First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Flaws Behind Physics
Posted 7/16/07
I can walk on water...someone explain THAT!

Trevor (OP)
38 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 7/17/07
hrmm.... even though i do not agree with some of the comments, i still respect all your opinions, and honestly speaking i dont worship the bible nor do i have a degree on physics (not yet ><), but the science facts have more of a foundation, with evidence and proof, whereas the religious facts, aren’t really facts at all, they are just more of a game of Chinese whispers, words that are mouthed down from generations to generations, but then again this is just another opinion expressed by a high school kid (me ^^) have a nice read!
Posted 7/17/07
I agree with the first few sentences but then I got too lazy to read the rest.
5521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/17/07
The creation. (Science vs Religion). Actually both sides are correct. It's just that, Science answers the questions "HOW" and Religion answers the question "WHY". Analyze. HOW were we created? ~Science has alot of answers and stories to tell. WHY were we created? ~ The bible has the answers. ^_^
Posted 7/17/07
Okay... Flaws with Physics? Has anyone actually mentioned any specific ones?
The only "Flaws" which physics are "inaccuracies". Due to the use of "Occam's Razor" science current has the best interpretations of the natural world known, so any so called "flaws" are only flaws relative to the natural world, not to any better interpretation.

Religion introduces a "big ball of fuzz" - also known as God (or any other deist belief you want). This is not an explanation, it is a unscientific proposal because it can never be disproved. By saying that something occurred due to God is to introduce ever more questions, not least, what is "God"?

Science is not about the unexplainable, it is about the explainable. In this sense anything as yet unexplained by science is either explainable (an therefore currently a "flaw" in science, but one which can and will be eradicated) or unexplainable, in which case it does not belong in the realm of science (these things are usually left to Philosophers or Theologists). As science has progressed ever more has moved from the realm of Philosophy into the realm of science (not least the workings of the human mind - so far the most complicated known thing in the universe).

It also depends upon what we define physics/science to be - is it that which has been discovered? or all that which falls into it's realm, the realm of the explainable?

If we take the first view, we return to the idea that science currently has flaws, but that they shall be eradicated. If we take the second then science has no flaws, only the human knowledge of it does. I would like to claim that; Science has Holes, not Flaws.

Finally - I am Christian with Buddhist leanings.

@ Seraph - your claim that Darwinism has currently changed from its original suppositions is, to put it bluntly, wrong. Darwin stated that certain traits would be carried across generations and inherited if they were advantageous to the individual or species. The argument arose after Darwin's time, it was between the "Group Selectionists" and the "Gene Selectionists" (lead by Richard Dawkins). Both of these views consider Darwin to have been correct, it's just what they consider the individual (or inheritable thing) which differs, beyond this all of Darwin's theory of Evolution applies as stated.
151481 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Aboard the Hyperion
Offline
Posted 7/17/07
I think Henz has pretty much the best contet for this thread so far. Still I do think that science and religion can be complimentary. It is afterall the purpose (or one of the purposes) I try to seek with the GIT thread I made a while back.
Posted 7/17/07

kyocool wrote:

I can walk on water...someone explain THAT!

Trevor (OP)


Are you David Blaine's apprentice or Chris Angel's apprentice? Which one is better than the other?



David Blaine Street Magic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGrTvNzGCZE
(comment: "CHEEZ ITS CHEEZ ITZ CHEEZ ITZ!" hahaha XD)
24645 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / 横浜市
Offline
Posted 7/17/07

iron_club_oni wrote:

about us defining things its the law of superposition see Schrödinger's cat
EDIT: wrong wiki article, link changed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

oh and aperently the law of superposition has been used to refute gelogical theroys behind fossils on mountains






285 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Florida
Offline
Posted 7/17/07
good point that you made
515 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / America!
Offline
Posted 7/17/07
science is real, religion is fake. That is all I have to say.
588 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / F / Montreal
Offline
Posted 7/17/07
Very old debate....
science vs religion.... I see them as 2 faces of the same coin... but they don't work together, when one is pushed the other one is pulled back. Beliefs prevents people to look further, to seach for deepper answer, and science prenvent any beliefs, it's is against science to answer before you ask the question.

But I see it from another perspective... One of the most important thing in science is to carefully define the words in the question... then when you say God, it as to be carefully define as any other material.
What is God?
To me, it is a abstract unmaterial concept created by human race to explain the material creation as well as their place in it.
From that definition, strictly, God does exist. Many of you guys are just brilliant (at 16 I couldn't even have followed that conversation, I think..)
But maybe you left an important part in this debate, maybe 2 :
1 - In religion as well as science, words, must be reduced, and define, and explain, because most of the language used for religious beliefs is abstract, is a concept, with as many definition as there's is people saying it.
2 - Philosophy is the only way to farelly compare both

So, depending on the definition, god may have been already proven to exist, or not.
As I found this facinating, I would very much appriciate if some of you would define GOD.... I'm sure my way to do so doesn't fit everyone.
418 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 7/17/07
hmm define god well I say a religion is a system that humans believe in and have given up some free will to try and explain a incomprehensible universe, so then a god would be either the originator or the product of that system however a god isn't necessary for a religion take science for example, it fits my category for a religion however there is no god of science, yet. perhaps a complete grand unification theory would be considered a god.
(grand unification theories try to combine all types of energy into one form)
29091 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Body in NY Mind i...
Offline
Posted 7/17/07
I would love to get into something on this subject... Unfortunately i`m a bit busy on projects of my own.... I`ll come on later and just constantly banter about my view.... SeraphAlford in certain aspects both science and religion are something to believe in.... But science elaborates on its theories, Religion only will give vague interpretations..... What religion are you any ways SeraphAlford????
To be honest most religions originate from the Mesopotamians.... But the they shift their ideals such as the gods and other mythical stories.... So the only true religion is of the mesopotamians.
I`ll elaborate later alright....................
People the topics not Science vs. Religion its the Flaws of Physics dammit
*cough *cough * why physics wont be right until we discover the laws of the universe * * not the flaws of the human psyche*
588 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / F / Montreal
Offline
Posted 7/17/07
Maybe I'm too naive, but the flaw of physics IS religion. Science don't answer all questions, and where science leaves religion begins.
But I do agree that science can be a belief, really. To belive everything can be understood by a human mind. Everything that can be qualified can also be quantified, is a very unproven belief.

So the god of science exists - it's the human brain, witch is, in my opinion greatly overestimated.
110 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / 뉴욕- New jersey
Offline
Posted 7/17/07
Can the god of science create creation?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.