Religion/Spirituality Theism Discussion (Abrahamic Religions, Religious Philosophy, etc.)

[Poitier]

lol Napoleon I could care less about philosophy. Like I said, those forms of thinking and heavily qualified statements like "I don't know if theres a god (agnostic) but based on the inability to by anyone to support the claim that a god exists ( I do not believe in a god)" IS beyond silly and pointless.

There will always be room for deism, even 1000 years from now, as long none of us are omniscient.

You keep replying to me as if I am refuting the use of Science. I've never once claimed that. I'm speaking to anyone who wants to claim that they know absolute truths and reality. I'm speaking to those who say "There is no God" without all of the other qualifiers you put with it.

The pursuit of perfection does not mean perfection so don't speak from a POV that feigns perfection. It's silly.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

Atleast the hole is Black

The Black hole god take that take that cacs

2:15 breh

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

1.No, it is no longer a miracle, but it could still be an act of god.

if god interacts with the universe then we should be able to measure (if even indirectly) his contribution to a particular even, right?

2. Once again, you're putting faith into "evidence" is as silly as someone worshipping an unknown God. If something was teological, we would have to be omniscient to know, correct?

YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH EVIDENCE??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

3. How are deism and science opposing. You once again confuse religion with a belief in a higher power.

Deism pre-supposes the answer to everything is: God. science doesn't know the ultimate answer but can confirm it to a particular degree based on evidence.

4. No, it's your problem as well because you care to disprove it but fall short everytime.

You can't disprove unfalsifiable things.

5. How do you have evidence that evidence in itself is of any merit? It's circular, my friend.

Good question. Thats why hypotheses don't just rely on evidence. They rely on multiple trials, replicable processes, independent observers, and complete challenges at every step complete with controls and measurements.





or you can just be a contarian a$$hole for the fun of it.

6. Once again, there may not be a why but you have no means to verify this short of omniscience.

"may" is the problem with this entire premise. Until you have any way of supporting such a claim, it simply remains as unsubstantiated speculation

7. You keep exhibiting the fallacy of evidence as the end all be all

Evidence can sometimes lead to the wrong answer, but if all you have is evidence, then speculation doesn't get you any closer.

Its a process, not an exercise in objectivity.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Expansion doesn't speed up. That's a fact

THATS THE fukkING DOPPLER EFFECT YOU fukkING IDIOT.

THATS THE RED SHIFT!

Thats the ENTIRE reasoning behind the big bang.

We observed the rate of expansion was INCREASING in 1998 you goddamn arrogant fool!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Questioning things is okay. You can question stuff. It's hilarious that you act like I'm against questioning shyt, if I was I wouldn't have become an atheist in middle school and I'd still believe in Santa Claus. Using the red shifts of distant supernova's you can measure the fact that they're getting further away from us at an ACCELERATED rate. Why am I going to take anything you have to say seriously when you told me that the universe isn't expanding at an accelerated rate and that it was a "fact" that it wasn't. Do you care to explain what your huge beef with the Big Bang theory is? Or does it insult you to think that we actually know what the conditions of the early universe were like? I don't mean to bring religion into this, but are you religious? I only ask because the only people I've ever talked to that disagree w/the big bang theory have been religious folks.

I never said the universe was not expanding at an accelerated rate. I said the fact that it is expanding at an accelerated rate means that someone has some explaining to do. It flies in the face of what we know about physics. Which is why so many scientist are questioning the Big Bang theory.

When something explodes it slows down as it expands, it does not speed up. Therefore there must be something that needs further explanation.

I don't have a beef with the Big Bang theory. I am fascinated by it and I hope we have a better understanding of the Origins of the universe before I die.

And no I am not religous, neither are the scientists from the study in the op, or the other countless scientists that are challenging the Big Bang theory or investigating other theories.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

And that is admirable, Napoleon. Like I said, I love science and it is definitely a more sound rationale underlying it but at the end of the day, anything short of omniscience is incapable, correct?

i can't definitely agree with that statement.

You want me to speak on the ability for us to ever know everything...at some point.

It seems UNLIKELY...but impossible? I can't say that.

I use evidence because it is relevant to my reality. I do not think evidence is stipulation for anything beyond that.

Read those two sentences again.

Anyone who thinks evidence is THE criteria for anything absolute is foolish.

Please demonstrate how to substantiate a claim.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

What the hell are you saying? Your knowing will always be relative unless you're are all-knowing.

which is why the replicable aspect of empiricism is so important to help standardize claims and assertions.

"Laws of the Universe" = lol . The Universe is in all probability small in scale.

It's Laws are cool for my reality but it definitely doesn't mean anything beyond that, especially when you want to discuss absolute reality.

I'm pretty sure you don't know as much you claim to know, nor are you certain about what the hell you're talking about.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

THATS THE fukkING DOPPLER EFFECT YOU fukkING IDIOT.

THATS THE RED SHIFT!

Thats the ENTIRE reasoning behind the big bang.

We observed the rate of expansion was INCREASING in 1998 you goddamn arrogant fool!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

Call me names because you spend time fighting religous crazies all day.

You guys have a very limited understanding of what you think you understand. Too many google searches, and Wikipedia pages

 

[Fervid]

All this stuff just re-enforces my faith in Yahweh.
Until we can have irrefutable evidence of the creation of the universe...it can be assumed God created it.

But which god created it?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I agree with majority of what you're saying but you aren't arguing what others in this thread are saying. Accuracy and progressing as a race is not what people in this thread are arguing.

They're only not taking care to use the proper semantics because functionally, we don't really need to. The scientific method is far superior and will continue to be as we learn about how shyt works. Are there inherent inductional flaws. Yes. But are they better than the other methods? Yes.

They are talking about absolute truth and reality, which short of omniscience, is pointless to discuss.

Omniscience isn't "pointless" to discuss considering.

1. You claim to believe in a omniscient deity.

2. you should infer that if omniscience is pointless than the pursuit of any knowledge toward that is also pointless.

Philosophy isn't truth, nor could any human being be capable of thinking about absolute truth

If you want to be a nihilist, go ahead.

But you'll need to come a little harder to contribute to this conversation...Zarathustra...

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

I never said the universe was not expanding at an accelerated rate.

Expansion doesn't speed up. That's a fact

When something explodes it slows down as it expands, it does not speed up. Therefore there must be something that needs further explanation.

This tells me all I need to know right here. The big bang is not a fukking explosion. EXPANSION IS NOT AN EXPLOSION. Go read some god damn books breh. fukk.

and yes, the accelerated rate of expansion is puzzling to scientists (but that has NOTHING to do with the big bang theory), go read up on Dark Energy.

There is also more matter than anti-matter, I guess you're going to say that proves the big bang theory isn't true as well? Not every mystery in the universe has to do with the big bang theory.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Call me names because you spend time fighting religous crazies all day.

You guys have a very limited understanding of what you think you understand. Too many google searches, and Wikipedia pages

BRUH.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/

 

[Poitier]

if god interacts with the universe then we should be able to measure (if even indirectly) his contribution to a particular even, right?

YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH EVIDENCE??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Deism pre-supposes the answer to everything is: God. science doesn't know the ultimate answer but can confirm it to a particular degree based on evidence.
You can't disprove unfalsifiable things.

Good question. Thats why hypotheses don't just rely on evidence. They rely on multiple trials, replicable processes, independent observers, and complete challenges at every step complete with controls and measurements.





or you can just be a contarian @sshole for the fun of it.
"may" is the problem with this entire premise. Until you have any way of supporting such a claim, it simply remains as unsubstantiated speculation


Evidence can sometimes lead to the wrong answer, but if all you have is evidence, then speculation doesn't get you any closer.

Its a process, not an exercise in objectivity.

1. Couldn't that be the different fields of science we have developed?
2, I have a problem with evidence being used when talking about absolute truth and reality. Short of omniscience, it is impossible. As for humanity, evidence is surely the way to go.
3. I don't see anything opposing. One is just more clearly defined while one is incredibly ambiguous. Short of omniscience, it cannot be confirmed, and no science does not come close to knowing the ultimate answer.
4. You're being pompous
5. Yes, peer-reviewing is good at this level of reality but I am talking about at the ultimate level, where you can no longer go meta or macro/micro.
6. Nope, that's you just bowing down to empiricism and evidence for something that it can't possibly vet

 

[Chris.B]

But which god created it?

Judeo-Christian God.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

lol Napoleon I could care less about philosophy.

yet its the only plane you can argue on. Its not like you understand any science concepts

Like I said, those forms of thinking and heavily qualified statements like "I don't know if theres a god (agnostic) but based on the inability to by anyone to support the claim that a god exists ( I do not believe in a god)" IS beyond silly and pointless.

Its not silly when you claim to believe this god exists, yet have no evidence to believe..AND even further claim that you want to have this belief even though in your words having such a belief or trying to understand it is pointless.

You want to be free to believe in a god but claim anyone who challenges or assesses the claim is being pointless.

Did I get that right?

There will always be room for deism, even 1000 years from now, as long none of us are omniscient.

Moving the goalposts. Sure.

Someone will probably beleive in a god that lets them go 10 years back in time, instead of 1.

You keep replying to me as if I am refuting the use of Science. I've never once claimed that.

Don't lie to me. You don't have to impress me. You do refute the use of science. You clearly have a problem with the use of evidence to support claims that can be tested.

I'm speaking to anyone who wants to claim that they know absolute truths and reality. I'm speaking to those who say "There is no God" without all of the other qualifiers you put with it.

But you're not doing anyone a favor with all the other shyt you're talking about.

Plus, you being a deist doesn't help your case AT ALL.

The pursuit of perfection does not mean perfection so don't speak from a POV that feigns perfection. It's silly.

Science NEVER claimed to do so, so if you claim that it does, then YOUR understanding was inherently flawed.