Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
A Fine Example of Theocracy Indeed
Comments
-
-
-
-
Rest assured science currently has the answer to that question and you just have to look it up
I realise what evolution is Sam
But the seasons and rythms of things?? Now i know this is caused by planetary movements (i'm not a scientist. I understand the principal) Surely there must be a primary presence (i'm not saying god). An intelligence that we can't understand with our ways of discovery.
Why do we humans assume we are the centre of the universe? (metaphorically speaking)
The universe. Like if you even stop and really think about it.See it for what it is sans facts and fiction and science and religion and analysis.
What causes the planet movements and the black holes?
I realise that there is probably a scientific reaosn. But what causes that and what causes that? You can't get something out of nothing?
I maintain it is bigger than anything we can comprehend on a scientific level.
(i'm not having a go at science)
It just amazes me, truly amazes me.0 -
Interestingly it is the religious that seem to think that we humans are something special and are the centre of the universe. Most atheist are a little more circumspect about our place in the universe.Why do we humans assume we are the centre of the universe? (metaphorically speaking)
The universe. Like if you even stop and really think about it.See it for what it is sans facts and fiction and science and religion and analysis.
What causes the planet movements and the black holes?
I realise that there is probably a scientific reaosn. But what causes that and what causes that? You can't get something out of nothing?
I maintain it is bigger than anything we can comprehend on a scientific level.
(i'm not having a go at science)
It just amazes me, truly amazes me.
MrP0 -
Advertisement
-
-
That is one of the possibilites. A far more likely theory is that the universe was created by a perfectly natural process that we just don't understand yet. Saying it must be a supernatural intelligence makes the incorrect assumption that we already completely understand the natural world.I realise what evolution is Sam
But the seasons and rythms of things?? Now i know this is caused by planetary movements (i'm not a scientist. I understand the principal) Surely there must be a primary presence (i'm not saying god). An intelligence that we can't understand with our ways of discovery.
The seasons are caused by the rotation of the earth and I'm not sure what you mean by the rythms of things
Arrogance? Atheists don't btw as Mr Pudding pointed out. We know we're an insignificant speck in the universeWhy do we humans assume we are the centre of the universe? (metaphorically speaking)
The problem with religious reasoning is that that particular logic never applies to god. He can come from nothing apparentlyYou can't get something out of nothing?It just amazes me, truly amazes me.
Me too.0 -
Saying it must be a supernatural intelligence makes the incorrect assumption that we already completely understand the natural world.A far more likely theory is that the universe was created by a perfectly natural process that we just don't understand yet.
Im not saying supernatural intelligence. That has conotations. I agree with your second point above. However saying it might be a natural process, is a little short sighted tbh. It can't be natural from our perspective because now you are confining the possibilities to our world, and you already recognised the insignificance of that!
When we do understand it (if) then of course it will be natural, no less astounding though.
I mean the force that drives it all then. If you mean a guy in the sky then no. A force like "energy" (just to piss of Zilah
) that we cannot understand because we don't have the technology or type of intelligence to see. A force that causes all other things like gravity and propogation and the planets to move etc to function. The thing that makes it all tick. Not the creator rather the dynamo. Something entirely self sufficient. (I don't mean god)
My point is there must be a principal force? (and i use force very loosely for my literal friends
) (I don't mean god)
Cause and effect...right?
You can't have something out of nothing. Even space is something.
Isn't that a possibility?The seasons are caused by the rotation of the earth and I'm not sure what you mean by the rythms of things
I know what the seasons are caused by, but what causes the earth to move? And you will give me a perfectly plausible explanation of it! But what causes that and that and that and so on.
Do you see my point?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Being natural confines to it to laws of nature which are constant across the entire universe. It does not confine it to our world. And just because we don't understand something's nature yet doesn't mean it's not naturalIt can't be natural from our perspective because now you are confining the possibilities to our world, and you already recognised the insignificance of that! When we do understand it (if) then of course it will be natural, no less astounding though.
That is one of the theories. Bring me some supporting evidence and I will consider it further. Until then it remains as plausible a hypothesis as the one that says the flying spaghetti monster created the universe.My point is there must be a principal force? (and i use force very loosely for my literal friends ) (I don't mean god)
What's arrogant is to look at thousands of completely unsubstantiated stories, pick one of those stories based on nothing but a gut feeling and proclaim that this one is true and that all others are false.+1
And not just the World but the Universe what atheists seem to be saying is that they want to understand it within the boundaries of human scientific knowledge and experience and nothing else.Nice and neat in a little box.
Not being able to prove it or conceptualise it scientifically they discount it as an explanation.Thats more than a bit arrogant.
It's also arrogant to say that you know enough about the nature of the universe to discount the idea that it happened naturally and it must have had an intelligence behind it. Stephen Hawking doesn't know that and he knows a lot more about the universe than you.
What is not arrogant, however, is what atheists do. We do not discount your theory by and large, see here for more information. There is a difference between discounting your explanation, ie saying it cannot be true, and not accepting it until you put forth evidence supporting it. Every day there are thousands of theories put forward in all realms of human endeavor and your particular theory is not so special that it shouldn't require any supporting evidence where all others do0 -
-
When was the last time you saw religious dogma put a satellite in orbit, or provide a vaccine to a disease? What's the definition of irony? Someone posting on the internet about how science really knows nothing.
That wasn't my point. I mean without science we wouldn't have machines and cars and environmental polution. Now we are using science to find a solution to the problem it created. please don't tell me Science has saved the human race or anything along those lines. There is an equally plausible argument to suggest otherwise. I'm not debating it btw
I didn't know this forum was for discussing science only?0 -
CerebralCortex wrote: »Okay thanks. Frustrated more than angry by the lack of substance in your posts and the abundance of brown stuff. My question still stands. What is your point?
So far i haven't seen much from you in the way of substance either.
Re-read my posts if you wish. I can't make you understand. It most be so boring to be so damn logical all the time
0 -
That is one of the theories. Bring me some supporting evidence and I will consider it further. Until then it remains as plausible a hypothesis as the one that says the flying spaghetti monster created the universe.
You have abandoned the cheese thenStephen Hawking doesn't know that and he knows a lot more about the universe than you.
Is that an argument from authorityWhat is not arrogant, however, is what atheists do. Only smarties have the answer 0 -
That wasn't my point. I mean without science we wouldn't have machines and cars and environmental polution. Now we are using science to find a solution to the problem it created. please don't tell me Science has saved the human race or anything along those lines. There is an equally plausible argument to suggest otherwise. I'm not debating it btw
I'm responding to your claim that neither science nor religion really know anything. The very fact that you and I are communicating over the internet should suffice to prove that science is a vastly superior engine for understanding the universe than religion, and that human science does in fact know a very great many things. A fact that you demean while taking advantage of that very fact. There is a delicious irony there (that I don't think you're getting). If you and I were able to have this conversation via praying to angels I'd be inclined to agree that they are in some way on an equal footing, but religion has shown itself to be nothing more than a vapid distraction for humanity.It most be so boring to be so damn logical all the time
It must be so liberating to not be.0 -
Advertisement
-
That is one of the theories. Bring me some supporting evidence and I will consider it further. Until then it remains as plausible a hypothesis as the one that says the flying spaghetti monster created the universe.
So you don't have a theory? I don't know who the flying spaghetti monster is
Being natural confines to it to laws of nature which are constant across the entire universe.
Considering we don't know the entire universe, it's naive to guess that.What's arrogant is to look at thousands of completely unsubstantiated stories, pick one of those stories based on nothing but a gut feeling and proclaim that this one is true and that all others are false.
I never proclaimed it to be true. Does it not make any sense on any level to you?It's also arrogant to say that you know enough about the nature of the universe to discount the idea that it happened naturally and it must have had an intelligence behind it.
Isn't gravity intelligence in itself? That's my point. What causes things to happen?
How can something come from nothing? Please answer that.There is a difference between discounting your explanation, ie saying it cannot be true, and not accepting it until you put forth evidence supporting it. Every day there are thousands of theories put forward in all realms of human endeavor and your particular theory is not so special that it shouldn't require any supporting evidence where all others do
I'm just stating an opinion tbh. I am not a scientist or as educated as you. I do not have any evidence and i don't expect anyone to believe it. I just want people to be open to the idea of it as a possibility. Can you put forward your own theory?0 -
Oh no I'm still a cheeseite. I believe in the baby cheeses.You have abandoned the cheese then
Tis indeed.Is that an argument from authority
He's not exempted from criticism. If you want to explain to me how it's not arrogant to suggest that his lifetime of work in the area is not as strong an indication as your gut feeling you go right ahead.arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, the fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism0 -
-
-
Oh no I'm still a cheeseite. I believe in the baby cheeses.
LOL:DHe's not exempted from criticism. If you want to explain to me how it's not arrogant to suggest that his lifetime of work in the area is not as strong an indication as your gut feeling you go right ahead.
I will pass on that. He is some guy though - but got a bit caught up in his own celebrity. That said a great ambassador for his science.0 -
-
So far i haven't seen much from you in the way of substance either.
No I've posted in this forum and to be honest I only do that when I have something worthwhile to say. From reading your posts I don't really follow what your trying to say:
1) You like theocracies.
2) You don't.
3) You're taking the piss.Re-read my posts if you wish. I can't make you understand. It most be so boring to be so damn logical all the time
At least I am logical. Probably the reason we have trouble seeing eye to eye.0 -
So you don't have a theory? I don't know who the flying spaghetti monster is
I have a few hypotheses but I have no way of know if they're correct so I'm not going to assume any one of them is right.
The flying spaghetti monster is a response to thiest arguments that I can't prove God doesn't exist. The logic is that they can't prove the spaghetti monster doesn't exist but that doesn't mean I should believe in him.
I'm not guessing that it is, I was just explaining that the word natural doesn't confine it to earth. It's one of the hypotheses that can't be proven.Considering we don't know the entire universe, it's naive to guess that.
Whether it makes sense to me is not an indication of whether it is actually the case. You have to be careful about picking an idea just because it fits easily into your brain.I never proclaimed it to be true. Does it not make any sense on any level to you?
No gravity is not intelligence. I don't know what causes gravity because I am not a physicist. I don't know what causes any of the other three forces of nature either: electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. That does not automatically translate to it was some metaphysical energy or intelligence guiding it all. It simply means I don't knowIsn't gravity intelligence in itself? That's my point. What causes things to happen?
I don't know. How can this energy you talk about come from nothing?How can something come from nothing? Please answer that.
Your theory is a possibility. I do not know enough about the universe to put forward my own theory with any confidence. I would just be guessing. It's like asking a hamster to fly a planeI'm just stating an opinion tbh. I am not a scientist or as educated as you. I do not have any evidence and i don't expect anyone to believe it. I just want people to be open to the idea of it as a possibility. Can you put forward your own theory?0 -
That's not entirely true - but we prefer that when people put forward a theory it's somewhat grounded in reality.
Otherwise people come out with stuff like this...
OK then this is the wrong place for me, because i don't know how to explain things with the right terminology. I apologise for that.
I don't mean gravity is intelligent rather if it happens then something must cause it to be.
Look it's obvious i'm not going to be able to compete in the area of science with you guys.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement