• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Science a religion?

ludin said:
no what i said is that there are plenty of people that have had near death experiences to back it up. so if you want to call all those people liars then be my guest but the thouands of people a year that have near death experiences each one being different says there is more to it than nothing.

i feel sorry for people that believe that this life is it and after they die there is nothing.
what a sad existance to lead.
Click to expand...

Those experiences are caused by the brain, and do not in any way prove there is an afterlife.
 
Luftwaffe said:
I dont believe there is nothing after.

but that isn't the point, I accept your concession and acknowledge your silly argument in which you haven't posted a single shred of evidence.
Click to expand...

i didn't conceed at all. Near death experiences are very real fully documented about what the person had. I have posted evidence. evidence of testimony is still evidence.
so if you are saying that these people didn't experience what they did then prove it.

if you can't then you have no ground to stand on.
 
Henrin said:
Those experiences are caused by the brain, and do not in any way prove there is an afterlife.
Click to expand...

proven by who? plenty of people say they have seen past loved ones and heaven.
other people have seen hell and demons. other people have been standing over themselves and see all their family members in the room.

to say that it is simply the brain is nothing more than a distraction.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Exactly. Since I know a number of PhD scientists in various fields who are also people of faith--I have sat in church pews beside several of them--it simply doesn't wash that you cannot be both religious AND a person of science. In fact those who deny religious experience, despite the testimony of mega millions, even billions, are the close minded, illogical ones. Does every religious theory or belief have to be accepted? Of course not. Not even the religious think that as is testified by all the myriad religious and all the different Christian denominations. If all thought or believed in tandem, there would be but one religion and no denominations or sects.

Likewise all scientists do not agree on each theory or conclusion as is testified by the huge science section to be found in all public libraries--each volume offering differing views, theories, and conclusions as scientific knowledge has expanded and changed over the centuries.

But those who insist that science is pure and uncontestable and all that is worth knowing, and who dismiss anything that doesn't fit into the scientific mold, indeed do make a religion of science and worship it in what I think is an unhealthy way.
Click to expand...

I subscribe to the ethos that the human mind is easily fooled. We see less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum, hear a tiny range of frequencies, our brains are conditioned to seek patterns where there are none, to attribute meaning to coincidence, to fool and manipulate our own senses depending on circumstance, to manipulate our feelings and emotions with dopamine and other hormones. Unfortunately, this all means that subjective experience is a practically useless tool in understanding the world around us.

It means admitting that there are some inherent human deficiencies but once you begin to accept that our minds are not rational, and that you often can't even trust your own senses you begin to realize why science is required to understand the world around us. The results of science speak for themselves.
 
Mostly like but religion can change its mind too. For example, limbo no longer exists in the eyes of the catholic church. Benedict swept it away with a few words. Of course, that wasn't an official teaching. I bet there are some other less noticeable cases where religion changes its mind.



RogueWarrior said:
Oh where to begin.

Religion requires faith.
Science requires evidence and never shall the twain shall meet.

Religion is never wrong even if evidence proves it to be so.
Science is presumed wrong and thoroughly tested until little doubt remains. Science is never considered completely right because we have not even scratched the surface of scientific knowledge despite everything we have accomplished as a species.
Click to expand...
 
There isn't really any conflict except with bible or other religous text literalism. Then you have to start fighting science and its a losing battle.


nota bene said:
What I've never understood is the assumption that a person of faith rejects scientific evidence. Scientific fact is what it is, and I've never experienced any tension at all between my faith and my understanding of science. In fact, I find every scientific discovery yet another testimony to the limitless imagination of our Creator. No conflict at all.
Click to expand...
 
A lot of this stuff is just lack of knowledge about the timing of events and not a result of choosing religion over science. W/r to creationism vs. evolution the poll numbers seem overstated in this and other polls in favor of creationism. A lot of it is the way the polls ask the question. You can support evolution for example but still believe that god has something to do with it if in no other way than getting the ball rolling.

Pew research examined the evolution/creation polls and found them to be conflicting. Sometimes even in the same poll because of the way the questions were asked. They didn't try to quantify how far off the real numbers were other than to say its lower than whats normally reported in the media.


RogueWarrior said:
Americans


Just multiply those percentages by 330 000 000. That is a lot of stupid.
Click to expand...
 
ColdSteel said:
So a buddy of mine posed this question to me. He's not a big fan of begin called a atheist because he claims that science is a religion making him... i don't really know what, theist seems more like deity-related religions, maybe scientist?...

Anyways, an official definition of a religion is "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"

So is Science a modern religion?
Click to expand...

No.
Science is a method of finding the truth based on fact, observation, and experimentation. Religion is a belief system based on ancient writings.

Scientists do not get together weekly to confirm their belief in basic scientific theories. They try their best, in fact, to disprove those theories. Only when they fail do they succeed.

Science does not confirm atheism. The concept of god and science are two very different things.

Science has, however, disproven some religious beliefs, like the young earth creation nonsense for example.
 
ludin said:
i didn't conceed at all. Near death experiences are very real fully documented about what the person had. I have posted evidence. evidence of testimony is still evidence.
so if you are saying that these people didn't experience what they did then prove it.

if you can't then you have no ground to stand on.
Click to expand...

I dont have to disprove that they experienced their moments, they would have to prove to everyone that they experienced it, which they can't.

burden shifting is a fallacy ya know.

YOU have no ground to stand on.
 
ludin said:
yep i did.

you saying uh huh which is your whole entire argument isn't an argument at all.
i proved my claim i posted the article that has come out with a new theory that says the big bang couldn't have occured.
i then went onto prove that this theory is backed up by prior work from Penrose and hawking.

you on the other have have no argument but ad hominems and opinions.
so you don't know as much as you think you do.
Click to expand...

You haven't proved squat...hell, you haven't even linked to your article.
 
TobyOne said:
Mostly like but religion can change its mind too. For example, limbo no longer exists in the eyes of the catholic church. Benedict swept it away with a few words. Of course, that wasn't an official teaching. I bet there are some other less noticeable cases where religion changes its mind.
Click to expand...


Lets see the Mormons reverse their belief of white people coming from N. America.
 
ludin said:
no what i said is that there are plenty of people that have had near death experiences to back it up. so if you want to call all those people liars then be my guest but the thouands of people a year that have near death experiences each one being different says there is more to it than nothing.

i feel sorry for people that believe that this life is it and after they die there is nothing.
what a sad existance to lead.
Click to expand...


Yet, what is that evidence of?? it is evidence that people share a biological blueprint for their brain, which reacts in a very specific manner when undergoing oxygen deprivation.

http://psychology.jrank.org/pages/444/Near-Death-Experience.html
Near-Death Experiences Linked to Oxygen Deprivation

One thing that is common among all 'near death' experiences is that the brain did indeed keep functioning, and did not die.
 
Nilly said:
I subscribe to the ethos that the human mind is easily fooled. We see less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum, hear a tiny range of frequencies, our brains are conditioned to seek patterns where there are none, to attribute meaning to coincidence, to fool and manipulate our own senses depending on circumstance, to manipulate our feelings and emotions with dopamine and other hormones. Unfortunately, this all means that subjective experience is a practically useless tool in understanding the world around us.

It means admitting that there are some inherent human deficiencies but once you begin to accept that our minds are not rational, and that you often can't even trust your own senses you begin to realize why science is required to understand the world around us. The results of science speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

I regard science as discovered truths of our material existence and environment and as subject to error or incomplete knowledge as anything else. I believe we have but a teensy fraction of all the science there is to know, and that science is useless when it comes to much of our experience that is as important to our existence as is the material.

Remember that it was once considered settled science that:
--The rain follows the plow. It was not until modern meteorology shot holes in that theory that the concept was abandoned.
--That something called phlogiston existed and was a necessary element of fire.
--The heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones.
--That alchemy was a valid science.
--That the liver circulates the blood.
--That the Earth is the center of the universe and the sun, stars, and planets revolve around it.
--That bad air caused infection in surgery. (That was not disputed until the discovery of germs in the late 19th century.)
--That DNA, discovered in 1869, was not important but existing proteins were. That fallacy persisted into well after the mid 20th century.
--That the atom was the smallest particle in the universe.
--That the Earth is roughly 6000 years old. The fallacy of that wasn't even questioned until the 19th century and not proved until carbon dating was developed in the 20th Century.

So what of modern science considered 'settled science' do we have wrong now? Does anybody with a sense of history not believe that many modern scientific concepts will be shown to be in error years or centuries from now and that we will have increased in scientific knowledge by huge leaps and bounds in the next 100 years as we have done in the last 100 years?

To make present day science one's religion is to close one's mind to all the possibilities that are out there. IMO such persons are not scientific at all.

For th
 
Paschendale said:
That's why there's a conflict.



No one has ever managed to demonstrate the existence of a metaphysical or spiritual reality. There are metaphysical and spiritual ideas, but they don't actually seem to do anything. The "reality" in question often boils down to nothing more than emotional feelings, which of course is part of physical reality.



You get a Nobel prize if you question global warming with actual evidence. By "question", I of course mean prove it wrong, as opposed to nitpicking a few of the exact details.



The ideas that are accepted are so because they are the best answers we've yet discovered. One of the fundamental ideas in science is that there could always be better answers discovered later on. And you are encouraged to go out and find them. How does that seem like faith to you?



The implications from the Higgs particle does not preclude the big bang at all. Have you ever read any scientific papers about the big bang or the Higgs particle?



And what exactly is outside the realm of observation? Please give some specific examples.



Congratulations, you do not have even a minimal amount of understanding of evolutionary biology. I recommend reading On the Origin of Species and probably The Selfish Gene as well.



We most certainly know that. We also know that this is a feature, not a bug, of science. Science is not a list of facts. It is a method for determining reality. That method includes refining and altering existing theories in order to accommodate new discoveries.



NDEs are demonstrated to be chemical emergencies in your brain. The same as any other hallucination. Why would these be different merely because of which state of duress the body is under?

I've had an NDE. It was no different than a dream. At least not to my observation as my mind was going all haywire as I was drowning.
Click to expand...

And that is a good thing.
 
Paschendale said:
If you don't disagree, then where do you get your "worshiping science" idea from?
Click to expand...

From people on this site who do worship science. From closed minded individual who think science is inflatable. From people who take such things as the big bang theory and claim it is fact. That the universe couldn't possibly have come into existence from any other source or means. I take the big bang theory for what it is, a theory. A theory that is here today until something else due to the gain of knowledge replaces it as I am sure will happen one day.

I notice a lot of people scoff at religion, any religion. Can gods or multiple gods be proven or disproved via science? Especially since science is constantly changing. What we know today will change tomorrow. Then there are things that are unknown that will continue to be unknown, thing that happen without rational explanations that will continue to happen.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I regard science as discovered truths of our material existence and environment and as subject to error or incomplete knowledge as anything else. I believe we have but a teensy fraction of all the science there is to know, and that science is useless when it comes to much of our experience that is as important to our existence as is the material.

Remember that it was once considered settled science that:
--The rain follows the plow. It was not until modern meteorology shot holes in that theory that the concept was abandoned.
--That something called phlogiston existed and was a necessary element of fire.
--The heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones.
--That alchemy was a valid science.
--That the liver circulates the blood.
--That the Earth is the center of the universe and the sun, stars, and planets revolve around it.
--That bad air caused infection in surgery. (That was not disputed until the discovery of germs in the late 19th century.)
--That DNA, discovered in 1869, was not important but existing proteins were. That fallacy persisted into well after the mid 20th century.
--That the atom was the smallest particle in the universe.
--That the Earth is roughly 6000 years old. The fallacy of that wasn't even questioned until the 19th century and not proved until carbon dating was developed in the 20th Century.

So what of modern science considered 'settled science' do we have wrong now? Does anybody with a sense of history not believe that many modern scientific concepts will be shown to be in error years or centuries from now and that we will have increased in scientific knowledge by huge leaps and bounds in the next 100 years as we have done in the last 100 years?

To make present day science one's religion is to close one's mind to all the possibilities that are out there. IMO such persons are not scientific at all.

For th
Click to expand...

I don't know how the age of the earth being 6000 years old could be considered a 'settled science' when it isn't a scientific conclusion at all, but a religious one. The conclusion that the earth is the center of the universe is based on the exact subjective experience that modern science now tries to avoid. Alchemy is certainly not scientific due to its inclusion of Hermetic principles. Heavier objects falling faster than light ones is a perfect example of how subjective human experience is ill equipped to describe the world around us. Even now many people think that light objects fall faster than heavier ones (I even had to explain this to a group of college educated friends - to my dismay) as that seems to be common sense. Unfortunately the way our minds perceive the world is often not how the world works at all. Common sensical things that add up perfectly in your head (e.g. god caused event x to happen) do not actually translate into the real world. These blips in human rationality are things that modern science attempts to circumvent through repetition, falsifiability and error thresholds.

Nevertheless, you are correct in saying that science has often been wrong over the years. It is of course, a learning process. However, that still doesn't mean that it is inherently superior as a way of describing and explaining our world than subjective human experience. With regards to the basic workings of our universe, we actually have that pretty much down. Quantum mechanics has made successful predictions down to an error of under 0.0000000001%. Prof Michio Kaku once said “It is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century, the silliest is quantum theory. In fact, some say that the only thing that quantum theory has going for it is that it is unquestionably correct.”. Most new theories these days are actually just tweaks and corrections to existing theories. Einsteins theory of relativity may have superseded Newtons laws of motions, however that does not mean the Newtons laws are wrong, they are still taught up to undergraduate level, it's just that have new models that are more accurate.

Finally, I deplore the idea that scientists are close minded to all the possibilities out there. Scientists have shown time and time again that they are some of the most open people when it comes to the world around us. Science requires an imagination in order to contemplate new theories. It's taken scientists to show the world that time and space are the same thing, that when you look into the distance you are peering back into time, that we are 99% empty space, that we are biologically related to monkeys, that matter can be waves and particles at the same time, that we are made of materials that were forged in exploding stars. It's poetic. You literally could not make this stuff up. I, and multitudes of other scientists out there are open to any multitude of possibilities (including one of a supreme being, or of a spiritual world - after all, the theory of a multiverse has been posited, why couldn't one of them be a universe of spirits). We just have one teensy weensy requirement, show us some suitable evidence for it so we can take you seriously.
 
[SUB][/SUB]
Perotista said:
From people on this site who do worship science. From closed minded individual who think science is inflatable. From people who take such things as the big bang theory and claim it is fact. That the universe couldn't possibly have come into existence from any other source or means. I take the big bang theory for what it is, a theory. A theory that is here today until something else due to the gain of knowledge replaces it as I am sure will happen one day.

I notice a lot of people scoff at religion, any religion. Can gods or multiple gods be proven or disproved via science? Especially since science is constantly changing. What we know today will change tomorrow. Then there are things that are unknown that will continue to be unknown, thing that happen without rational explanations that will continue to happen.
Click to expand...

I have always thanked my Creator for my Science abilities.
I take solace in the word Creator, since that's the one in the Constitution.
I proudly used my Maker or Creator in the classroom routinely with no negative feedback.

One special on H[SUB]2[/SUB] was on four great ancient geniuses--Archimedes, Heron, Pillon, Ctesibius--absolutely incredible discoveries.
The sad part was Rome burned down most of the Library at Alexandrea around 200 BC, which I now call the beginning of the Dark ages.
Untold loss in technology.

Now get yerself over to the sports threads where we're having fun--even with that so-and-so Rice.
And how about Atlanta Falcons and Georgia Bulldogs.

And I felt your pain earlier.
Time for Linc to step up for his buddy .
 
Perotista said:
From people on this site who do worship science. From closed minded individual who think science is inflatable. From people who take such things as the big bang theory and claim it is fact. That the universe couldn't possibly have come into existence from any other source or means. I take the big bang theory for what it is, a theory. A theory that is here today until something else due to the gain of knowledge replaces it as I am sure will happen one day.

I notice a lot of people scoff at religion, any religion. Can gods or multiple gods be proven or disproved via science? Especially since science is constantly changing. What we know today will change tomorrow. Then there are things that are unknown that will continue to be unknown, thing that happen without rational explanations that will continue to happen.
Click to expand...


The whole 'just a theory' thing stems from a misunderstanding of the scientific term. The word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. In the lay world, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing. Remember, gravity is 'just a theory' too.
 
Nilly said:
I don't know how the age of the earth being 6000 years old could be considered a 'settled science' when it isn't a scientific conclusion at all, but a religious one. The conclusion that the earth is the center of the universe is based on the exact subjective experience that modern science now tries to avoid. Alchemy is certainly not scientific due to its inclusion of Hermetic principles. Heavier objects falling faster than light ones is a perfect example of how subjective human experience is ill equipped to describe the world around us. Even now many people think that light objects fall faster than heavier ones (I even had to explain this to a group of college educated friends - to my dismay) as that seems to be common sense. Unfortunately the way our minds perceive the world is often not how the world works at all. Common sensical things that add up perfectly in your head (e.g. god caused event x to happen) do not actually translate into the real world. These blips in human rationality are things that modern science attempts to circumvent through repetition, falsifiability and error thresholds.

Nevertheless, you are correct in saying that science has often been wrong over the years. It is of course, a learning process. However, that still doesn't mean that it is inherently superior as a way of describing and explaining our world than subjective human experience. With regards to the basic workings of our universe, we actually have that pretty much down. Quantum mechanics has made successful predictions down to an error of under 0.0000000001%. Prof Michio Kaku once said “It is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century, the silliest is quantum theory. In fact, some say that the only thing that quantum theory has going for it is that it is unquestionably correct.”. Most new theories these days are actually just tweaks and corrections to existing theories. Einsteins theory of relativity may have superseded Newtons laws of motions, however that does not mean the Newtons laws are wrong, they are still taught up to undergraduate level, it's just that have new models that are more accurate.

Finally, I deplore the idea that scientists are close minded to all the possibilities out there. Scientists have shown time and time again that they are some of the most open people when it comes to the world around us. Science requires an imagination in order to contemplate new theories. It's taken scientists to show the world that time and space are the same thing, that when you look into the distance you are peering back into time, that we are 99% empty space, that we are biologically related to monkeys, that matter can be waves and particles at the same time, that we are made of materials that were forged in exploding stars. It's poetic. You literally could not make this stuff up. I, and multitudes of other scientists out there are open to any multitude of possibilities (including one of a supreme being, or of a spiritual world - after all, the theory of a multiverse has been posited, why couldn't one of them be a universe of spirits). We just have one teensy weensy requirement, show us some suitable evidence for it so we can take you seriously.
Click to expand...

There was no 'evidence' for the theory of an Earth that revolved around the sun. Just a logical conclusion that developed in the minds of those open to something possible that was not yet provable. There was no evidence whatsoever of a round Earth in the 15th Century but only those who observed phenomena and theorized of that possibility. The evidence was not available until the 16th Century. The fact that religion and science was aligned on the 6000-year-old Earth theory does not dismiss the idea that the scientific world at that time was unified on that as a fact.

So you approve of scientific open mindedness that is open to all that we do not yet know. Except that you want the scientific mind to be closed to the possibility of a spirit world or multi-verse unless somebody can show evidence? What kind of reasoning is that? There is evidence in the testimony of thousands, millions, even billions of people who have witnessed the unexplainable. That along should generate scientific curiosity, not shut it down.
 
Last edited:
Perotista said:
From people on this site who do worship science. From closed minded individual who think science is inflatable. From people who take such things as the big bang theory and claim it is fact.
Click to expand...

... The big bang is effectively a fact. Our universe began about 14 billion years ago in an explosive singularity. There is literally not a single piece of evidence discovered that contradicts this. Are you suggesting that conforming one's ideas to the evidence is "closed minded" or "worshiping"? How is conclusions about the origin of the universe from observable data any different than conclusions about whether or not it is safe to cross a street based on looking at the cars on it?

That the universe couldn't possibly have come into existence from any other source or means. I take the big bang theory for what it is, a theory. A theory that is here today until something else due to the gain of knowledge replaces it as I am sure will happen one day.
Click to expand...

See, here it sounds like you don't know what the word "theory" means in a scientific context. It doesn't mean guess. It doesn't even mean that an idea is half-formed. It means that the hypothesis accounts for every single known piece of evidence on the subject. It means that exactly zero of the knowledge we have contradicts it. But also have a misconception about "replacing" theories. They almost never get thrown out wholesale. Not in a long time. Not since we discovered most of the macro level physical laws that govern out day to day existence. Now they are refined. That the universe began in an explosive singularity is almost certainly true. The exact details might not be fully understood at this time, however.

I notice a lot of people scoff at religion, any religion. Can gods or multiple gods be proven or disproved via science?
Click to expand...

Yes. Easily. Pick one and I will.

This offer comes with the usual caveat that a god must be relevant in order to be falsifiable. Gods that are completely intangible, have no attributes, and no history of interacting with humans simply don't qualify because they don't interact with us. When it comes to Zeus, two of his innate attributes is that he lives on Mt Olympus and throws lightning down at us. Since we have gone up Mt Olympus and looked and no one is there, and we now know how lightning works, any divine thing that might resemble Zeus but lacks these qualities isn't Zeus. The specific god idea that is Zeus is proven false. Likewise, a worldwide flood did not happen. This disproves the western god, as the moral implications of the flood story are an integral part of that god. Any notion of another god that might resemble this one still isn't that god, and doesn't have any of the attributes that go with it, since all of those attributes are an essential part of the character. Ergo, no flood, no magical law that makes gay sex evil.

Oh look, I just disproved two of them.

Of course, rather than relying on us to disprove gods, it would be even better if you could actually prove the existence of one.

Especially since science is constantly changing. What we know today will change tomorrow. Then there are things that are unknown that will continue to be unknown, thing that happen without rational explanations that will continue to happen.
Click to expand...

Changing as in growing. Not changing as in everything we thought yesterday was an unsubstantiated guess. We're not going to suddenly discover that crocodiles are actually insects, or that DNA is really made of ice cream, or that the moon actually rotates.
 
AlbqOwl said:
There was no 'evidence' for the theory of an Earth that revolved around the sun. Just a logical conclusion that developed in the minds of those open to something possible that was not yet provable. There was no evidence whatsoever of a round Earth in the 15th Century but only those who observed phenomena and theorized of that possibility. The evidence was not available until the 16th Century. The fact that religion and science was aligned on the 6000-year-old Earth theory does not dismiss the idea that the scientific world at that time was unified on that as a fact.

So you approve of scientific open mindedness that is open to all that we do not yet know. Except that you want the scientific mind to be closed to the possibility of a spirit world or multi-verse unless somebody can show evidence? What kind of reasoning is that? There is evidence in the testimony of thousands, millions, even billions of people who have witnessed the unexplainable. That along should generate scientific curiosity, not shut it down.
Click to expand...

Personal testimonial does not meet the requirement for sufficient evidence. Why? Because it leads to conclusions such as 'the sun orbits the earth'. You said as much in your post.
 
RAMOSS said:
Yet, what is that evidence of?? it is evidence that people share a biological blueprint for their brain, which reacts in a very specific manner when undergoing oxygen deprivation.

http://psychology.jrank.org/pages/444/Near-Death-Experience.html
Near-Death Experiences Linked to Oxygen Deprivation

One thing that is common among all 'near death' experiences is that the brain did indeed keep functioning, and did not die.
Click to expand...

actually no these are people that are clinically dead and recessitated.
 
Nilly said:
Personal testimonial does not meet the requirement for sufficient evidence. Why? Because it leads to conclusions such as 'the sun orbits the earth'. You said as much in your post.
Click to expand...

Ah then, Columbus's testimony after he didn't sail off the edge of the Earth on his trip to the Americas should carry no weight? The testimony of Magellan's crew who returned to Spain after a trip around the world should have been given no credibility at all? They should have ignored Newton's theory of gravity? The Church and scientific community was correct to force Galileo to "abjure, curse and detest" his heliocentric opinions and to place him under house arrest? And we should not be calling witnesses to testify about what they saw and heard in court trials because after all, that can't be counted as evidence?" Can you not see how foolish it is to say that testimony is no evidence at all?

So much of science and so much of other knowledge has been generated purely by the intellectual vision or experience of humankind--much took years, even centuries, before it could be scientifically verified or otherwise authenticated. To assume that all things people testify to now should be dismissed because a) some testimony is suspect or unsupportable or b) it can't yet be tested or verified or falsified scientifically is to be extremely close minded and unscientific.
 
Perotista said:
From people on this site who do worship science. From closed minded individual who think science is inflatable. From people who take such things as the big bang theory and claim it is fact. That the universe couldn't possibly have come into existence from any other source or means. I take the big bang theory for what it is, a theory. A theory that is here today until something else due to the gain of knowledge replaces it as I am sure will happen one day.
Click to expand...

they just did read the article i posted. according to the new higgs theory. the big bang would have collapsed back in on itself milliseconds after it began expanding.
this was backed up years before by steven hawking in A brief moment in time. please see my post a few pages back it contains the calculations.

I notice a lot of people scoff at religion, any religion. Can gods or multiple gods be proven or disproved via science? Especially since science is constantly changing. What we know today will change tomorrow. Then there are things that are unknown that will continue to be unknown, thing that happen without rational explanations that will continue to happen.
Click to expand...

science can't prove it because science only deals with what we observe it doesn't deal with what we don't observe.

to some people this universe is all that exists and that is what they put their faith in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom