Leslie

But for you to believe what the scientists are theorising which is how it appears so what I said was not an error at all. Do you not believe that science will eventually find the answer to it all, to do that you have to have faith surely. Seems to follow the definition of the word anyway.

Of course I understand how one needs to arrive at a scientific proof. You are making an assumption as so many seem to do for their own convenience. While I was engaged in such activities I did not project that what I expected to discover was definitely correct until I had proved it though!

Les

jasey

Question for SRSport.

How/When did you discover God ?

jonc

That is not how science works. Science assumes that the universe governed by a set of rules. By observing how the universe behaves we deduce how the universe follow these rules. Faith or beliefs have no place in science. Mathematical equations and calculations are applied to scientific observation and through this we can predict outcomes. We throw a stone and observe where it land. We theorise through a universal rule that if we use more force, we could throw the stone further and using mathematical calculations, we can predict with great accuracy where the stone will land. Apply this theory and with more complex equations, we are able to "throw" a rocket around the moon and send it back to Earth. Granted this is a simple example, but by building upon the rules that govern the universe, though we may not necessary find THE answer, it will give us a greater understanding of everything around us.

warrenm2

Sorry Ive re-read that sentence several times and it still doesnt make any sense to me. Can you rephrase it please?


I have no idea whether the process of science will eventually solve the origin of the universe. Maybe, in a Heisenberg uncertainty way, it is unprovable. I dont know and make no prediciton or claim one way or the other. Its certainly an interesting question though and worth exploring.

Faith however is nothing to do with the process of science. Your continual use of it in a scientific context is inaccurate and misleading. The dictionary definition states (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith) "belief that is not based on proof". Science provides that proof, in a repeatable, measureable, demonstrable way

warrenm2

No, no, no! It is EVIDENCE that says Einstein is right. http://www.asap.unimelb.edu.au/bspar...cs/eclipse.htm http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...0/s1225616.htm for example. Yes you can say that we still have things to discover, effects yet unknown, (for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly). Complete agreement there. But this deliberate use of the word faith is really starting to get tedious. As I point out in a message or two above faith is belief without proof, and has nothing to do with the scientific process.

Sure, I'm happy to agree.

No its not. Go stand in the corner and think about what you've done

warrenm2

Its interesting to see the general trend here of "pro-religious" people using religious terms to describe the process of science, in an attempt to explain their beliefs. Mangling the English language is not the way to convince people of the validity of your opinion, and such tortuous linguistic twisting and turning merely demonstrates the vacuity of their arguments

jasey

I couldn't agree more.

What did you say

GlesgaKiss

You still didn't answer my question, and I'm not surprised, because it shows that your argument doesn't carry any weight whatsoever. Nevermind... back to being philosophical.

Leslie

Yes it was not clearly written.

It appears that you believe that the scientists are theorising is going to be correct so what I said was not an error.

When it comes to faith and science, if you believe that their theories are correct than you must have faith in them since they are unable to prove them so far.

Les

stef_2010

iTrader: (3)

That really is an extrodinary claim you're making there

Would you care to share an example with me ?

I know plenty of people who have had faith their whole life and never experienced such things

jonc

No, it's what scientists have demonstrated to be accurate. There's a difference.

Leslie

Gosh thats pretty impressive

I dont remember using any religious terms in this discussion so far and neither have I got into the business of semantics.

I am interested in the actual truth of the matter and so will as ever keep an open mind. In other words I am only too happy to consider all arguments and certainly don't see any need to be offensive about it all.

We may never know of course. Not in this life anyway!

Les

stef_2010

iTrader: (3)

Not faith no,

Even though the theories arent proved theres still a high probability of them being right as their based on facts that have been gathered to make this theory, more logic than faith

IMO you cant really compare 'faith' in someone being correct to 'faith' that someone exists

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

If that isn't the most blatant attempt ever to use vague and overly concise language as a means of avoiding giving a real answer, I don't know what is.

Leslie

I don't actually remember denying those things which you say. Science has discovered that there are "laws of nature" which indicate what is likely to happen in a set of circumstances and therefore can make accurate predictions. As you say these have been formulated by empirical methods and cannot be denied.

When I mention "faith" I am saying so with regard to all the people who say that they believe that scientific pronouncements are the only answer to the beginning of the Universe even though the scientists cannot prove their current theories.

That kind of belief looks very much like "faith" to me!

Les

Leslie

Yes you can!

Les

warrenm2

Ah no, its you making the assumptions here. I only believe the theories that have gone on to be proven through experiment and evidence. There are other theories out there (for example superstring theory) that are unproven and remain just theories. They are interesting and worth investigating as if true, could add to mankinds understanding of the universe, but until proven they are simply in the maybe category.

Once more, faith has no part in the scientific process. It is misleading to use that word in this context. As someone with a scientific background it continues to puzzle me why you insist on its use if you fully understand what you are saying. Its evidence that causes me to believe them. Why is that so hard to understand?

jasey

This isn't an argument

Leslie

Its a statement of fact!

Les

stef_2010

iTrader: (3)

When I read that back it sounds kinda silly but I know what I meant

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

No, what it actually is is another perfect example of you, Tony, Trout and perhaps others I've missed out, all using thinly (or completely un-) disguised word-play to try and blur the distinction between trusting in knowledge which has come from painstakingly measured scientific experiments and calculations that have been repeated over and over again to verify they weren't just a fluke, and trusting in the existence of an unseen force or entity for which the only evidence is a combination of ancient writings, word of mouth, and a some kind of fuzzy, hard-to-describe feeling in your head or your stomach or whatever part of your anatomy it might happen to be.

The only thing up for debate is whether you realize this is what you're doing, or whether your personal investment in being successful in the enterprise is so great that it allows you to continue doing it without even being aware of what it really is. Obviously the answer to that particular question might not be the same for each of you, but that's a rather minor point in comparison.

warrenm2

Ah ok, I think I see what you're saying now. I can't speak for others but my take is this. Yes there are theories about the origin of the universe. Yes they can be conflicting. This uncertainty however centres around observable facts. There is evidence of the Cosmic Microwave background being lumpy, there is evidence of how constituent parts of atoms behave under big bang like conditions. This evidence is constantly being updated and refined, as are the theories. The standard model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model mostly successfully explains the world as we know it, but its not unified, and hence it is not a complete description.

However the mutally supporting evidence is pointing that the big bang theory is correct. You correlate belief in the (incomplete) big bang theory with faith. You seem to be saying that because there is some element of uncertainty then that is reason to discard the whole lot, evidence included, and it then allows the possibility (probability?) of an omnipotent superbeing creator. The great strength of science is that it tests, examines and refines. What you are seeing is this process. To call it faith is plain wrong.

warrenm2

Perfect!

HPLovecraft

To any christians reading this do you take the bible literally or just the bits and bobs that you see fit ?

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

-- I Corinthians 14:34-35

If a man [meets] a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her ... He must marry the girl ... He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

-- Deuteronomy 22:28-29

"Have you allowed all the women to live?" he [Moses] asked them.... "Now ... kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

-- Numbers 31:1-18

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son ... Then shall his father and his mother ... bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.

-- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

God did tempt Abraham, ... And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest ... and offer him there for a burnt offering...

-- Genesis 22:1-2

Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return ... will be the Lord's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering." ... and the Lord gave them into his hands.... When Jephthah returned to his home..., who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! And he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.

-- Judges 11:30-32, 34, 39


God is love huh ?

jasey

Maybe there is something in this religion stuff - it's obviously not all bollox

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

An admirable effort to continue the discourse, but I really don't think that's what Leslie was getting at. You were right the first time - this is just another attempt on his part to cloud the debate just enough with tortuously ambiguous language, that us 'pro-scientists' have to concede there's no tangible difference between trust in science and trust in God. The tactic's getting so transparent now, it's almost embarrassing to watch.

tony de wonderful

Faith cannot be refuted using science. You are barking up the wrong tree.

jasey

Nobody will argue with that

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

If your sentence had read "the objects of a person's faith cannot be refuted using science", then I'd take serious issue with it. As it stands though, I'm not going to dispute the fact that there are a great many people about who have deep and genuine faith, however misplaced or misguided it might be.

Leslie

To save a long explanation yet again. The word "Faith" seems to make atheists start to have instant paroxysms. Its only a word used to describe one's feelings although Atheists seem to leap on it as a way to attack. You now understand the sense in which I used it and it was not meant to be inflammatory so much as explanatory.

I don't deny that the big bang might have been the start of it all, I prefer to keep an open mind about it. The fact is, despite all the clever logic and mathematics and observations etc. we still do not know the real answer. It has not been proved. You have "faith" that it will be, I prefer to wait and see before I jump.

You cannot say that it is right because you think it is likely to be! That is most unscientific.

I did ask how that singularity happened in what must have been empty space at the time. No one has volunteered to explain that so far! i would like to know the answer to that one, wouldn't we all in fact?

Les