Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
EDW74

Faith vs Science

Where do you stand?  

46 members have voted

  1. 1. Paranormal activity can or will be explained Scientifically

    • Yes
      15
    • No
      18
    • I dislike you for only giving me yes or no as an answer
      13
  2. 2. Paranormal activity, is a result of forces we cannot explain and probably never will.

    • True
      20
    • False
      14
    • I dislike you for only giving me only true or false for answers
      12
  3. 3. It's just not as simple as the other 2 questions put it

    • True
      27
    • False
      6
    • Ed, you're completel off your rocker!
      13


73 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

EDW74

Well why? Why can't it be easy? why can't this all be so simple that we've overlooked all the correct answers due to the fact that we cannot possibly fathom that it could be the simpliest answer. Perhaps all the answers to the really difficult questions are in fact the simplest ones?

Maybe it works like this;

Do ghosts exist? the simpliest answers are obvious either yes they do, or no they don't.

Are telepathy, psychokinesis and pyrokinesis real? either it's yes or no.

Are there forces or energies that we have not harness and possibly never will learn to harness? yes there are in fact those forces, or no there is no such thing, never was and never will be.

Is there a god? Yes there definitely is, No there could not possibly be!

And there is the problem, faith vs science. The believers say yes, in simpliest terms they say yes. Science says no! Science deals in validity, probabilities, logic, reason, cause and effect, proof, hard researchable data, things that can be measured, variables and absolutes. Faith, deals in personal opinion, beliefs, values, experiences, immeasurables and possibilities. Which is right? my thoughts? Both are correct, they just aren't always correct on the same subjects. But this isn't really about right or wrong? This is all about what you believe, what he believes, what she believes, what they believe and what I believe.

So we believe in things that can be proven, things that are probable, things that are logical and reasonable, things that are valid and can be researched.

But beliefs cannot be measured! What we believe is based on our experiences, or lack thereof! What we believe is based on our values! And what we believe is based on what we believe is possible!

That's why people can't accept the simple answer, because though it is easy to believe in science, or the supernatural, it's just not simple! and since it's not simple, we make it hard. 2,000 years ago it was simple. The gods were in the heavens, the demons were in the dark places, hades, hell, wherever they wanted to be. And people believed!

Then we had religious movements, and science was born and it all became........not simple. So maybe God's in heaven, or maybe he's an astronaut. The devil's in hell, or maybe he's in an underground compound. Maybe there's a ghost in my kitchen, or perhaps condensation caused the coffee pot to slide across the counter, gravity then took over causing it to topple to the floor and crash in the midle of the night.

But let me ask; what would you rather have? A world where God doesn't exist, when you die it's like you've gone to sleep to never awaken, to know that one day it will be, to you as if you've never been to have lost everything you've ever been, to know that every experience you've had and all that you've done meant nothing in the long run.

Or would you prefer; that we live in a world, where God does exist, once this life is over you get to rejoin those that you've lost who have already passed on, that in some way you're still you when this is over, to know that it all meant something, to know that what you did in this life was for something and that one day you'll be with those you've left behind. A world where anything, ANYTHING is possible and can happen.

I know what I believe, you know what you believe, but ask yourself, which is better, the possibility of ghosts in the basement being possible? Or the knowledge that it is a fact that there was no ghost in the house you lived in when you were 12?

You tell me. :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

Well why? Why can't it be easy? why can't this all be so simple that we've overlooked all the correct answers due to the fact that we cannot possibly fathom that it could be the simpliest answer. Perhaps all the answers to the really difficult questions are in fact the simplest ones?

Maybe it works like this;

Do ghosts exist? the simpliest answers are obvious either yes they do, or no they don't.

Are telepathy, psychokinesis and pyrokinesis real? either it's yes or no.

Are there forces or energies that we have not harness and possibly never will learn to harness? yes there are in fact those forces, or no there is no such thing, never was and never will be.

Is there a god? Yes there definitely is, No there could not possibly be!

Sorry, but it just might not be that simple. For all we know, ghosts, paranormal powers, and gods are like Schroedinger's cat, both there and not there at the same time.

Anytime that you are dealing with energy, and by extention, the quantum world, we are forced by the sheer nature of a different reality, to think in terms that are not simple to us. That is what makes quantum science so difficult; not the math, but the concepts that are so alien to the reality we are familiar with.

And there is the problem, faith vs science. The believers say yes, in simpliest terms they say yes. Science says no! Science deals in validity, probabilities, logic, reason, cause and effect, proof, hard researchable data, things that can be measured, variables and absolutes. Faith, deals in personal opinion, beliefs, values, experiences, immeasurables and possibilities. Which is right? my thoughts? Both are correct, they just aren't always correct on the same subjects. But this isn't really about right or wrong? This is all about what you believe, what he believes, what she believes, what they believe and what I believe.

So we believe in things that can be proven, things that are probable, things that are logical and reasonable, things that are valid and can be researched.

Actually, the problem is more along the lines that believers think that if something cannot be scientifically proven, then scientists automatically deny the existance or probability of that thing. Life is not so black and white (or 'simple', if you wish). There is nothing hypocritical about a scientist both acknowledging that there is no proof of God, and worshiping Him at the same time. Science is a methodology used to find answers in the natural world, just as mathematics is. To compare that to a spiritual search is a conceptual error.

But let me ask; what would you rather have? A world where God doesn't exist, when you die it's like you've gone to sleep to never awaken, to know that one day it will be, to you as if you've never been to have lost everything you've ever been, to know that every experience you've had and all that you've done meant nothing in the long run.

Or would you prefer; that we live in a world, where God does exist, once this life is over you get to rejoin those that you've lost who have already passed on, that in some way you're still you when this is over, to know that it all meant something, to know that what you did in this life was for something and that one day you'll be with those you've left behind. A world where anything, ANYTHING is possible and can happen.

You tell me. :mellow:

Of course I would love a world where I have a nice daddy watching over me all the time, guaranteeing me happiness after I die, getting to meet my ancestors, etc, etc. My preferences, however, are insignifigant things. If I had an option to live a wonderful life in the Matrix or a dreary life 'unplugged', I would choose the dreary existance for the sole reason that I do not subscribe to the idea that wishes make things all better. It is more important to me to be able to understand the factual reality of something as opposed to the spiritual implication of it. If living happily means living a lie, I want no part of it.

Does this mean that the Judeo-Christian God is a lie? Not at all. It means that I myself, personally, am not satisfied with it existing, and therefore living a life based around it would be a lie to myself.

And, for the record, I have absolutely no fear of running out of interesting things to discover. This world, with or without God, the paranormal, or magic, would still have just as many possibilities, and just as much of anything could, and probably will, happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yelekiah

I think that one day (perhaps not soon) some paranormal activity can be explained through science. The problem is that it's going to be difficult to quantify something intangible that you cannot see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lonecat

I think that one day (perhaps not soon) some paranormal activity can be explained through science. The problem is that it's going to be difficult to quantify something intangible that you cannot see.

I'm of the opinioin that there should be more options open for the answers to the polls.For example "will science ever explain the supernatural or paranormal? What is meant by "explain"? The answer could be "yes, but..." Does the word explain imply "explain away" "debunk" "finally disprove" or, as it could mean "to make clear".

Science may one day "explain" the paranormal by proving it to be, say, a figment of the brain's functioning (though that still leaves a loophole open). Science could also one day "explain" the paranormal by finally, through quantum physics or an even newer and fresher hypothesis prove that the "paranormal" is a mis-nomer and that it is in fact just another aspect of normality and has to do with the passage of spiriual energy passing from one dimension or "state" to another when the combination of spirit and matter breaks down. Then again science may one day discover something new and totally beyond our present-day comprehension which would confirm the paranormal's reality or non existence. Personally, if it is ever proved to be non existant then what, by the Beard of Jupiter, has been going on for all these thousands of years and experienced by humans and other animals alike? My answer to that question in the poll would be "Yes, but..."LOL Lonecat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yelekiah

It also depends on what paranormal phenomenon is being referred to. Like with ghosts, they say there is a lot of evidence what with evps, dowsing rods, and other devices. But proving God exist...I don't see that happening any time soon. Another difficult thing to quantify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShaunZero

Science is a religion in my opinion. It has a set of rules that they have to follow and even they get angered and have negative comments towards those that do not follow those rules. Some, and in my opinion alot, of scientific theories take faith to accept. The big bang for instance. There's no hard evidence and it's full of holes, so to believe in it would be somewhat blind faith in my opinion.

Science also proves things by using the human senses wich are not perfect. We can't see certain frequencies[not sure on this one], etc... And by using this logic, if you were to say anything doesn't exist because you can't use any of your senses to detect it, then you're making the broad assumption that human senses can detect ANYTHING IN EXISTANCE. Wich is probably not the case. Instead, in my opinion, they should just admit that "we don't know" instead of saying "it doesn't exist because science can't prove it". It's more or less saying "It doens't exist because our limited ability to sense can't detect it".

aquatus, some scientists DO say something doesn't exist because there is no proof. You can't talk in absolutes and say either all say this or all don't. I have personally seen many scientists say this on TV. On "Is it real?" one scientists said "There is no evidence for the human aura, because it does not exist". Not, "there's no evidence to proove it exists so we can't say it does".

Edited by ZeroShadow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormalcy

Interesting and good points all around, and an interesting little set of polls as well. I'm going to give my own opinion and paraphrase some of my earlier posts as well, so some of this may look familar for anyone who has seen my other posts in other threads.

I think "the paranormal" is indeed "normal" and natural. I do not believe in the concept of something that is "supernatural" - anything that exists or is encountered that has an effect on someone is "natural" because it exists in nature - there is no supernatural, just the unquantified natural.

Some psi abilities, UFOs, cryptids - I believe some of these have some sort of validity, some sort of objective reality. Having said that, no, I don't believe in "spirits" of the dead "hanging around" on earth, nor in "demons", nor any other sort of disembodied or otherwise similarly-featured WILLFUL entity.

This is not to say these things are not encountered. "Ghosts", Faerie, Angels, UFOs / "Aliens", Bigfoot, you could even go more recent and include Chupacabra, Shadow People and such - these are reported today, and they have been reported by numerous people, some practically throughout history.

To me, this lends a certain credence to such things as having an objective existence. This may, however, stop short of a WILLFUL existence - the old "tree falls in a forest" conundrum. Being anomolies, we have no idea what the nature of any of these things are in their "private lives" - do they even exist when no one is perceiving them? Do they truly exist at all, or are they merely "thoughtforms", perhaps normally undetectable masses of some form of subtle energy or matter which can be "charged" by attention, belief and thought, and assume the forms and attitudes which we ourselves "give" them?

Much like the inversion of the biblical reference, that Man created God in his own image, it does seem to me if there is a single being so ineffable, so inscrutable, omnipotent and all-powerful that it simple EXISTS, beyond even time itself, we certainly do put a lot of stock in believing that we can know even a tiny part of its true nature, ideas, intentions and how it works. This is like appearing on Wheel of Fortune and attempting to "buy a 3" - holding a yardstick up to the infinity of the night sky and finding it wanting.

My personal belief system includes the idea that "God" is a force, THE force, of which the Universe is composed. We are all integral component parts of "God", of existance itself. God is BEING, or more accurately, God is BE - no verb tenses - ALL verb tenses. God is personal for each person, God is not an or even willful, objective being - God is ourselves, but is also influenced by what we want and need - God is a pattern and the logic and operation of the Universe itself. Following this, the phrase "through God, all things are possible" truly applies.

Too many human traits and assumptions are made and ascribed to "God", in too many religions - too many people assume the validity of somehow quantifying and qualifying "God", being able to "finish up" the study of God and set it on the shelf as "complete", like a 5,000 piece puzzle you coat with glue and hang on your wall to show everyone your accomplishment, patience, reasoning and discipline.

I think God exists somewhere between the microscope, the glowing red eyes of the Boogey Man, and the mass of tissue that rattles around in our braincages. Everyone's belief is valid for them, including mine, though I personally don't think any are correct, entirely, maybe not at all, but they are, in the end, all we have with which to to make sense of and interact with "God" - I consider it nearly an Evolotionary function - Man evolved (just go along, for the sake of my example, non-Evolutionists) the need and idea for "God" as our "tool" to interact with and understand existance (truly GOD) itself, just as we developed upright stance, hearing, etc. Adaptation.

Psi abilities then, contact with "paranormal" entitites, sometimes leading to an entirely new outlook on life and the Universe - evolutionary functions? Yes, say psychologist Carl Jung (Freud's student and pioneer in modern dream symbology and archetypes), as well as Jacques Vallee, free-thinking visionary French computer scientist and UFOlogist - Charles Forte also seemed dissatisfied with the "common" theories of his day to explain away most anomolies.

Science was born of religion because both were Man's introduction and way of understanding and interacting with the Universe - learning about the things around us, how life and energy and the world works. Science is simply a branch of Religion, so there, I would agree, though Science is intended to be based on curiosity, rationality and fact, rather than dogma and tradition, but this is not always the case.

So again, I think we're probably all off-base to a smaller or greater degree, but that doesn't necessarily totally invalidate how we think or believe - all projects, research and new advancements and discoveries are made on the backs of others, on striving upward from the foundations of what has come before, and so hopefully too it will be when science and religion return to embrace each other in the future, simply known as "TRUTH".

Edited by jpatt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sublime

science all the way!!!!! but i guessed the last answer on each one (to make the results more interesting :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EDW74

I'm of the opinioin that there should be more options open for the answers to the polls. Lonecat

I did that on purpose, I hate asking a yes/no queston, and getting someone's life story, I knew the responses would be long and detailed enough without giving people even more wiggle room to play with and leave posts four pages wrong. It's scientifically nothing more than a control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

Science is a religion in my opinion. It has a set of rules that they have to follow and even they get angered and have negative comments towards those that do not follow those rules. Some, and in my opinion alot, of scientific theories take faith to accept. The big bang for instance. There's no hard evidence and it's full of holes, so to believe in it would be somewhat blind faith in my opinion.

The difference between science and faith is that the 'rules' science has to follow are neither dogmatic nor are they unsupported. If a new rule is needed, such as the rule of Falsification, it is added. Similarly, the rules may be removed, as long as evidence showing that it is obsolete is presented.

The thing of it is, though, that almost all scientific theories are misunderstood by the general public. In the example given, that of the Big Bang, the claim is made that no hard evidence is given and that it is full of holes. If the claim is that the Big Bang is how the universe and all existance began, then yes, it lacks hard evidence. That is not the claim, though. The claim of the Big Bang is that the universe is currently expanding, and that it originally began as a singularity. That claim has plenty of evidence to back it up, as hard as you like. Is it complete? No, it is by no means complete, and you will not find a single scientist who knows anything about the Big Bang theory to even imply that it is. A theory explains the data we currently have, and there is new data being discovered on a daily basis. Theories are not static things that emerge from a scientist's head like Venus, fully formed and god-like. They are constantly changing, being updated, as new data appears. Belifs also change, but not intentionally.

Science also proves things by using the human senses wich are not perfect. We can't see certain frequencies[not sure on this one], etc... And by using this logic, if you were to say anything doesn't exist because you can't use any of your senses to detect it, then you're making the broad assumption that human senses can detect ANYTHING IN EXISTANCE. Wich is probably not the case. Instead, in my opinion, they should just admit that "we don't know" instead of saying "it doesn't exist because science can't prove it". It's more or less saying "It doens't exist because our limited ability to sense can't detect it".

I think you will find that the only people that make claims of that kind are those who take science on faith rather than understanding what science is truly about. Science is like a fishing net with inch-wide holes. With it, we can verify the existance of all fish larger than one inch. Does this mean that science refuses to acknowledge the existance of fish smaller than one inch? Not at all. It simply means that we are unable to currently verify it. Incidentally, the physical sense are neither the primary, nor even the prefered type of evidence for a theory. Science requires objective evidence and a logical path, not 'seeing is believing'.

aquatus, some scientists DO say something doesn't exist because there is no proof. You can't talk in absolutes and say either all say this or all don't. I have personally seen many scientists say this on TV. On "Is it real?" one scientists said "There is no evidence for the human aura, because it does not exist". Not, "there's no evidence to proove it exists so we can't say it does".

And some evangelists claim that God punished the Minister of Israel by giving him a stroke, and some atheists claim that all religions are evil and should be forcibly disbanded. Fortunately, though, most people know better than to judge an institution through individual claims. Scientists are not forever scientific. They are human, and like all humans, they have their beliefs, bias, and tweaks. That is why the system of scientific methodology is set up as it is. Whereas in a faith system, the main speaker will say something, and all others are expected to follow, in science, the argument of authority has nowhere near as much power. In a faith system, where the basic support of an idea consist of belief, in science, it consist of objective evidence and logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShaunZero
I think you will find that the only people that make claims of that kind are those who take science on faith rather than understanding what science is truly about. Science is like a fishing net with inch-wide holes. With it, we can verify the existance of all fish larger than one inch. Does this mean that science refuses to acknowledge the existance of fish smaller than one inch? Not at all. It simply means that we are unable to currently verify it. Incidentally, the physical sense are neither the primary, nor even the prefered type of evidence for a theory. Science requires objective evidence and a logical path, not 'seeing is believing'.

But we can see fish smaller than one inche. We can also touch them. Again, only what we can use our imperfect senses on. If there really is something that exists undetectable by human senses or instruments[current ones] then science will often give pretty negative comments towards believers. Such as ball lightning[XD!]. Don't get me wrong, I like science and it's a very good way to aquire knowledge, but I just don't agree with it as much as most people do. By telling people anything spiritual does not exist because we can't test it has slowed down or nearly stopped the human's spiritual growth. We will limit the new things we can discover if we only follow science and don't try to figure out things that may be somehow undetectable by science.[For instance, the human aura, some people can see them, I have briefly, but science can't find the aura].

An incomplete theory with holes in it, in my opinion, takes faith to say "this theory is correct".

The claim of the Big Bang is that the universe is currently expanding, and that it originally began as a singularity.

2 questions..

1) How does the universe expanding prove that started at a singularity? I hope there's more evidence than this to suggest everything started at a singularity. I can take a large baloon [a hot air baloon] and blow it up, and it'll expand, but did all the matter of the baloon start at a singularity?

2) How does that have anything to do with a "Bang"?

Edited by ZeroShadow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

But we can see fish smaller than one inche. We can also touch them. Again, only what we can use our imperfect senses on.

People see all types of things all the time. Since the subjective sense are so unreliable, they are generally only considered supportive, or circumstancial, evidence. The actualy science has to be founded on objective evidence, such as the actual fish. Remember that you can't touch a fish smaller than an inch (because our net isn't good enough to catch them). This doesn't mean that smaller fish don't exist. It merely means that science cannot confirm that they do.

If there really is something that exists undetectable by human senses or instruments[current ones] then science will often give pretty negative comments towards believers. Such as ball lightning[XD!]. Don't get me wrong, I like science and it's a very good way to aquire knowledge, but I just don't agree with it as much as most people do.

No, people direct pretty negative comments towards believers. Scientific methodology doesn't care one way or another, in the same way that the law of addition and subtraction does not care how many objects are being calculated.

Not sure what you mean by ball lightning. It's a pretty well-known phenomena.

By telling people anything spiritual does not exist because we can't test it has slowed down or nearly stopped the human's spiritual growth. We will limit the new things we can discover if we only follow science and don't try to figure out things that may be somehow undetectable by science.[For instance, the human aura, some people can see them, I have briefly, but science can't find the aura].

There is nothing about science that would prohibit it. If such a thing as a human aura exists, the problem is not that we can detect it or not, but rather that we cannot confirm its existance. In other words, there is no repeatability or reliability. Because of this, any advancement is basically trial and error, and we already know how long it takes for such ways of teaching to progress. If there is a human aura, the first step is to be able to detect it in such a manner that anyone who wishes to can detect.

An incomplete theory with holes in it, in my opinion, takes faith to say "this theory is correct".

Yes it does, however it takes no faith to say that the theory is valid and logical, which is what scientific methodology requires. Whether you believe it to be correct is up to you.

2 questions..

1) How does the universe expanding prove that started at a singularity? I hope there's more evidence than this to suggest everything started at a singularity. I can take a large baloon [a hot air baloon] and blow it up, and it'll expand, but did all the matter of the baloon start at a singularity?

2) How does that have anything to do with a "Bang"?

Since this thread isn't about this, I'll respond briefly, but ask that we not stray off-topic.

1) Take your ballon as an example. Let's say that you paint three dots in a triangle formation on it, then you start to blow it up. You'll notice that, as the balloon expands, the dots remain the same size (relatively, however the distance between them increases, but more so, it increases equivalently in all directions. In other words, the space between the dots is expanding equally in all distances. The same thing has been recorded in our universe. We have seen that the spaces between object sin space are expanading equally in all directions by measuring them through what is called by astronomers the Red-Phase shift. By seeing that effect, we are able to conjecture that, since it is expanding now, it must have come from somewhere, and the manner in which it is expanding indicates that it did so from a singularity, just as the balloon did.

2) It is a bang in the sense that it is a rapid dissemination of energy from a central point to a more dispersed one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EDW74

I'm glad I started this thread, this is getting good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShaunZero
People see all types of things all the time. Since the subjective sense are so unreliable, they are generally only considered supportive, or circumstancial, evidence. The actualy science has to be founded on objective evidence, such as the actual fish. Remember that you can't touch a fish smaller than an inch (because our net isn't good enough to catch them). This doesn't mean that smaller fish don't exist. It merely means that science cannot confirm that they do.

That's my point. They need to stop saying "it doens't exist" and say "we don't know if it does or not".

There is nothing about science that would prohibit it. If such a thing as a human aura exists, the problem is not that we can detect it or not, but rather that we cannot confirm its existance. In other words, there is no repeatability or reliability. Because of this, any advancement is basically trial and error, and we already know how long it takes for such ways of teaching to progress. If there is a human aura, the first step is to be able to detect it in such a manner that anyone who wishes to can detect.

That has nothing to do with what my point was. I only meant that scientists say "it doesn't exist" just because THEY can't use their senses on it. [it's possible, but the scientists claiming it doesn't exist aren't doing it]. Even scientific instruments require the human senses to work it. If it displays images on the screen, you have to be able to SEE these images. It's as simple as that, if they can't test it via imperfect human senses, scientists act as if it doesn't exist.[Let me say that NOT ALL, but in my opinion far too many].

1) Take your ballon as an example. Let's say that you paint three dots in a triangle formation on it, then you start to blow it up. You'll notice that, as the balloon expands, the dots remain the same size (relatively, however the distance between them increases, but more so, it increases equivalently in all directions. In other words, the space between the dots is expanding equally in all distances. The same thing has been recorded in our universe. We have seen that the spaces between object sin space are expanading equally in all directions by measuring them through what is called by astronomers the Red-Phase shift. By seeing that effect, we are able to conjecture that, since it is expanding now, it must have come from somewhere, and the manner in which it is expanding indicates that it did so from a singularity, just as the balloon did.

How does that prove the universe was ALWAYS expanding. Yeah, obviously things weren't where they are now because they're moving away from eachother, but that in no way at all, in my honast opinion, proves that everything starting from ONE place[big bang].

Science may not be a religion but you're sure preaching it to me right now ^_^

All the rules and junk =P

Edited by ZeroShadow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EDW74

That's my point. They need to stop saying "it doens't exist" and say "we don't know if it does or not".

This makes sense to me.

BTW folks I didn't make this thread with the intention of me geting on here to discredit or argue with anyone, I just wanted to see varying points of view and it's working out wonderfully, thanks everyone for your input, please keep it up! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShaunZero

This makes sense to me.

BTW folks I didn't make this thread with the intention of me geting on here to discredit or argue with anyone, I just wanted to see varying points of view and it's working out wonderfully, thanks everyone for your input, please keep it up! :D

Feel free to jump in and argue all you want. Don't be afraid to disagree with either of us either! Your point of view is just as important as ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EDW74

Feel free to jump in and argue all you want. Don't be afraid to disagree with either of us either! Your point of view is just as important as ours.

Well when I started the thread I posted my views, it's the first post on this one, if someone challenges my opinion to the point where I feel the need to defend it I will.

Thanks for the offer though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

That's my point. They need to stop saying "it doens't exist" and say "we don't know if it does or not".

And people need to stop saying that all scientists refuse to believe in something if it isn't scientifically proven, but thats never going to happen.

Works both ways, you know.

That has nothing to do with what my point was. I only meant that scientists say "it doesn't exist" just because THEY can't use their senses on it. [it's possible, but the scientists claiming it doesn't exist aren't doing it]. Even scientific instruments require the human senses to work it. If it displays images on the screen, you have to be able to SEE these images. It's as simple as that, if they can't test it via imperfect human senses, scientists act as if it doesn't exist.[Let me say that NOT ALL, but in my opinion far too many].

Let's not be silly. Seeing something with your own eyes is completely different than seeing a read-out on a computer. No one can accuse the computer of seeing something that wasn't there. They computer has no preconceived bias. Because of that, we consider a computer read-out to be objective. Human vision is interpreted through the mind, which is naturally biased. Because of that, it it can only be considered subjective.

And, again, we can agree that individuals should not be used to judge the whole.

How does that prove the universe was ALWAYS expanding. Yeah, obviously things weren't where they are now because they're moving away from eachother, but that in no way at all, in my honast opinion, proves that everything starting from ONE place[big bang].

It indicates that things began in one place because of the fact that they are expanding away from each other equally. If they were expanding unequally, say, for instance, something farther away was receeding at a faster rate than something closer, then that would indicate that the universe began as a flat plane. The only way that we know of for something to expand equally away from everything at the same time is when the object is circular, like a balloon. Because the method of expansion indicates a spherical shape, then we can logically deduce that, if we reverse time and un-expand the balloon, it eventually ends in a singularity.

Science may not be a religion but you're sure preaching it to me right now ^_^

All the rules and junk =P

There is a difference between preaching and teaching. ;)

A preacher wants you to believe what you tell him, and expects to provide nothing more than his authority and belief to get you to do so. A teacher would like it if you believed him, however his goal is not to get you to believe the theory, but rather to understand it. Once you understand it, through the use of examples, logic, and objective evidence (in other words, through something other than simply "because I said so"), you are free to decide whether or not you wish to believe the theory or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carrie Anne

On "Is it real?" one scientists said "There is no evidence for the human aura, because it does not exist". Not, "there's no evidence to proove it exists so we can't say it does".

This is something that irritates me as well. :rolleyes: Dealing in absolutes when you (meaning you in general, not YOU the poster) have no hard evidence to back up your claim. There is absolutely NOTHING that either proves or disproves that God exists FOR A FACT, but this does not change my belief, or anyone else's belief who has an opinion on the existance of God. At this point in time, there is absolutely no hard evidence to back up the claim that there is, or is not a God. Again I have to say, ANYTHING is possible. Yes, I realize there are lots of things which are not probable, but I still cannot say for an absolute fact that these things are "fakes", simply because I feel they are. Who am I to make such an assumption? How silly!

I totally agree with you. It is extremely unrealistic to say something does not exist because, with our limited perception, we do not see or hear it. That in itself sounds like a God complex, or for lack of a better term, another "smarty pants" who thinks he knows everything (meaning the guy on the show you mentioned).

That is what irritates me about things brought here to be examined. People, who think they know everything, saying "this is soooo fake". Unless you were there when the person faked it, or they came out and said "Yes, this is fake, here is how I did it", how can you say without a doubt that it is infact fake? That, to me, is arrogance. Instead you should say "If you look at it from this point of view (insert explanation here), it is possible that it was staged or faked".

If you believe in the bible, then you should know the answers to lifes questions after you meet your maker, and not until then will you be able to speak in such absolutes.

JMO as usual:) ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

Of course, saying "There is no evidence for the human aura, because it does not exist." could very well be correct, however, because it is an absolute, in cannot be considered a scientific statement. Just because something is logically correct, does not mean it is factually correct, or in this case, conceptually correct. Wether it is right or not will not make it anymore a scientific statement than it is now, not until, in all cases, the entire full functions of the human brain have been throughly mapped out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carrie Anne

And people need to stop saying that all scientists refuse to believe in something if it isn't scientifically proven, but thats never going to happen.

I don't think the other poster meant every scientist refuses to believe in something if it isn't scientifically proven, but SOME scientists, and some people who blindly believe in science without fully understanding it will undoubtedly say something is fake or inaccurate because science cannot prove it to be true.

Let's not be silly. 1)Seeing something with your own eyes is completely different than seeing a read-out on a computer. 2)No one can accuse the computer of seeing something that wasn't there. cc

1)Not always. The scientist is still putting faith in the fact that there is absolutely nothing (i.e. Low batteries, malfunctions, power surges, etc) that could cause the computer to give inacurate readings.

2) No, but they could accuse the computer of not properly functioning. Being man made, the computer is not perfect in every instance.

The only way that we know of for something to expand equally away from everything at the same time is when the object is circular, like a balloon.

Yes, that we know of right now, but new things are discovered every day ;)

There is a difference between preaching and teaching. ;)

A preacher wants you to believe what you tell him, and expects to provide nothing more than his authority and belief to get you to do so. A teacher would like it if you believed him, however his goal is not to get you to believe the theory, but rather to understand it. Once you understand it, through the use of examples, logic, and objective evidence (in other words, through something other than simply "because I said so"), you are free to decide whether or not you wish to believe the theory or not.

:huh: I am guessing you meant that a preacher wants you to believe what he tells you, not what you tell him, right?

Preachers use the bible as their logical proof, in the same way that scientists use facts they believe to be true, based on whatever evidence they intend to provide, as their logical proof. There have been times in history where new scientific evidence comes to light that disproves things they previously believed to be hard facts. This is not unheard of really.

I am beginning to think this topic should have been in the "Spirituality vs. Skepticism" area :yes: or so it would seem. While this is a great topic :tu: I think it could go on and on, so I am going to move on myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

I don't think the other poster meant every scientist refuses to believe in something if it isn't scientifically proven, but SOME scientists, and some people who blindly believe in science without fully understanding it will undoubtedly say something is fake or inaccurate because science cannot prove it to be true.

Yes, I am saying pretty much the same thing.

1)Not always. The scientist is still putting faith in the fact that there is absolutely nothing (i.e. Low batteries, malfunctions, power surges, etc) that could cause the computer to give inacurate readings.

2) No, but they could accuse the computer of not properly functioning. Being man made, the computer is not perfect in every instance.

Not at all, however, the way in which scientific methodology works is to eliminate as many variables as possible in a study. In the case of a malfunctioning computer, the errors will be noted very quickly, due to the irregularities from the read-outs. This is why it is so very important to repeatedly test the phenomena, over and over again, hundreds of times if necessary. A computer glitch strong enough to withstand that much testing will be discovered.

There is no faith involved. Once the study is disseminated to the peer review board, to say nothing of published in a scientific journal, all scientist now have access to the data, and will confirm it. If, by some inconceivable reason, the original scientist only used one machine for all his testing, the other machines of the other scientists will point it out.

Yes, that we know of right now, but new things are discovered every day ;)

Precisely why I stated it in that matter. Ultimately, a scientific theory is the best possible solution available with the current data [/i]that has yet to be falsified.[/i]

:huh: I am guessing you meant that a preacher wants you to believe what he tells you, not what you tell him, right?

Not at all. One does not tell things to a preacher, in the same way one does not tell things to a teacher. Of course, one debates, one asks questions, etc, etc, but when all is said and done, both the teacher and the preacher are meant to be the final source off data.

Preachers use the bible as their logical proof, in the same way that scientists use facts they believe to be true, based on whatever evidence they intend to provide, as their logical proof.

Not at all. Preachers use their bibles as proof of what they are saying, but that proof is not logical, but rather authoritive. It is not proof that is derived from objective formulation, like a scientific theory or hard facts, but rather proof that is subjective in origin from an authority figure, designed to do a job. It is more a justification than proof, in the same way that the judicial texts are a justification for what a police officer arrests a criminal form.

There have been times in history where new scientific evidence comes to light that disproves things they previously believed to be hard facts. This is not unheard of really.

Not at all. In fact, it is one of the reasons why science is so dynamic and lacks dogma. It is precisely why absolutes do not exist; they simply can't. When a scientific is made, it is absolutely required to have a method in which it can e falsified. If it does not, it cannot be considered scientific.

I am beginning to think this topic should have been in the "Spirituality vs. Skepticism" area :yes: or so it would seem. While this is a great topic :tu: I think it could go on and on, so I am going to move on myself.

I think we are avoiding an actual debate here. Both sides are learning about each other, and no one has accused anyone else of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unorthodox Thesis
I am beginning to think this topic should have been in the "Spirituality vs. Skepticism" area

I agree. But this is not the only instance of disorder. First of all, you claim that Science is VS faith. Second of all, which faith are you talking about? If it is another Creation VS Evolution, then I've had my share of debate. :sleepy:

This doesn't mean that smaller fish don't exist. It merely means that science cannot confirm that they do.

No, we have the proper equipment. It is the observer whom filters out the truth out of the various possibilities for an unconscious fear of a genuine find which may alter the coarse of mankind from it's predicted direction. Humanity is doomed, and you just have to live with the fact that we have limited knowledge and understanding about certain things like Science VS faith... :lol: The title itself is ridicilous! How do you expect to resolve this debate? Do you expect to win? As much as the pattern of insanity appears similar to the pattern of faith, the very fact that you will not be able to convince one's opinion based on scientific evidence is proof that Faith triumphs over science because even science is built on your faith on logical methods.

And what if the world is't logical? Well, then you're wasting your time just like you once thought that we were all wasting our time for believing something. I do not know if faith is logical, but I know that it is more powerful than science.

Edited by Norman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
character

It is precisely why absolutes do not exist; they simply can't. When a scientific is made, it is absolutely required to have a method in which it can e falsified. If it does not, it cannot be considered scientific.

absolutes doesnt exist e? how about a scientific fact then: all live things die eventualy, when you jump of a cliff, you fall and a lot others ;)

the point is that even if the statements are very basic and simple, they ARE absolute, and from such statements you get scientific theories. When something contradicts these statements, that something either doesnt exist or is understood incorectly (like ancient people thought wheather fenomenoms are because of the mood of there gods).

heres a question for all of you sayng that if you cant confirm something with scince or human senses doesnt mean it doesn exist: so if we cant detect it, why should we care? something that cant be felt, cant be seen, cant be confirmed logicaly doesnt influance us, do you care about some african tribe (just an exapmle) you never seen if it absolutely nothing to do with you? on the other hand if it does influance us, that meens it should be detecteble by either sensitive machines or human senses, thats called logic ;)

i agree that its kinda foolish to just say something doesnt exist because theres no evidence, but would you believe me if i told you i have a invisible cow size hamster in a undetecteble floting farm, you wouldnt, but hey, considering previous statements, you cant prove that i DONT have such farm either ;) a complicated thing this topic is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShaunZero

Don't have much time to reply but:

Still, scientists use only the imperfect senses to proove if something either exists or doesn't. Regardless of the tools they use.

It indicates that things began in one place because of the fact that they are expanding away from each other equally. If they were expanding unequally, say, for instance, something farther away was receeding at a faster rate than something closer, then that would indicate that the universe began as a flat plane. The only way that we know of for something to expand equally away from everything at the same time is when the object is circular, like a balloon. Because the method of expansion indicates a spherical shape, then we can logically deduce that, if we reverse time and un-expand the balloon, it eventually ends in a singularity.

But all of the balloon parts are not in one area are they? They are apart from eachother. The baloon didn't come from nothing and it did not start from ONE point and then expand. It was already somewhat "expanded" if you will. That in no way proves the big bang at all in my opinion. We know so little about the universe. And we can only see a very very very small portion of the universe. You really think an ant in an anthill can aquire accurate knowledge about the entire world? Or how things may be different elsewhere?

aquatus, some scientific theories and other scientific things need take a bit of faith. Don't try to rationalize that. If it were to take 0% faith, then wouldn't that mean 100% is positivly correct without possibility of being wrong? So now it's the end all be all of knowledge?

Edited by ZeroShadow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.