Religion

[alice]

hell's just the word.

[Tone]

LoL everytime I leave here this thread grows by like 2-3 pages.

[RSK]

lol Tone, thats cos me and MISH went at it for about 4-5 pages of debate

[Tone]

Do you need backup?

[RSK]

Do you need backup?

lol, no. but thx


actually, MISH is the one that 'needed' the back up!

[Tone]

Oh SNAP - you got it like THAT, RK???

[RSK]

Oh SNAP - you got it like THAT, RK???

i kid, MISH had some good points


[url]http://video.craveonline.com/video/index.php?showVideo=1751[/url]

[Mish]

What science is based on belief? Anything proven by the scientific method is not a belief, its a fact. You ask questions, so can I. I already explained were things come from. They do not come from anywere, there has always been a universe and the amount of matter that is in it remains the same, its maybe in a different position or form, never the less its still here. Everything that ends has a beginning, The universe has no end, the universe has no beginning. The only thing that ends is our conscious mind but it itself is not physicaly existant accept in memory. I already said what I know I here.

Now

What science is based on belief did you ask? The science that revolves around unproven theories, assumptions and faith. For example, the Big Bang theory which tells us that nothing existed prior to a giant explosion that created the universe. Many scientists (Even the ones working for NASA) believe in this theory (A theory which by the way contradicts your own theory of universe always being in existance).

Your theory of universe always existing by the way is also a THEORY and NOT a FACT. There is no way you can actually PROVE this theory to be a fact and THEREFORE you have to BELIEVE in it to be true. Much like other people BELIEVE their own theories that it was an intelligent force that created the universe. What makes your theory more believable to you than their theories is not for me to judge, bud it does not change the fact that you worship your own Religion, that being an unproven theory that universe always existed and was never created. Once again a theory, because if tomorrow a scientist can proove otherwise, you will have no choice but to abandon your theory and go with the actual FACTS. By the way, I can actually argue the same that your unproven theory of universe always existing is the same as pokemon living in my drawer.

Just accept the fact that you too are a Religious person with your own set of beliefs Mr. Scientist (Even if these believes are not adopted by many people)

You missed my point about the society thing so I won't even bother.

And what point did I miss? The one that it should be okay for you to ridicule anybody you want for no apparent reason? Sure, go ahead. Just don't be upset when people start to ridicule you for no apparent reason. It's very interesting I must admit, how some people complain how they should have rights to ridicule others and yet when others start to ridicule them they straight away start complaining about their rights being trampled on.

[Mish]

i kid, MISH had some good points


[url]http://video.craveonline.com/video/index.php?showVideo=1751[/url]

Thanks RK

I am arguing with OV now, so bring some popcorn...

[shh!]

Mishayna, I don't want to debate with you, but I feel compelled to point out that scientific theory and "guessing" (even when it is a good guess) are not the same thing, nor is OV's "theory" an actual theory by scientific standards, but rather a hypothesis (at best), or even more accurately, a conjecture.

[url]http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Theory[/url]

"Theories are formulated, developed and evaluated according to the scientific method..[...].. A scientific method is essentially an extremely cautious means of building a supportable, evidence-based understanding of our natural world."

The reason I will not debate this with you is that although I have a basic understanding of scientific theory, I do not personally know what steps were taken that led scientists to buy into "big bang" (although I do know that the universe is continually expanding, which supports that theory).

Additionally, I do not presume to know nearly as much as people who have devoted their lives to the study of science and have formed credible, scientific-based opinions.

[Mish]

Mishayna, I don't want to debate with you, but I feel compelled to point out that scientific theory and "guessing" (even when it is a good guess) are not the same thing,

I was not saying that the definition of the word theory means "Guessing"> I am saying that theory requires belief because it is not proven and therefore belief in theory can be viewed as a type of Religion.

Please have a quick look at the concept of "Belief".
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief[/url]

Here is an extract:

Belief is considered propositional in that it is an assertion, claim or expectation about reality that is presumed to be either true or false (even if this cannot be practically determined, such as a belief in the existence of a particular deity)

nor is OV's "theory" an actual theory by scientific standards, but rather a hypothesis (at best), or even more accurately, a conjecture.

[url]http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Theory[/url]

No it's not and I will explain why. In order for his theory to qualify for being a hypothesis it must be testable and based on previous observations or extensions of scientific theories.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis[/url]

We can neither test nor base Ov's theory open previous observations and extentions of scientific theories thus it is not a "Hypothesis"

A conjecture is in fact a mathematical statement which has been proposed as a true statement, but which no one has yet been able to prove or disprove.

Ov's theory that universe has always existed is not a mathematical statement therefore the title of "Conjecture" does not apply.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjecture[/url]

Please look more closely at the definition of the word "Theory", which is what being proposed by OV.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory[/url]

[Only-virgins]

What are you talknig about? The fact that matter can not be created nor destroyed is proof enough. I got work, no time to argue now, later maybe. Also the big bang did happen. could have been just an event nothing more.

[indigosoul]

Mish, you are truly bored, man!

I've noticed that those scientists who spend ALL their time arguing (instead of listening & thinking) are usually not very successful. Not saying thats you, but definitely something to watch out for. You mistook MY "thought experiment" for a theory, afterall.

And, sorry, but you're only half correct about the term "conjecture". It IS a mathematical term, but it is also commonly used to describe an opinion or conclusion that is formed from incomplete information. Comes from the Latin "conicere" which means "put together in thought".

Anyway, I'm not sure Wikipedia is the source I would use for my info. Who writes those entries anyway...?

I've met ppl like you. They often spew a mixture of good ideas with stuff less thought out in an attempt to confuse the listener. Its usually a mixture of stuff you know a lot about with stuff you're less sure of and want to test out. Often with the hope that you will learn something from someone who corrects your more lax points. Its great fun, I know, I've done it myself. But it gets old quickly.

Perhaps a new topic Mish?

[Mish]

What are you talknig about? The fact that matter can not be created nor destroyed is proof enough. I got work, no time to argue now, later maybe. Also the big bang did happen. could have been just an event nothing more.

OV your fact is not a fact. Matter can be created and it can be destroyed.

You are saying Big Bang did happen and then you use the word "Could" to describe it's occurence. Therefore you "Believe" it happened because you obviously don't have the facts to prove it. Isn't that right?

[Mish]

Mish, you are truly bored, man!

I've noticed that those scientists who spend ALL their time arguing (instead of listening & thinking) are usually not very successful. Not saying thats you, but definitely something to watch out for. You mistook MY "thought experiment" for a theory, afterall.

And, sorry, but you're only half correct about the term "conjecture". It IS a mathematical term, but it is also commonly used to describe an opinion or conclusion that is formed from incomplete information. Comes from the Latin "conicere" which means "put together in thought".

Anyway, I'm not sure Wikipedia is the source I would use for my info. Who writes those entries anyway...?

I've met ppl like you. They often spew a mixture of good ideas with stuff less thought out in an attempt to confuse the listener. Its usually a mixture of stuff you know a lot about with stuff you're less sure of and want to test out. Often with the hope that you will learn something from someone who corrects your more lax points. Its great fun, I know, I've done it myself. But it gets old quickly.

Perhaps a new topic Mish?

Indi, I'm not a scientist. I'm an argumentalist like i told you before

I'm just making an argument that some areas in science such as beginning of the universe and beginning of life are not yet concrete and require faith for people to believe in. Why am I doing this? Because it's really a statement for understanding and eqaulity. If people like OV can understand that they are actually going down the path of faith and belief and not 100% facts then I believe they will become more open minded towards people with a different faith or differing point of views that may or may not be correct and correctness of which he may never be able to know, thus must accept.

"Conjecture" is ussually used in maths and to arrive at a conjecture it has to be based on certain rules, which had already been proven. Unlike the empirical sciences, mathematics is based on provable truth; one cannot apply the adage about "the exception that proves the rule".. Since we have no way of testing or proving OV's theory it still consittutes as a theory and does not qualify as a conjecture.

I did mistake your thought experiment for a theory. In a way i kind of assume that people who don't use words like "I don't know myself but what if" as them trying to prove a theory. Something I should look out for and keep an open mind for I guess

What I like about Wikipedia is that it always details all the sources for the information it presents at the bottom of the page. You can find it for every article (Unlike many other online services). So be it the Stanford encyclopedia or Phillosophical dictionary, you will always trace back the information to it's sources.

It's good to know that you think that you know me, but really I'm not trying to confuse anybody. I stay on topic and hold on firmly to my original theories without flip flopping. Well, you may accuse me for enjoying arguing, but so far I haven't confused anybody by using arguments that do not make any sense(Or at least I think I haven't). I think I backed all of my thoughts up