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

aquatus1

Oy...

**wishes there was a smiley that rubs its eyes tiredly**

I have to admit, you guys are asking perfectly valid questions, so...

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 ;)

Oh, come on now, let's not play the "take it out of context" game. we are talking about scientific claims, i.e. formal scientific theories. Scientific theories and scientific facts are not the same thing. Scientific facts have an objective reality. Scientific theories are logical conclusions that are drawn from those facts. It is a requirement of all scientific theories to be falsifiable.

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?

Well, honestly, you two are the only ones here claiming that other people claim that something that isn't confirmed by science cannot exist.

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.

Disagree completely. Another one of the 'rules', of scientific methodology is that the result can be replicated by an unbiased third party by simply following the same methods used by the originator. Unless every single scientist that confirms the work, to say nothing of uses the work to further their own, makes the exact same perceptual mistake that the original scientist made (apperantly several hundred times in a row), the use of the senses to be at fault is a non-argument.

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.

Ahhh! Now I get! Now I see where most of your confusion is coming from!

The basic premise, the most fundamental assumption (and yes, it is an assumption that has, to date, worked fairly well), the basic assumption of science is that natural phenomean occurs and continues to occur until such time as it is prevented from occuring by another natural phenomena.

What does this mean? This means the following: If light moves at 186,000 miles per second, then it will continue to move at 186,000 miles per second unless some other force prevents it. If genes mutate through natural means, they will continue to mutate until such time as some other force is shown to stop it. If a natural phenomena occurs in a specific manner today, it will have occured in that manner in the distant past, and it will act in that manner in the future as well. Think of it as one of the laws of thermodynamics applied at the universal scale.

So, in the case of evolution, it means that, having shown that evolutionary theory explains how the genome mutates naturally, the assumption is that the genome will continue mutating until some force (as yet, none has been shown to exist) causes mutations to stop happening (the much desired "species-barrier" creationists insist exist). In the case of the balloon example of the Big Bang, having shown how the universe expanded and extrapolating a reverse contraction, the assumption is that it will continue contracting until another forth prevents it from contracting further (such as a singularity).

It is possible that the universe did start at a somewhat flaccidly inflated level like the balloon did, however, there is nothing that would indicate that this is the case. Until such time as evidence indicates this to be the case, we have to go with what we have.

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?

Not at all. Scientific theories take no faith because all assumption made are clearly stated. Everyone who reads the study will know exactly what is being assumed, what is factual, what the claim is, and what the logical path from the factual evidence to the conclusion is. The opposite of faith is not infalliable correctness (that would imply that faith itself is 100% wrongness). Being correct is not a scientific requirement (how would we check?). What is required is for a theory to be logically valid and objectively verifiable. A theory can be valid, logically correct, and still be wrong. Scientific methodology is not a system for uncovering absolute truth. It is a system designed to discover the most probable explanation for a natural phenomena with the currently existing data. If new data appears, the theory must change (unlike certain (not all) faith based systems, which do not allow for change if evidence is found that does not support it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

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.

If you wish ;)

I say Science will prove in time if the paranormal is real or not....I may have seen something as a kid but at times I ask myself did I really see something???? :hmm::blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

EDIT sorry there was a double post something happened as I tried to post the last one...I didn't think it was sent through oppss a daisy :w00t:

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Munchkin

So here's where I stand on both. Both are needed. Faith gives us hope and science gives us answers. As humans, we need both to remain sane. Faith is needed because the majority of people fear their own mortality, therefore in order to alievate(?) our fears, we believe in an afterlife- both good and evil. Evil afterlife scares the bejesus out of most of us, so we do what we can in this life to ensure our spot in the good when we pass. Faith also gives us the feeling that no matter what we do or where we go in life, there is a Higher power who will watch over us and our loved ones.

Now, as we all know humans by nature are curious. And although curiousity killed the cat (and some people-those who've won a darwin award...lol), we need that curiousity to cure diseases, find new solar systems etc. Science also keeps us safe. Safe from things we know will harm us.

Now both can be bad or fatal. There are those who are serious "bible thumpers". I'm talking about those who claim to be christian and then harm others who don't believe in God or religion. As for science, curiosity created nuclear warheads.

We need faith and science, but humans can go too far with both. Be an open minded and don't rely 100% on ONE specific thing. There are too many holes in too many theories that are dangerous. Be a free thinker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShaunZero
It is possible that the universe did start at a somewhat flaccidly inflated level like the balloon did, however, there is nothing that would indicate that this is the case. Until such time as evidence indicates this to be the case, we have to go with what we have.

But the data available[to my knowledge] doesn't make the first theory[that everything came from a singularity] any more valid than the second[that the universe possibly just started to expand from it's normal size, wich is no big bang at all or does not try to say this is how the universe started].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

But the data available[to my knowledge] doesn't make the first theory[that everything came from a singularity] any more valid than the second[that the universe possibly just started to expand from it's normal size, wich is no big bang at all or does not try to say this is how the universe started].

I'm afraid I don't understand the question. What do you mean by normal size?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShaunZero

Exactly like a balloon. The baloon's normal size is not all it's mass in one spot. It's only smaller than it's inflated size. IE: The universe was once smaller than it is now, but is now expanding... like a balloon. I see no reason why this is any less valid than the idea that it all came from a singularity [big bang].

Edited by ZeroShadow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

Exactly like a balloon. The baloon's normal size is not all it's mass in one spot. It's only smaller than it's inflated size. IE: The universe was once smaller than it is now, but is now expanding... like a balloon. I see no reason why this is any less valid than the idea that it all came from a singularity [big bang].

Okay, now I get it. The reason is this: A balloon has several measurable forces acting upon it. As it deflates, the force of it contracting (as measured by the elastic forces in the rubber) are eventually overcome by the force of the static atmosphere surrounding it. When the balloon has reached its initial shape, it cannot contract any further, because to do so would require additional energy to puch out the air inside of it, and then even more to further compress the rubber makeup into a singularity. This does not happen because the properties of the rubber exist withing a single given gravitational system.

The galaxy works on a gravitational system above and beyond anything we can describe with mere words. Whereas with the balloon, the more you compress it, the greater the force (the rubber) will push outwards to return it to its original shape, when we talk of celestial bodies, their mass is of such great size that they generate a gravity field of such strength that it overwhelms the individual properties of the bodies. Where the rubber of the balloon can overcome the force of its own gravity, the makeup of a star, for instance, will eventually collapse into itself to make a black hole.

So, in other words, as the matter of the universe draws closer and closer together, the cumulative gravity effect gets larger and larger, overwhelming the matter's ability to 'spring back' to an original form (like the balloon does).

Did that make sense to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShaunZero

Kind of did, but if I got it right it still does not validate the idea that everything came from a big bang anymore than it validates the idea that the universe was once smaller than it is now and began to expand for some reason. I don't see why we just jump to the conclusion that there was a bang and it all popped up from almost nothing.

I'll make a respsonse with the little bit I understood of your post. Of course their's going to be differences in what the balloon and the universe is made of, but I was just stating the basic idea of how the universe could have been smaller than it is now at one time and then start to expand for some reason or another. Do we really even know what the universe is completly made of? What's at the end of the universe? What stops us from getting out? How can we just assume we know what it's made of and what would happen if it were like a balloon?

EDIT: Sorry if this doens't make sense, I'm just rambling and my girlfriend is on my lap so I'm doing a rush job so I don't bore her XD.

Edited by ZeroShadow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

Kind of did, but if I got it right it still does not validate the idea that everything came from a big bang anymore than it validates the idea that the universe was once smaller than it is now and began to expand for some reason. I don't see why we just jump to the conclusion that there was a bang and it all popped up from almost nothing.

Because there is no indication that any force exists that would have the power to keep anything with the mass of the universe from collapsing into itself. Since it could not have existed in this manner, it must have existed in a coillapsed state, meaning a singularity. Remember, the assumption of science is that any given force will continue unless acted on externally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShaunZero

So you're saying if the universe were to stay still it would collapse on itself? Why?

How can you even say that and pass it off as true when we don't know hardly anything about the universe? And if I were to put forth a different idea, someone would tell me I were wrong and then give me this scientific explaination, wich in no way is the only possibility. This is what I mean. Scientists or people who have faith in science WILL OFTEN[in my opinion] pass things off as true even though it's possible it's not, and they'll call someone else wrong for having a different idea.

Edited by ZeroShadow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

So you're saying if the universe were to stay still it would collapse on itself? Why?

Gravity. One of the four basic forces of the universe. It isn't static. As long as potential energy exists, gravity will have an effect on it. The only way to vercome it is through an application of a greater force, such as a big bang.

How can you even say that and pass it off as true when we don't know hardly anything about the universe?

Because this is not an idea that claims to be the answer to all of the universes mysteries. This is merely the best explanation of how the universe began that fits the data that we have available to us today.

And if I were to put forth a different idea, someone would tell me I were wrong and then give me this scientific explaination, wich in no way is the only possibility. This is what I mean. Scientists or people who have faith in science WILL OFTEN[in my opinion] pass things off as true even though it's possible it's not, and they'll call someone else wrong for having a different idea.

If you were to put forth an alternate explaantion concerning the origins of the universe, you would also have to supply with that the evidence and logical arguments which support your claim. If your claims are logically valid and factually correct, then your theory will be considered to have scientific merit. Will everyone instantly believe you? Of course not. Most theories need to outlive their opponents. Nonetheless, a theory must stand on its own merit. No matter how many scientists disagree with you, as long as they cannot falsify it, your theory remains scientifically valid.

You don't think the Big Bang theory is the only theory about the universe and its origins, do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShaunZero

Regardless of all that, you still can't know if it is true. So you can't really say "you're wrong, I'm right". Only if it's more true to SCIENCE.

We don't even know hardly anything about the universe. Hell, what if far far into the universe, or at the edges of the universe, things aren't logical?[At least what we see as logical]. This is only based on our VERY VERY limited knowledge of the universe therefore you can't pass anything off as true.

So... what's expanding the universe then? Doesn't it have to be stronger thang gravity so the universe doesn't collapse in on itself? What's doing it and why? You're assuming that there is no knowledge that we havn't aquired yet that would change everything we know about the universe if you pass these things off as definitley true, or by calling someone else wrong. You're also assuming the universe is the same everywhere as it is here.

Edited by ZeroShadow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

Regardless of all that, you still can't know if it is true. So you can't really say "you're wrong, I'm right". Only if it's more true to SCIENCE.

Okay, now you are getting repetitive. Really, how many times do I have to say it? Science is not about finding 'The Truth'. Science is about finding the most probable explanation for a natural phenomena with the data that we have. A scientific theory can be both valid and logical and still be wrong. No scientific theory can ever claim to be forever right.

We don't even know hardly anything about the universe. Hell, what if far far into the universe, or at the edges of the universe, things aren't logical?[At least what we see as logical]. This is only based on our VERY VERY limited knowledge of the universe therefore you can't pass anything off as true.

Precisely why scientific theories are required to be falsifiable.

So... what's expanding the universe then? Doesn't it have to be stronger thang gravity so the universe doesn't collapse in on itself? What's doing it and why? You're assuming that there is no knowledge that we havn't aquired yet that would change everything we know about the universe if you pass these things off as definitley true, or by calling someone else wrong. You're also assuming the universe is the same everywhere as it is here.

Yes, we are. Those are basic assumption that are made until such time as it is shown to be otherwise.

We assume that a force exists that is expanding the universe for the simple reason that we see the universe expanding. Since things do not expand on their own, we can safely assume that something is expanding them, and that that something is more powerful than the force of gravity that is trying to bring it back together (if it weren't, the universe wouldn't be expanding). We are assuming these things to be true until such time as evidence is found that they are not true (which, for instance, in the case of the speed of light being a constant, has turned out to possibly the case). If evidence is found that falsifies these theories, then either the theory changes to accomodate it, or it is disbanded altogether. Science always accomodates available data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShaunZero

Then you admit they're wrong when it's passed off as true and they call other's wrong if they disagree?

QUOTE(ZeroShadow @ Jan 8 2006, 04:02 AM) *

Regardless of all that, you still can't know if it is true. So you can't really say "you're wrong, I'm right". Only if it's more true to SCIENCE.

Okay, now you are getting repetitive. Really, how many times do I have to say it? Science is not about finding 'The Truth'. Science is about finding the most probable explanation for a natural phenomena with the data that we have. A scientific theory can be both valid and logical and still be wrong. No scientific theory can ever claim to be forever right.

I'm getting repetitive to keep with my point. It's not about finding out the truth, huh? That's a first....

If evidence is found that falsifies these theories, then either the theory changes to accomodate it, or it is disbanded altogether. Science always accomodates available data.

And they have alot of apologizing to do.

Edited by ZeroShadow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

Then you admit they're wrong when it's passed off as true and they call other's wrong if they disagree?

Admit? When have I said anything other than the exact opposite?

I'm getting repetitive to keep with my point. It's not about finding out the truth, huh? That's a first....

Oy...

Have you completely missed the first paragraph of almost every post I have made in the last several pages?

And they have alot of apologizing to do.

Most people do this because they are taking science on faith, which defeats its purpose. The solution is to educate people on what science is about and how it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShaunZero

Some people pass these things off as true, you said science does not try to find the truth. Only what's more probable. That's how you addmitted it. It goes to show how they need to quit putting down others for disagreeing with science.

Oy...

Have you completely missed the first paragraph of almost every post I have made in the last several pages?

Maybe you misunderstood my point. Wich was they pass it off as true too many times, and you just said science only shows what's probable not what's true, so how'd I miss your paragraphs?

EDIT: I put phone instead of point! XD....

Also, how do we know the edges of the universe can be pulled in by gravity? Wouldn't that have to happen in order for it to collapse into itself? How do we know the universe is not infinite and it's only the things inside of the universe pulling away from eachother[all at the same speed/distance or whatever] by some unknown force. We're limited the entire universe to ONLY Earthly points of view here.

EDIT: Another thought. Wasn't the big bang at first like a blackhole? Even if the mass that came from the big bang expanded at the speed of light, woulnd't it decelerate and just collapse back into itself? Like a big burp?

Doesn't the red shift theory sort of imply that our little planet at the center of the universe because nearly all galaxies are moving away from us. This is ridiculous. It seems the myth that the Earth is the center of the universe will never die.

In our small little world the speed of light appears to be constant only because we cannot measure the change over a large distance. This problem is analogous to saying the speed of a bullet fired from a gun is constant. It appears to be constant if you measure the bullet velocity one meter from the end of the barrel and measure it again two meters from the barrel.

Edited by ZeroShadow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

Some people pass these things off as true, you said science does not try to find the truth. Only what's more probable. That's how you addmitted it. It goes to show how they need to quit putting down others for disagreeing with science.

Maybe you misunderstood my point. Wich was they pass it off as true too many times, and you just said science only shows what's probable not what's true, so how'd I miss your paragraphs?

Whatever. Are you clear that science and people claiming that only things that can be tested exist, are two seperate things?

EDIT: I put phone instead of point! XD....

Also, how do we know the edges of the universe can be pulled in by gravity? Wouldn't that have to happen in order for it to collapse into itself? How do we know the universe is not infinite and it's only the things inside of the universe pulling away from eachother[all at the same speed/distance or whatever] by some unknown force. We're limited the entire universe to ONLY Earthly points of view here.

It isn't just the edges. It is all space itself. Gravity affects everything. We do not know if space isn't infinite, but there is currently no reason to believe it is; the evidence points to a finite universe.

EDIT: Another thought. Wasn't the big bang at first like a blackhole? Even if the mass that came from the big bang expanded at the speed of light, woulnd't it decelerate and just collapse back into itself? Like a big burp?

It's called the Big Cruch. And yes, that is the eventual result.

Doesn't the red shift theory sort of imply that our little planet at the center of the universe because nearly all galaxies are moving away from us. This is ridiculous. It seems the myth that the Earth is the center of the universe will never die.

No. Objects in space are not just expanding away from the Earth, but rather they are expanding away from everything at the same time. I mentioned this before. It is currently impossible to estimate where the 'center' of the universe was.

In our small little world the speed of light appears to be constant only because we cannot measure the change over a large distance. This problem is analogous to saying the speed of a bullet fired from a gun is constant. It appears to be constant if you measure the bullet velocity one meter from the end of the barrel and measure it again two meters from the barrel.

How large a distance would you like? We have bounced lasers off the moon. We measure the light coming from the sun. We can even calculate the speed of light from other galaxies. Distance isn't a problem.

There is an interesting idea currently being presented which claims that the speed of light was different up until about a 16th of a second after the Big Bang, and constant after that. By assuming the speed of light was different during this time, it answers many questions that we weren't able to answer before.

This is all high level physics stuff, though. I can barely follow it with the year of Physics I took in college, and trying to figure out the calculations is beyond my meager skills. I recommend similar classes to help you understand more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShaunZero
It's called the Big Cruch. And yes, that is the eventual result.

What exactly do you mean by eventual? You mean we're going to end up being collapsed back into a signularity? We're in the "big burp" right now? Wouldn't that then mean everything would have to be moving away from eachother at the speed of light, because if not we'd collapse?

Objects in space are not just expanding away from the Earth, but rather they are expanding away from everything at the same time.

A little confusing but wouldn't this mean things are moving in all directions? O.o

There is an interesting idea currently being presented which claims that the speed of light was different up until about a 16th of a second after the Big Bang, and constant after that. By assuming the speed of light was different during this time, it answers many questions that we weren't able to answer before.

So you make assumptions to validate the big bang?

Edited by ZeroShadow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

What exactly do you mean by eventual? You mean we're going to end up being collapsed back into a signularity? We're in the "big burp" right now? Wouldn't that then mean everything would have to be moving away from eachother at the speed of light, because if not we'd collapse?

Eventual means in about 42 billion years, give or take. Assuming it happens at all. The universe is still expanding, to the best of our knowledge.

A little confusing but wouldn't this mean things are moving in all directions? O.o

Exactly! :tu: Now you got it!

So you make assumptions to validate the big bang?

All theories have their assumptions. When we talk about the Pythagorean theorum, we assume space in a 2 dimensional plane. When we talk about the theory of Meiosis, we assume a stable cellullar environment. These particular examples are so basic that they are usually not even included in studies; they are simply assumed to exist unless otherwise mentioned.

In this particular case, I was referring to the basic assumptions of science. In other words, that a given cause-and-effect will be as valid in the past and in the future unless shown otherwise. We assume the speed of light to be constant in the past and in the future, unless something (like the Big Bang) affects it.

There are assumptions that are sometimes made that are what you would probably refer to as guesses. These assumptions must be clearly stated in the theory. There is nothing inherently wrong with having assumptions, but it is absolutely vital that the eventual logical conclusion be shown to lead to the assumptions that were made. Think of these assumptions as similar to working a math problem backwards; even though you assumed the answers and used them to solve the equation, you must still show how the equation eventually results in the answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShaunZero
Exactly! thumbsup.gif Now you got it!

then how does that make sense. How are some things moving TOWARDS where the big bang was?

Eventual means in about 42 billion years, give or take. Assuming it happens at all. The universe is still expanding, to the best of our knowledge.

So all things are moving apart from eachother at the speed of light? Wouldn't it have to be to validate that statement? If it decelerates, it would all collapse wouldn't it? Do blackholes pull "space" into it? Last I heard[ and to the best of my knowledge] blackholes aren't even fully understood.

Edited by ZeroShadow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

then how does that make sense. How are some things moving TOWARDS where the big bang was?

They aren't. Things are moving away from each other, not towards anything.

Remember the balloon? The three dots on it? As the balloon inflates, the three dots move away from each other. They don't grow any bigger, nor do they move towards anything; they move away from each other.

So all things are moving apart from eachother at the speed of light? Wouldn't it have to be to validate that statement?

No, not necessarily at the speed of light. Just fast enough to escape the counter-pull of gravity. And again, remember that this is a bit more complex than the simple addition and subtraction of forces.

If it decelerates, it would all collapse wouldn't it? Do blackholes pull "space" into it? Last I heard[ and to the best of my knowledge] blackholes aren't even fully understood.

Yes, that's correct. Eventually (according to the Big Bang), the universe will decelerate, cease expanding, begin contracting (the Big Crunch), and eventually end in a singularity. Black holes, according to Relativity, do not so much pull space as they 'bend' space around themselves. You'll need a few Physics courses under your belt before being able to understand that in depth. Heck, I'm going to have to review it a bit myself.

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EDW74

we've come almost full circle, we've gone from the supernaural to astrophysics, I like it! I honestly cannot wait to see what is next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShaunZero
Remember the balloon? The three dots on it? As the balloon inflates, the three dots move away from each other. They don't grow any bigger, nor do they move towards anything; they move away from each other.

How can things be moving in all directions and at the same time not towards the center of the universe or where the big bang started? We don't even know where it started so who are we to say it isn't moving toward it? That doesn't add up. Am I missing something?

No, not necessarily at the speed of light. Just fast enough to escape the counter-pull of gravity. And again, remember that this is a bit more complex than the simple addition and subtraction of forces.

But if the big bang was similar to a blackhole, wouldn't it have to be going at the speed of light to escape from being collapsed into itself? Light can't even escape.

No, not necessarily at the speed of light. Just fast enough to escape the counter-pull of gravity. And again, remember that this is a bit more complex than the simple addition and subtraction of forces.

Your topic says to come in and rant so I'm doing it. =)

Edited by ZeroShadow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EDW74

How can things be moving in all directions and at the same time not towards the center of the universe or where the big bang started? We don't even know where it started so who are we to say it isn't moving toward it? That doesn't add up. Am I missing something?

But if the big bang was similar to a blackhole, wouldn't it have to be going at the speed of light to escape from being collapsed into itself? Light can't even escape.

Your topic says to come in and rant so I'm doing it. =)

I wasn't complaining, just stating an observation.

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.