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

[MeachTheMonster]

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, go read up on Dark Energy.

Whatever word you want to use. It was a catastrophic event that resulted in the rapid expansion of the universe. "Explosion" is just an easy and understandable way to say all that.

And once agin "expansion" "explosion" or whatever you want to call it should not speed up according to what we know about physics. Dark energy is one theory, and there are plenty of others. Some may slightly alter the Big Bang theory and/or our understanding of physics. Some could totaly change what we know. I don't know why me stating that fact, gets you so angry.

 

[Poitier]

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. 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.


If you want to be a nihilist, go ahead.

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

1. I don't believe in an omniscient deity but the reason people came up with an omniscient creator is because they implicitly realized how hard it will be for us to achieve omniscience. It's a cop out but it's not by accident. Short of that kind of knowledge, you can't speak in absolutes.
2. Where did I say omniscience is pointless? Striving for it is the goal but don't speak before you've formulated your thoughts.
3. I'm not a nihilist. I just realize reality could be infinitely meta and macro/micro. It's pointless to use philosophy to talk about absolute reality.

 

[Poitier]

I DO NOT BELIEVE IN A GOD. STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH AND CREATE FALSE REBUTTALS.

I DO NOT THINK SCIENCE IS POINTLESS, OUTSIDE OF TALKING ABOUT ABSOLUTE REALITY AND EVEN THEN I UNDERSTAND THAT IT STRIVES FOR IT. I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO USE IT AS THE MEASURING STICK FOR SOMETHING LIKE ABSOLUTE REALITY WHEN THAT IS BEYOND INANE.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Not trying to be a rebel. Just staying true to the scientific process. You are supposed to question things.

Thats nice.

Where do you find fault in their assertions?

When theories have holes you are supposed to want to fill them.

Do you TRULY understand the theory or are you just assuming the abridged version doesnt make sense?

Astronomers and physicists will be the first to tell you that the there is a lot more research to be done about the Big Bang.

...and?

 

[MeachTheMonster]

BRUH.

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

Not sure what your trying to prove here. I never challenged those findings. I said those findings challenge what we know about physics and the Big Bang.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

1. I don't believe in an omniscient deity but the reason people came up with an omniscient creator is because they implicitly realized how hard it will be for us to achieve omniscience.

1. So its made up
2. Just because its "hard" doesn't mean THEREFORE that this deity is a worthy concept.

It's a cop out but it's not by accident. Short of that kind of knowledge, you can't speak in absolutes.

we get it.

for fukks sake.

move on.

The problem of induction exists. We get it.

2. Where did I say omniscience is pointless? Striving for it is the goal but don't speak before you've formulated your thoughts.

Yet believing in a deity who is omniscient is?

3. I'm not a nihilist. I just realize reality could be infinitely meta and macro/micro. It's pointless to use philosophy to talk about absolute reality.

You really don't understand how much of a pseudointellectual poser you just sounded like right now.

Aside from being functionally vapid of any content, it was embarrassingly verbose.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

Whatever word you want to use. It was a catastrophic event that resulted in the rapid expansion of the universe. "Explosion" is just an easy and understandable way to say all that.

And once agin "expansion" "explosion" or whatever you want to call it should not speed up according to what we know about physics. Dark energy is one theory, and there are plenty of others. Some may slightly alter the Big Bang theory and/or our understanding of physics. Some could totaly change what we know. I don't know why me stating that fact, gets you so angry.

I'm not angry breh, it just annoys me when people who haven't even studied the theory enough to know not to use the word explosion when it comes to the big bang. That is a huge red flag that you don't know your shyt enough to be talking the talk you are. You sat there and told me explosions don't speed up after they exploded, which would be true, but the big bang is not an explosion, its an expansion and it is speeding up, so the fact that it doesn't make sense to you is irrelevant. Now we have to figure out what is causing the accelerated expansion and we have theories and models for that.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Thats nice.

Where do you find fault in their assertions?

Do you TRULY understand the theory or are you just assuming the abridged version doesnt make sense?



...and?

Do you disagree with the story in the op?

All I said was that things like what they are saying in the op are being researched due to the holes in the Big Bang theory. Do you disagree with that statement?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Are you saying scientific theories are never subject to change?

Ask yourself why they never call it "evolution fact" but "evolution theory"

There are no "facts" in science, only things confirmed to functionally reliable degrees of consistency.

 

[Poitier]

1. So its made up
2. Just because its "hard" doesn't mean THEREFORE that this deity is a worthy concept.



we get it.

for fukks sake.

move on.

The problem of induction exists. We get it.

Yet believing in a deity who is omniscient is?


You really don't understand how much of a pseudointellectual poser you just sounded like right now.

Aside from being functionally vapid of any content, it was embarrassingly verbose.

I can't take you serious until you you stop the assertion that I am of the belief that the absolute reality stems from an omniscient deity. You don't realize how senile and deaf you come off as with your word salads.

I'm far from an intellectual. Term me whatever you want. I am the God of my reality, maybe you should learn some agency of your own.

Your response to point 2 wasn't even relevant

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I DO NOT BELIEVE IN A GOD. STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH AND CREATE FALSE REBUTTALS.

I DO NOT THINK SCIENCE IS POINTLESS, OUTSIDE OF TALKING ABOUT ABSOLUTE REALITY AND EVEN THEN I UNDERSTAND THAT IT STRIVES FOR IT. I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO USE IT AS THE MEASURING STICK FOR SOMETHING LIKE ABSOLUTE REALITY WHEN THAT IS BEYOND INANE.

You sure you don't wanna remind us how outside of the matrix you are?

 

[Chris.B]

There are no "facts" in science, only things confirmed to functionally reliable degrees of consistency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

If all the theory behind evolution gets certified as credible, it then becomes a fact.

I doubt we would ever get to an "evolution fact" because it doesn't exist.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Not sure what your trying to prove here. I never challenged those findings. I said those findings challenge what we know about physics and the Big Bang.

Except...they don't.

The big bang said that things expanded at a particular rate = Speed.

We just learned that the RATE of expansion was INCREASING = Acceleration

Big Difference.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

I'm not angry breh, it just annoys me when people who haven't even studied the theory enough to know not to use the word explosion when it comes to the big bang. That is a huge red flag that you don't know your shyt enough to be talking the talk you are. You sat there and told me explosions don't speed up after they exploded, which would be true, but the big bang is not an explosion, its an expansion and it is speeding up, so the fact that it doesn't make sense to you is irrelevant. Now we have to figure out what is causing the accelerated expansion and we have theories and models for that.

It doesn't make sense to anybody which is why the scientist were so surprised when they found out about it. And it's why they are scrambling to explain why it's happening.

And the Big Bang has been described as an explosion by many people. Quit thinking you know something cause you've spent years searching google for ammo to fight against religous nonsense.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science

an objective and verifiable assertion that we hold to be universally consistent. but it doesn't mean its ACTUALLY universally consistent.

For our purposes, some things are so concretely unmoveable that we can't really challenge them...in our own understanding of the consistency of the universe.

Read your definition again.

If it a VERIFIABLE assertion, then it has to be tested and approved...like a...*gasp*...theory.