post Share on other sites
MySugaree Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Saying that science and religion are both faith-based is a facile argument at best. Prove it. Ya wouldn't think it but I was a math major for 2 years and also did calc 1-3 and differential equations and all the physics and stuff. I love Richard Feynman. I would have his lovechild. You go, girl! bo, you're the only person I know who could place "Feynman" and "lovechild" in the same paragraph. Nice. Link to post Share on other sites
blind_otter Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Originally posted by d'Arthez But that is not scientific OC. Why would you need to make an assumption of God, if science advances without mentioning God? If God is incomprehensible and influences everything, we cannot come to an understanding of Nature, or the Human Mind. Science would be futile then, as we could not grasp God's influence on things, after they were created. But the whole point of the idea of intelligent design thing, is that God does not influence matter since the creation. But if God does not influence, science does not have to account for the influence of God, in its observations, and mathematical deductions on how Nature works; in short God becomes an assumption in the Universe, which is not needed. Unless you would agree with the argument that the universe is as old as you are, and the rest is a ploy by God to make us think otherwise. That is an argument that cannot be formally rejected; but again, intuitively speaking it does not make much sense. The person you cal "mom" is not your mother, for instance. Word. OC, I still don't see any kind of justification that science and religion are both faith based. What, do I have to have faith in the base ten number system? Faith in the language of mathematics, which you can use to describe anything? Link to post Share on other sites
ConfusedInOC Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Originally posted by kooky "Theory" does not mean coming up with some nutty ideas when you are on drugs, at least not in science. AUA. You dismiss what you can not explain through drugs?! No credibility whatsoever. Link to post Share on other sites
blind_otter Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Originally posted by MySugaree You go, girl! bo, you're the only person I know who could place "Feynman" and "lovechild" in the same paragraph. Nice. The dorkiest part is, it's true. Link to post Share on other sites
ConfusedInOC Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Originally posted by blind_otter Word. OC, I still don't see any kind of justification that science and religion are both faith based. What, do I have to have faith in the base ten number system? Faith in the language of mathematics, which you can use to describe anything? That which can not be PROVEN is based on FAITH. And unless anyone here has a time machine to take them from the birth of the universe through today, it's a lot of speculation. Mathematics is not faith based, true. Nor does it, in regards to the origin of the universe, prove a thing. Link to post Share on other sites
blind_otter Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Originally posted by ConfusedInOC That which can not be PROVEN is based on FAITH. And unless anyone here has a time machine to take them from the birth of the universe through today, it's a lot of speculation. Mathematics is not faith based, true. Nor does it, in regards to the origin of the universe, prove a thing. Religious beliefs are held upon faith; no rational explanation is required or sought after. What I'm getting at is, you're using "faith" in the wrong context. In science and mathematics, rational explanation and proofs are required for a theory to be accepted in the scientific community. I am also loathe to restrict "faith" just to theories regarding the origin of the universe. Religion is much more than that, and some religions don't even address the issue (eg BUddhism). Link to post Share on other sites
ConfusedInOC Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Originally posted by blind_otter Religious beliefs are held upon faith; no rational explanation is required or sought after. What I'm getting at is, you're using "faith" in the wrong context. In science and mathematics, rational explanation and proofs are required for a theory to be accepted in the scientific community. I am also loathe to restrict "faith" just to theories regarding the origin of the universe. Religion is much more than that, and some religions don't even address the issue (eg BUddhism). The origin of the universe would prove why we're here (by God or by chance) so that is why it's commonly used as the grounds for debate. I don't doubt Einstein's theory of relativity, gravity, time, space, etc. I am saying to believe we're all here by "chance" takes as much faith as religion. Link to post Share on other sites
prisoner Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 confused in OC: I have been reading your humble opinions for the best part of ten minutes and i have to tell you that i am appalled by the very premise that you are smarter than everyone else. When you get your PHDs (plural) in Theology and Psychology (anyone worth their salt saying what you say has both) then I think you may be able to demean and subordinate everyone around you. And before you go off on another rant about how it is my lack of faith that causes my being unimpressed by you and your 'teachings' just make sure that you are prepared because I am one poster that you do not want to mess with. and just to be clear. it is not the debate I am at issue with. it is not anyone else's opinion. it is not your right to express yourself. it is the xenophobic homophobic non-compassionate legal back to the fifties attitude you spill that has my back up. did you read the purpose driven life? Iam sure that anyone would counsel you that your views and the way you express them are not in service to anyone but you yourself and the rest. NOT AJWD. Link to post Share on other sites
Moose Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 just make sure that you are prepared because I am one poster that you do not want to mess withOh boy......not someone else who thinks they've got it all figured out......... Link to post Share on other sites
ConfusedInOC Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Originally posted by prisoner confused in OC: I have been reading your humble opinions for the best part of ten minutes and i have to tell you that i am appalled by the very premise that you are smarter than everyone else. Never said that, that's your assumption. When you get your PHDs (plural) in Theology and Psychology (anyone worth their salt saying what you say has both) then I think you may be able to demean and subordinate everyone around you. Again, not what I am saying. That's your assumption. And before you go off on another rant about how it is my lack of faith that causes my being unimpressed by you and your 'teachings' just make sure that you are prepared because I am one poster that you do not want to mess with. Frankly, I could care less. and just to be clear. it is not the debate I am at issue with. it is not anyone else's opinion. it is not your right to express yourself. it is the xenophobic homophobic non-compassionate legal back to the fifties attitude you spill that has my back up. did you read the purpose driven life? Iam sure that anyone would counsel you that your views and the way you express them are not in service to anyone but you yourself and the rest. NOT AJWD. Yes, I own the book and have given several away. We all have opinions. I don't care if you like mine or not, but they're all mine. We can argue opinions all day and are, but if you're taking personal offense to my own opinions then that's your own personal problem. Again, I could care less. Link to post Share on other sites
alphamale Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Originally posted by prisoner just make sure that you are prepared because I am one poster that you do not want to mess with. you're gonna need some MAJOR bandwidth to physically assault us over the internet Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts