Aquarius wrote:
That you'd like to believe God created the Big Bang, why not, but the Earth ?!
It's pretty much known how galaxies, solar systems and planets have been created since then. Atoms and molecules bunched and so on, until their mass got big enough, etc.
At best how life appeared on Earth remains unexplained, but certainly not how the Earth got there since the Big Bang.
Even if you can proof or calculate how an planet can be created it does not mean that there is no other way a planet has been created.
Taking the example of Dolly the cloned sheep: You can prove and calculate how a sheep can be created but obviously somebody was able to do it differently.
Edited by Lachi on 18-01-2013 16:49
I could never be a religious person, not just because I put my trust in science, facts and proveablity (is that a word?), but also because I feel it would put to many constraints on my life.
If I wish to drink, gamble and sleep with others on a weekly basis there shouldn't be anything stopping me from doing so. I am not hurting anyone, in fact my actions only lead to the profit of others, in this case the people seeling the alcohol I consume.
I have a deep rooted problem with systems impossing arbitrary laws on its people.
There's a fine line between "psychotherapist" and "psycho the rapist"
dienblad wrote:
I believe that the big bang theory is true (also the tv-show is true and hilarious)
I cannot believe in a god that would allow that monstrosity.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
cactus-jack wrote:
I could never be a religious person, not just because I put my trust in science, facts and proveablity (is that a word?), but also because I feel it would put to many constraints on my life.
If I wish to drink, gamble and sleep with others on a weekly basis there shouldn't be anything stopping me from doing so. I am not hurting anyone, in fact my actions only lead to the profit of others, in this case the people seeling the alcohol I consume.
I have a deep rooted problem with systems impossing arbitrary laws on its people.
cactus-jack wrote:
I could never be a religious person, not just because I put my trust in science, facts and proveablity (is that a word?), but also because I feel it would put to many constraints on my life.
If I wish to drink, gamble and sleep with others on a weekly basis there shouldn't be anything stopping me from doing so. I am not hurting anyone, in fact my actions only lead to the profit of others, in this case the people seeling the alcohol I consume.
I have a deep rooted problem with systems impossing arbitrary laws on its people.
You sleeping around is definitely hurting others
I'm a very gentle lover. You won't even notice that I'm there.
Joking aside, my nightly... escapedes... has never hurt others, both parties have been well informed about the fact that it's simply a one-night type of thing.
There's a fine line between "psychotherapist" and "psycho the rapist"
I don't care about atoms and molecules and gang bangs () and crap, I just feel like who we are as people and what the world is, can't just boil to that. There has to be something more. And I just can't repel the abortion talk in a few previous posts because I will be killed in that and I know it. I have been finding it funny though how certain things of politics and religion mesh with different religions and different political parties iat the same on different topics. Just something I've been thinking about.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
ShortsNL wrote:
@ Crommy, the problem with scientific theory or 'fact' in that matter is that most if not all of it is based on human observation. I simply reject the suggestion that empiricism can lead to the deduction of absolute truth or certainty. I don't see scientific theory as a way of establishing absolute fact because I don't see the ability for humans to sense and measure things as perfect.
Scientific theory is good at providing a likely scenario or likely explanation, but nothing more.
No. It is based on demonstrable, repeatable experiments. It is not based on human observation. That is why we can have reasonable certainty in scientific theory.
Experiments that can only be demonstrated and repeated through the use of... human observation.
A scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science accepts the concept of fallibilism. The philosopher of science Karl Popper sharply distinguishes truth from certainty. He writes that scientific knowledge "consists in the search for truth", but it "is not the search for certainty ... All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain."[32]
Science relies on evidence to validate its theories and models, and the predictions implied by those theories and models should be in agreement with observation. Ultimately, observations reduce to those made by the unaided human senses: sight, hearing, etc. To be accepted by most scientists, several impartial, competent observers should agree on what is observed. Observations should be repeatable, e.g., experiments that generate relevant observations can be (and, if important, usually will be) done again.
As you say yourself, scientific theories are done with reasonable certainty and uncertainty. They therefore don't provide an absolute answer. They only provide likely explanations that are universally agreed upon as fact by the scientific community. Of course scientific theories are highly useful, but since they don't represent an absolute truth, there is room for people to state other beliefs without necessarily being wrong.
ShortsNL wrote:
@ Crommy, the problem with scientific theory or 'fact' in that matter is that most if not all of it is based on human observation. I simply reject the suggestion that empiricism can lead to the deduction of absolute truth or certainty. I don't see scientific theory as a way of establishing absolute fact because I don't see the ability for humans to sense and measure things as perfect.
Scientific theory is good at providing a likely scenario or likely explanation, but nothing more.
No. It is based on demonstrable, repeatable experiments. It is not based on human observation. That is why we can have reasonable certainty in scientific theory.
Experiments that can only be demonstrated and repeated through the use of... human observation.
A scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science accepts the concept of fallibilism. The philosopher of science Karl Popper sharply distinguishes truth from certainty. He writes that scientific knowledge "consists in the search for truth", but it "is not the search for certainty ... All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain."[32]
Science relies on evidence to validate its theories and models, and the predictions implied by those theories and models should be in agreement with observation. Ultimately, observations reduce to those made by the unaided human senses: sight, hearing, etc. To be accepted by most scientists, several impartial, competent observers should agree on what is observed. Observations should be repeatable, e.g., experiments that generate relevant observations can be (and, if important, usually will be) done again.
As you say yourself, scientific theories are done with reasonable certainty and uncertainty. They therefore don't provide an absolute answer. They only provide likely explanations that are universally agreed upon as fact by the scientific community. Of course scientific theories are highly useful, but since they don't represent an absolute truth, there is room for people to state other beliefs without necessarily being wrong.
Yes that's all true (although you've argued human observation not being reliable enough on a disputed philosophical point). Science thrives on uncertainty and fallibility. Science knows it doesn't know everything. To paraphrase the comedian Dara O'Briain, that doesn't mean you get to fill in the gaps or offer alternatives with whatever horseshit you come up with.
To say that because science works on maintaining skepticism my alternative therefore must have some validation and be possible is simply moronic.
If you go that far, nothing can be taken for granted. If you don't trust the human senses, you've got nothing left (except for human reasoning, if you take a Cartesian way). Sure, maybe everything we experience can be completely different, and therefore the scientific theories could be wrong. Maybe we all live in the matrix and nothing's real at all. But you can't argue with that. You need a certain base to rely on, otherwise every discussion is pointsless. And I think that has to be the human senses.
