• 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!

Mysterious 'Dark Energy' May Not Exist, Study Claims

-Personally, I do not believe that physics has anything to say about religion....

This is not a matter of personal opinion. If a religion makes claims that conflicts with physics, then physics does indeed have something to say about said religion and its claims.

That being said, religion and science can indeed coexist. Just so long as the religion doesn't make any claims that science shows to be false.
 
No one believes that science explains the all. Rational people, religious or not, understand that the scientific method is the best way we have of understanding the world around us. When a scientific hypothesis is questioned, that's science, that's not science being fundamentally wrong.

That is a fine dichotomy, you point out there.
While the science scientists applied was fundamentally wrong in this case or in others like in 1900, when all but extremely few physicists thought physics had found all natual laws and only needed apply its knowledge, the scientific method that proved the theory wrong was very much alive.
 
This is not a matter of personal opinion. If a religion makes claims that conflicts with physics, then physics does indeed have something to say about said religion and its claims.

That being said, religion and science can indeed coexist. Just so long as the religion doesn't make any claims that science shows to be false.

Some do make such assumptions, some make allegorical descriptions and some say little about the reality of things. But even, where science shows that a statement about reality by a religion is incorrect, that does not disprove the religion fundamentally and for very obvious reasons. And in the final analysis we still do not have an explanation of creation nor understand how things could have never begun.

And yes, I believe as you seem to that religion and science can coexist in one mind.
 
Some do make such assumptions, some make allegorical descriptions and some say little about the reality of things. But even, where science shows that a statement about reality by a religion is incorrect, that does not disprove the religion fundamentally and for very obvious reasons.

That the religious can manage to still be religious after discovering that the word of their chosen Bible/Koran/whatever is wrong is obvious, but why that is is beyond me. How can you belive that the Bible is the word of a perfect God when it is so clearly so often wrong?

And in the final analysis we still do not have an explanation of creation nor understand how things could have never begun.

And yes, I believe as you seem to that religion and science can coexist in one mind.

Again, "I don't know" does not give license to make up gibberish and call it fact.
 
That is a fine dichotomy, you point out there.
While the science scientists applied was fundamentally wrong in this case or in others like in 1900, when all but extremely few physicists thought physics had found all natual laws and only needed apply its knowledge, the scientific method that proved the theory wrong was very much alive.

Physicists, real physicists understand that science does not understand all of the natural laws. That's why they're still doing research.
 
Gravity is still gravity. Light is still light. Electricity is still electricity. The wings on my plane still work, the engines still work. Your computer still works.

One bit of astrophysics doesn't change all of that.



You're right, it doesn't. Which is why I find it so strange that some religious people get so defensive about all this. Why do they see science as they enemy? Why do you?

Science makes no attempt to study the divine. Because it can't. There's no test you can run, no experiment to make, no data to collect, that would provide evidence either for or against the existence of a deity. It does, however, test and study a great deal about our world. If they come up with something that you perceive to be in conflict with your religious beliefs, well, it's up to you to resolve that. (or not)




People like Dawkins have a belief system based in skepticism. Science is all about questioning and testing. When someone presents him ideas from a holy book, he questions them. He asks for evidence. And when no evidence arises, he rejects the idea. Because that's what science does. If I told you an invisible dragon was on my lawn, you wouldn't accept "well you can't prove its NOT there!" Right?

That's what religion asks us all to do. Take the idea on faith. That's the whole point, right? Believing something rather than knowing something. It's the opposite of how science works.


You keep calling science a religion, but I've explained to you how it's fundamentally different. New ideas aren't changing your belief on the subject. Interesting.

95% of science has not been disproven. In fact, just one aspect of astrophysics is only 97% certain now. And here you are, proclaiming the end of science.

Why? What's it to you?

I think that some religious people "see science as their enemy" because so many more or less prominent Atheists argue that religious people are stupid, because they don't see how science disproves religion.
 
Again, "I don't know" does not give license to make up gibberish and call it fact.
You realize of course how readily that statement applies to 'non religious' people that express a belief in science....right?
 
I think that some religious people "see science as their enemy" because so many more or less prominent Atheists argue that religious people are stupid, because they don't see how science disproves religion.

That's not what prominent atheists are arguing, that's what people like you think they're arguing.

Science doesn't disprove God, but it does disprove things like a 6000-year old earth or a global flood. If you perceive your holy book to suggest one of those things, either your book is wrong or your interpretation of it is wrong. And science really doesn't care which you decide it is. In fact, science doesn't really care if you ignore science entirely.

The only real pushback comes when people try to push non-science into a science classroom. You have a right to believe in a 6000 year old earth, you don't have a right to teach that in a science class.
 
You realize of course how readily that statement applies to 'non religious' people that express a belief in science....right?

Sure. Can you provide examples?

Keeping in mind the distinction between making up gibberish as a hypothesis and declaring made up gibberish to be fact.
 
Sure. Can you provide examples?

Keeping in mind the distinction between making up gibberish as a hypothesis and declaring made up gibberish to be fact.
I would point to any and every single one of the individuals on this site that post their hatred towards a God and their disdain for those that believe in a God while promoting scientific theory as the basis of their own personal belief system. Pick one. Any one. Pick anyone that professes a 'belief' in the Big Bang theory as the origin of all known matter and life. Pick anyone that buys into the theory of dark matter. Pick ANYONE that spews knowledge that there is no God yet espouses belief through faith in unproven and heretofore impossible to prove 'theories'.
 
This thread deserves a facepalm.

A little history, Christians used to kill scientists, who were also Christian. Ancient history? Not quite, in the 1800s Christians were killing geologists right here in America.

There has always been, at the least, tension between academics and Christianity.

Christians lost the fight, so mostly now it's Christian nuts, and the Republicans that want their votes.

They are constantly trying to give us a state religion, something the Founding Fathers viewed with horror. There have been many efforts to cripple science teaching, and sneak Christian dogma into public schools. The opinion in one recent case concerning this will go down in history as a benchmark.

There is no consistency among academics. Many are religious, many are not. It doesn't matter. But there is a lot of consistency from religious extremists. You may not know what or where or when, but they will attack, and soon. Been that way for centuries.
 
I would point to any and every single one of the individuals on this site that post their hatred towards a God and their disdain for those that believe in a God while promoting scientific theory as the basis of their own personal belief system. Pick one. Any one. Pick anyone that professes a 'belief' in the Big Bang theory as the origin of all known matter and life. Pick anyone that buys into the theory of dark matter. Pick ANYONE that spews knowledge that there is no God yet espouses belief through faith in unproven and heretofore impossible to prove 'theories'.

Erm, the big bang is supported by evidence.

Dark matter isn't a theory, it's a label for an observed effect we don't understand.
 
Erm, the big bang is supported by evidence.

Dark matter isn't a theory, it's a label for an observed effect we don't understand.
And do you believe in the big bang theory?
 
And do you believe in the big bang theory?

The thing about facts is that they aren't dependent upon belief.

The big bang is well-supported by evidence.
 
The thing about facts is that they aren't dependent upon belief.

The big bang is well-supported by evidence.
And now you begin the dance.

Do you believe in the Big Bang theory? You know...that ever evolving idea that is 'well supported by evidence'. Do you believe it?
 
And now you begin the dance.

Do you believe in the Big Bang theory? You know...that ever evolving idea that is 'well supported by evidence'. Do you believe it?

I believe what evidence shows me, yes. Why would you infer otherwise? Is it because you think "belief" means something different?
 
And now you begin the dance.

Do you believe in the Big Bang theory? You know...that ever evolving idea that is 'well supported by evidence'. Do you believe it?

Even if he was a cosmologist, what he believes is simply not relevant.

At some point, it will likely be replaced by something else.

Everything in science can get changed. Which means the language of science is fundamentally different from the language of religion.
 
You realize of course how readily that statement applies to 'non religious' people that express a belief in science....right?

No I do not.

I believe in the science of thermodynamics even though I could not get my head around it because it it the theory that allows us to design jet engines and planes amongst other things. So I see that there is evidence for it.

What do you think that I believe without evidence to support it?
 
No I do not.

I believe in the science of thermodynamics even though I could not get my head around it because it it the theory that allows us to design jet engines and planes amongst other things. So I see that there is evidence for it.

What do you think that I believe without evidence to support it?

How was the cosmos and all known matter created? What do you believe?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Even if he was a cosmologist, what he believes is simply not relevant.

At some point, it will likely be replaced by something else.

Everything in science can get changed. Which means the language of science is fundamentally different from the language of religion.
What matters is IF he believes. What does he accept as a belief.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
How was the cosmos and all known matter created? What do you believe?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First there was nothing. And then it exploded.
 
I believe what evidence shows me, yes. Why would you infer otherwise? Is it because you think "belief" means something different?
So we can agree you believe that all known matter and material was created by a Big Bang. Correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I would point to any and every single one of the individuals on this site that post their hatred towards a God and their disdain for those that believe in a God while promoting scientific theory as the basis of their own personal belief system. Pick one. Any one. Pick anyone that professes a 'belief' in the Big Bang theory as the origin of all known matter and life. Pick anyone that buys into the theory of dark matter. Pick ANYONE that spews knowledge that there is no God yet espouses belief through faith in unproven and heretofore impossible to prove 'theories'.

I can show you evidence that the universe is 12.5+ billion years old. And that it has expanded since then. I cannot show you anything that goes further back than that because I don't understand the evidence.

I thus know with a high level of confidence that the universe is over 12.5 billion years old but am forced to take on trust what the scientists tell me about the stuff further back.

Given that you clearly do not understand any of the science that has resulted in the understanding of these facts you are not capable of telling anybody else why they believe anything to do with it.

I detest religion because it creates, amongst other evils, the mindset you have. That is an utterly arrogant and determindly ignorant self rightous idiocy. This results in idiot thinking which has a negative impact on the rest of the world around you and our shared society.

You are clearly able to be articlate and to compose an argument that at least sounds logical. You have chosen to stick your head in the sand which has been sanctioned by your religion. This has made you much more stupid than you should be.

Mods; I have used the words stupid and idiot. I was trying to think of different words as you don't like such direct and insulting language. I am too stupid to expess these ideas in any other way though. Sorry.
 
How was the cosmos and all known matter created? What do you believe?

I don't know.

I know what I have been told but even that boils down to the fat that the best scientists don't know.

Do you have any ideas which you can back up with any evidence at all? Anything that cannot be shown to be utterly wrong? If so you may well be onto something and be in line for getting a professorship.
 
So we can agree you believe that all known matter and material was created by a Big Bang. Correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:roll: If you had a point, you'd have made it by now.
 
Back
Top Bottom