Mars next stop :)

[coldel]

Chuck Norris counted to infinity, twice. 

[davey_83]

If the big bang is thought to be fact, surely we'd have a clear understanding of the cosmos. 

 

So if the universe is expanding, so something expanding in to and filling the void......... is that void nothingness? Or something? 

[Ekona]

Imagine being so small you can fit on top of a pencil. Now imagine that pencil is laying on a table in the office of the PM. Now imagine you’re on top of that pencil, trying to see the Giza pyramids being built thousands of years ago. 

 

It’s that kind of scale we’re dealing with here, and we’re only just a blink of the eye into discovering these things. So yes, we have a much better understanding of the universe than we did fifty years ago, but we’re still making new discoveries every day. That’s the brilliance of science. One day I’m sure we’ll have all the answers, but for now theories are giving us amazing progress and allowing us to explore. 

[davey_83]

How about that time and effort looking up be used to help one another?............ radical right lol

 

Science is great no doubting, but to view it as the leading authority with regards to reality is lacking imo. The scientific community believes is what we cant see, test or replicate and faith in parts is no different. It really isn't one verses the other to me, one doesn't weaken or strengthens the other.

 

Dark matter projects, CERN, D-Wave all trying to understand the fabric of our reality - you're absolutely right, science will get there.

[Ekona]

11 minutes ago, davey_83 said:

Science is great no doubting, but to view it as the leading authority with regards to reality is lacking imo. The scientific community believes is what we cant see, test or replicate and faith in parts is no different. It really isn't one verses the other to me, one doesn't weaken or strengthens the other.

Well, it kinda does. Science is based very much on the provable, and anything that isn't provable is called a theory. Anything that is provable is called a fact. This is different from faith, where nothing is provable in the slightest and is all based on he-said-she-said written thousands of years ago.

 

And science helps us all, as a worldwide nation. Obtaining knowledge about how the universe works is key to understanding how everything works, so to dismiss it as not helpful really isn't, well, helpful! For example, exploring other worlds will ultimately lead us to future colonisation to keep the human race going after we've f*cked this planet up completely. Think of it like this: Remember in school when you studied trigonometry, and thought it was all nonsense and how could that possibly help you in life? And then you go and get a job working in construction and realise that maths is the core basis of something as simple as building a home for someone. It's like that.

[Ekona]

Just thinking about it, can you just imagine what the USA could actually accomplish if they diverted all their funds from churchgoing hocus pocus into the sciences? According to a 2016 study that was approx $1.2 trillion a year, which is more than the combined revenue of the top ten tech companies including Apple, Google and Amazon.

 

We could cure cancer and world hunger overnight. But no, it's more important to believe in #prayforeveryone than actually helping mankind.

[ilogikal1]

8 minutes ago, Ekona said:

Well, it kinda does. Science is based very much on the provable, and anything that isn't provable is called a theory hypothesis. Anything that is provable is called a fact theory.

 

Sorry to be pedantic (I'm not actually, but there you go). The definition of theory is;

Quote

a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas that are suggested to explain a fact or event

Ergo theory is based on fact and is different to an hypothesis, which is supposition.

 

I appreciate that doesn't affect your point, Dan, but this confusion over the the term theory is just complicating things; the theory of evolution is not the equivalent of the hypothesis of intelligent design.

[Jay84]

I think the basic aspects of religion can still be relevant when used as a moral compass (I mean the absolute basic). For example the 10 commandments of do not steal (all 10 are the same, but what you steal changes) are not bad notions to be brought up on, esp when you're young and can't grasp the 'what if it was me' thing, a little fear of the forever can help early development of a moral compass. But I think when it comes to understanding the universe/world it no longer becomes relevant, mankind has advanced in some ways to such an extent that some concepts aren't needed anymore. In some respects paganism or religions of Mesopotamia is more relevant to the planet as its fundamentals revolve around caring for the environment, putting in what you take out and crop rotation (you know, when you remove jumping over the fire naked bit). Plus the celebration of rebirth in spring and the goddess Eostre (word looks familiar) helping with farming practices so your cattle survive the winter as they out of infancy. 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Jay84

[Ekona]

1 hour ago, ilogikal1 said:

 

Sorry to be pedantic (I'm not actually, but there you go). The definition of theory is;

Ergo theory is based on fact and is different to an hypothesis, which is supposition.

 

I appreciate that doesn't affect your point, Dan, but this confusion over the the term theory is just complicating things; the theory of evolution is not the equivalent of the hypothesis of intelligent design.

You're quite right, that's my basic mistake there. Cheers for correcting dude

[davey_83]

2 hours ago, Ekona said:

Just thinking about it, can you just imagine what the USA could actually accomplish if they diverted all their funds from churchgoing hocus pocus into the sciences? According to a 2016 study that was approx $1.2 trillion a year, which is more than the combined revenue of the top ten tech companies including Apple, Google and Amazon.

 

We could cure cancer and world hunger overnight. But no, it's more important to believe in #prayforeveryone than actually helping mankind.

 

Got a link to that, as those figures make no sense.

 

------------------

 

Im learning which is good, question. Its said the big bang and what happened thereafter is all possible due to the laws of gravity.

 

So did this event create gravity? Did the event create the very thing that made itself possible? Yes or No.

 

Big Bang is what you believe, so no need to go off and research right?....... seems a fairly basic question?

 

Edited March 30, 2018 by davey_83

[Ekona]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/15/us-religion-worth-1-trillion-study-economy-apple-google

 

All in there  

 

And no, I don’t “believe” in science. I accept facts when they’re demonstratable.

[StevoD]

 

 

 

 

[davey_83]

$1.2tn figure by estimating the value of religious institutions, including healthcare facilities, schools, daycare and charities; media; businesses with faith backgrounds; the kosher and halal food markets; social and philanthropic programmes; and staff and overheads for congregations.

 

Yep pretty demonstratable lol yep wipe all that wasteful mambo jumbo away. Shame on them for wanting education, food, shelter, charity and health care. 

 

Any advances on which came first the big bang or gravity? Surely this information and the understanding of this is key to everything we see before us? 

 

 

[Ekona]

But instead of wasting that money praying, imagine if it was used to cure all those problems forever? I don’t disagree that charity is a good thing, but you don’t need religion for that in the slightest. Praying does nothing, creating sustainable plant life for use in drought-affected countries is something that could make a real difference. You mention health care, that’s exactly where science has created massive leaps in the last few decades. Think about where we were compared to where we are.

 

I don’t know enough about theory to answer the Big Bang vs gravity question. However, I’d suggest that gravity as a force is likely to always have existed regardless, but I’d need to research that before being comfortable with it.

[Ekona]

This seems to make some sense, in that without mass you cannot have gravity. 

 

Every non zero mass particle bends the "Space Time", and the Consequence observed, we call it as gravity; I am talking about the gravity that we know or understand.
Therefore we can say that the event at which the first particle with non-zero mass was created, the gravity shown its presence.

There's a notion of Planck Epoch :
- The time between zero to approximately 10^ -43 seconds (1 Planck Time) :
This is the closest that current physics can get to the absolute beginning of time, and very little can be known about this period. General relativity proposes a gravitational singularity before this time (although even that may break down due to quantum effects), and it is hypothesized that the four fundamental forces (electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force and gravity) all have the same strength, and are possibly even unified into one fundamental force, held together by a perfect symmetry.
At this point, the universe spans a region of only 10^ -35 metres (1 Planck Length), and has a temperature of over  10^32C (the Planck Temperature).

- Grand Unification Epoch, from  10^ -43 seconds to  10^ -36 seconds:
The force of gravity separates from the other fundamental forces (which remain unified), and the earliest elementary particles (and antiparticles) begin to be created.
I think this is the time when the Gravity (that we understand today) was shown its separate existence.

[davey_83]

That's just it the money IS being spent on worthwhile things unlike looking up at the stars, the iss and sending a roadster into deep space.

 

So the big bang created the very thing that it needs to even exist? Yeah makes perfect sense. 

 

The big bang and it's concept falls apart very easily. With science I see alot of assumptions. We assume the constants today like gravity have always been the same. That's simply not been proven, nor are we able demonstrate FACT! Things do not create themseleves from nothing. You can't get everything from nothing, nor has this been proven or demonstrated. 

 

Gravity also isn't what we think it is. Scientist looking at galaxys notice stars close to the centre (or closer to the mass as that's what's keeping all the stars in orbit) rotate exactly the same speed as those furthest away from the centre. But surely those stars on the outer edge are further away from the centre mass so the gravitational force must be less? And yet the galaxy is seen to all be spinning like a precision time piece with order, regardless of the gravitational forces we can test and proven thus far. 

 

Hhmmmmmman unlining force that governs everything, something all around us and allows for life on earth. A very mystical force that's authority seems to be above all else. Funny that lol 

 

 

 

How is it possible or demonstratable that the below in any permutation can create consciousness? Not what we see but able to scientifically test and replicate? And to be presented as proven fact? 

 

Have more chance of setting of a explosion in a print shop and an English dictionary being created word for word as we have it today. 

 

Again science is left wanting to me and is more mambo jumbo than factual sadly when dealing with the origins of life or anything else in the night sky. I guess when stars are sometimes visible in space and then sometimes not (as said by many astronauts #contradiction) it can be difficult to examine. 

 

Accepted theories are then piggy backed with other theories and before you know it we have string theory - the ultimate piggy back. Which doesn't account for or even begins to answer the questions of reality, the why or dark matter nor will it ever. 

 

Edited March 30, 2018 by davey_83

[davey_83]

Evolution is believed that an ape like creature would have at some point given birth to a more advance being and this being would have then been able to talk and it's parents not understand a word. As said by Richard Dawkins, it's fair to say he then said this is unlikely but probable to which the audience laughed. I'm sorry but the dude isn't even sure about what he himself is saying. And what he said not no sense at all, the topic quickly changed. 

 

There are no demonstratable examples of one type of animal turning into another. 

 

Massive holes in evolution, massive holes in the big bang idea. Possibly this is why so much money is spent towards, schools, food, shelter, charity and health amoung the religious communities and not space dust.

 

[StevoD]

yea John Osteen shows were the moneys being well spent 

[StevoD]

1 minute ago, davey_83 said:

Evolution is believed that an ape like creature would have at some point given birth to a more advance being and this being would have then been able to talk and it's parents not understand a word. As said by Richard Dawkins, it's fair to say he then said this is unlikely but probable to which the audience laughed. I'm sorry but the dude isn't even sure about what he himself is saying. And what he said not no sense at all, the topic quickly changed. 

 

There are no demonstratable examples of one type of animal turning into another. 

 

Massive holes in evolution, massive holes in the big bang idea. Possibly this is why so much money is spent towards, schools, food, shelter, charity and health amoung the religious communities and not space dust.

 

 

does that make pokemon as reliable as the bible then  

[ilogikal1]

I find it interesting that a person won’t accept science because it doesn’t explain absolutely everything (yet) but will accept flat earth that doesn’t explain anything.

[davey_83]

I'll answer Pokémon below with facts lol

 

On the contrary, FE I think is interesting as I've said from the start. 

 

I wholeheartedly accept science, just not when it's used to present a story that can't be backed up. 

 

Science has a pardon that's it's made for itself whereby it can say it is the authority on all things in reality, and those things it can't explain or prove or know when we will, are in hand so rest assure your with the right belief system. I allowed to present something as factual and then do a complete 180 and now I'm again factual. For example we thought the universe is infinite and has always , however since fairly recent times we know believe it to be expanding so it must of intact had an 'in the beginning' 

 

What I will say is, it's incredibly easy to see a person of faith as having a dim witted belief that only small minded irrational folks could ever invest in. However and yet:

 

According to 100 Years of Nobel Prize (2005), a review of Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 2000, 65.4% of Nobel Prize Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference (423 prizes). Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace, 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, 54% in Economics and 49.5% of all Literature awards.

[StevoD]

9 minutes ago, davey_83 said:

I'll answer Pokémon below with facts lol

 

On the contrary, FE I think is interesting as I've said from the start. 

 

I wholeheartedly accept science, just not when it's used to present a story that can't be backed up. 

 

Science has a pardon that's it's made for itself whereby it can say it is the authority on all things in reality, and those things it can't explain or prove or know when we will, are in hand so rest assure your with the right belief system. I allowed to present something as factual and then do a complete 180 and now I'm again factual. For example we thought the universe is infinite and has always , however since fairly recent times we know believe it to be expanding so it must of intact had an 'in the beginning' 

 

What I will say is, it's incredibly easy to see a person of faith as having a dim witted belief that only small minded irrational folks could ever invest in. However and yet:

 

According to 100 Years of Nobel Prize (2005), a review of Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 2000, 65.4% of Nobel Prize Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference (423 prizes). Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace, 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, 54% in Economics and 49.5% of all Literature awards.

 

Identifying as Christian is different to believing a book. Technically im Christian by the book but with the world around me i fail to see how the book can hold any truth with regards to powers beyond our control. 

 

The world is to much of a ****ed up place with innocent people being put in horrific situations If you are born with a clean slate how are people given the poor life they get.

[Jay84]

Doesn't religion also provide a story that can't be backed up? Science adjusts its views based on whats observed so flexibility is required. No such flex in religion, In terms of proving evolution, the easiest way of this is to view dog shapes over the last 100 yrs and how selective breeding has ruined various breeds. Selective breeding is forced evolution, rather than letting the slowest/weakest die out through natural selection, we're controlling it. If we're all made in a deity's image, why do we all look so different? People that live nearer the equator have darker skin to cope with the proximity of the sun/extreme temperatures, surely that evolved over time. How is modern religion different to ancient Roman/Greek/Sumarian/Egyptian religion? Whats to stop a new God being discovered and superseding modern ones? If gods are eternal, whats the origin of them? The same questions asked about the universe/science can be put to religion.

I agree that science has a lot of unknowns, and I think Mr 'Hawkins Brief History of Time' falls back to a God answer when asking what existed before the big bang. 

[Rock_Steady]

I think it's safe to say everything we think is right is probably wrong. Hence, the general book of ignorance. 

[davey_83]

Its not so much believing a book ie word for word, because yes over hundreds if not thousands of years its been translated, interpreted, edited shorten and then bits added back in so it wont be original version and tbf I don't expect it to be as it simply just cant be. Furthermore I wouldn't be able to read it if it was lol For me when asked the way I view the book is yes its edited, however is it possible for the stories/message along the way to be carried through?

 

You could ask two people, one to read a 1960's Spiderman comic and the other to watch a recent Hollywood blockbuster and the overall story with key points will remain. Who is Peter Parker, how did he come to be Spiderman, where he lives, his job, what does he stand for, is he a goodie or a baddie? All will be same, however the small details will of course change but that wont harm the overall message.

 

Its more so believing in what it represents as a whole for example and if its inspired from a creator? How to know if the Bible is inspired by a creator? Is there anything in the Bible that is from knowledge beyond man understanding for the time? I see many examples and if you look into it one can then make their own choice about it also. I see examples in medicine, healthcare and technology, history all way beyond mans understanding for the time wrote down clearly in the book hundreds of years before science would catch up.

 

Many many Noble prize winners ie fairly smart logical people believe in a creator, so I think it warrants investigation.

 

Religion nor Science claims to make human suffering go away, a lot of the reason as to why people suffer is down to man sadly thinking we can govern ourselves and be our own god.