Miss_Tery

[slydevl]

What have you heard or read that causes you to insistantly refer to God in physical terms?

[gridfaniker]

What have you heard or read that causes you to insistantly refer to God in physical terms?

good question. I doubt you'll get an answer.

[mathmajors]

He might get a correction, though.

[vpkozel]

Dark matter

[builder]

He might get a correction, though.

Miss tery. :)

[mathmajors]

Miss tery. :)
I didn't actually correct him. I just pointed out the possibility.;)

[Miss tery]

What have you heard or read that causes you to insistantly refer to God in physical terms?
My weltanschauung precludes the existence of the supernatural.

[magnus]

then tell us about said philosophy once and for all.

[Miss tery]

then tell us about said philosophy once and for all.
I have done so on numerous occassions. But to refresh your memory:
1) Live by the Golden Rule.....outside of this forum.
2) If it can not be demonstrated by repeated scientific observation it does not exist.

[vpkozel]

2) If it can not be demonstrated by repeated scientific observation it does not exist.

Please show me the experiment that demonstrates I love my wife and child. Thanks.

I would also appreciate it if you would show me the experiments that prove that the continual expansion of the universe is being caused by dark matter.

[Miss tery]

Please show me the experiment that demonstrates I love my wife and child. Thanks.

I would also appreciate it if you would show me the experiments that prove that the continual expansion of the universe is being caused by dark matter.
Now the shoe is on the other foot....That is my belief system and it works for me. I am sure if you thought a bit it would be easy to design experiments that demonstrate your love for your family. As for the physics, that is way over my head. A good start, if you are really interested, would be to go the websites of "Nature" and "Science" magazines. Those are the publications recognized world-wide by the scientific community as the most reputable.

[Miss tery]

P.S. According to the latest observations from the Hubble Telescope, the rate of expansion is actually accelerating! Who'd a thunk?

[Miss tery]

"If dook was playing Satan for the fate of humanity, I would think long and hard about pulling for Satan."
....vpkozel

[vpkozel]

"If dook was playing Satan for the fate of humanity, I would think long and hard about pulling for Satan."
....vpkozel

I guess you don't understand sarcasm.

[vpkozel]

Now the shoe is on the other foot....That is my belief system and it works for me. I am sure if you thought a bit it would be easy to design experiments that demonstrate your love for your family. As for the physics, that is way over my head. A good start, if you are really interested, would be to go the websites of "Nature" and "Science" magazines. Those are the publications recognized world-wide by the scientific community as the most reputable.

I have no problem with you OR your belief system. What I do have a problem with though is your continued ridiculing of all other belief systems because they require faith, all the while contending that yours is "scientific fact," when clearly it is not. I believe in your system as well - but I do not blindly worship at its altar. I have yet to see any non-easily resolved inconsistencies between the Bible and our scientific knowledge.

I also have a big problem with your failure to post any research for all of your theories. It is not my job to do your research for you. I would expect that someone who claims to value science and the scientific method as much as you do would certainly have evidence to support her position, so I would expect you to post it.

How do you deal with history in your decision of what is and is not a fact?

[vpkozel]

P.S. According to the latest observations from the Hubble Telescope, the rate of expansion is actually accelerating! Who'd a thunk?

PS - Me. I have been telling you this for at least 6 months.

[TimTam]

2) If it can not be demonstrated by repeated scientific observation it does not exist.
In 1945 DNA could not be proven through repeated scientific observation did it not exist?

The cause of hiccups can not be satisfactorily proven through repeated scientific observation. Does that mean that possibilities are false?

What evidence is there supporting the Big Bang? Just because my car is driving east and yours west that doesnt mean that they were packed tightly and exploded apart. Just an assumption.

[TimTam]

if you are really interested, would be to go the websites of "Nature" and "Science" magazines.
OK I went to these and am now looking at an article on Stephen Hawking and how he says that science leaves the door open for the existence of God and that he sides on the idea of a God based creation. Now what do I do to get back to the highly regarded scientists?

[TimTam]

1) Live by the Golden Rule.....outside of this forum.

the same golden rule put forth by judeo chrisitan ethics?

[BigVito]

the same golden rule put forth by judeo chrisitan ethics?Yep, and Buddhist, Shinto, Confucians, Hindus, Humanists, Muslims, various forms of paganism, etc. It is also known as the Ethic of Reciprocity. It is common in nearly all the world's religious and ethical systems.

Pretty much the only system that doesn't hold to this belief in some form that I'm aware of is certain forms of Satanism.

[Miss tery]

Dark Matter 6 (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994214) Dark Matter 5 (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/guidry/violence/darkmatter.html) Dark Matter 1 (http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~dursi/dm-tutorial/dm0.html)
Dark Matter 2 (http://astron.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/dm.html)
Dark Matter 3 (http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_astro/dark_matter.html)
Dark Matter 4 (http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/ukdmc/ukdmc.html)

[vpkozel]

Dark Matter 6 (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994214) Dark Matter 5 (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/guidry/violence/darkmatter.html) Dark Matter 1 (http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~dursi/dm-tutorial/dm0.html)
Dark Matter 2 (http://astron.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/dm.html)
Dark Matter 3 (http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_astro/dark_matter.html)
Dark Matter 4 (http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/ukdmc/ukdmc.html)

That is very informative and I believe you have posted some of that before. But none of it explains how or why dark matter relates to the universe speeding up at apparent odds to what we currently know. In fact, this passage supports the fact that they don't have any idea how it works:

In the case of a non-zero cosmological constant, or some other funny energy which causes acceleration, currently believed to be the case, this relation between the mass density, spatial curvature and the future of the universe no longer holds. It is then no longer true in this case that "geometry (spatial curvature) is destiny." Instead, to find out what will happen one needs to calculate the evolution of the expansion factor of the universe for the specific case of matter density, spatial curvature and "funny energy" to find out what will happen.

http://astron.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/dm.html


Also, I have yet to see anywhere say that they can prove - based on your standards - what dark matter is.

[Superfluous_Nut]

That is very informative and I believe you have posted some of that before. But none of it explains how or why dark matter relates to the universe speeding up at apparent odds to what we currently know. In fact, this passage supports the fact that they don't have any idea how it works:



Also, I have yet to see anywhere say that they can prove - based on your standards - what dark matter is.

i think you're shooting down your own argument. they don't claim to know because they don't know. if they claimed to know without evidence, that would be unscientific.

also, what exactly about the universe expanding at an increasing rate is at odds with "what we currently know"? they've been talking about this for years now, and the latest "proof" was expected by many.

[Miss tery]

[QUOTE they don't have any idea how it works:

Also, I have yet to see anywhere say that they can prove - based on your standards - what dark matter is.[/QUOTE]

No shit sherlock. That is why I said long ago that so many astrophysicists were upset with the decision to abandon Hubble, because that is the primary device used to explore this phenomenon.

[vpkozel]

i think you're shooting down your own argument. they don't claim to know because they don't know. if they claimed to know without evidence, that would be unscientific.

also, what exactly about the universe expanding at an increasing rate is at odds with "what we currently know"? they've been talking about this for years now, and the latest "proof" was expected by many.

That might be true if I was arguing in favor of creation only, but I am not. I am simply pointing out that Miss tery - and to some extent you as well - havea a different burden of prrof when it comes to someopne's religious theries than you do for a scientific theory.

[Miss tery]

That might be true if I was arguing in favor of creation only, but I am not. I am simply pointing out that Miss tery - and to some extent you as well - havea a different burden of prrof when it comes to someopne's religious theries than you do for a scientific theory.
Looks like you are keeping pace with me on the Chardonnay tonight.

[Superfluous_Nut]

That might be true if I was arguing in favor of creation only, but I am not. I am simply pointing out that Miss tery - and to some extent you as well - havea a different burden of prrof when it comes to someopne's religious theries than you do for a scientific theory.
i have a different burden of proof depending upon what the claim is and how it's made. for example, i don't require a ton of evidence to support somebody's description of the big bang theory. why? because i know it's just a theory. you know it's just a theory. the person speaking knows it's just a theory and will probably say so a few times in describing it. they might even point out where it fails or that some people believe a different version.

i don't know anybody that calls creationism "a theory". it's a belief. theories are open to debate and often later disproven by new theories. the big bang theory does a good job of answering a lot of questions, but it's far from complete (tho it's not really supposed to answer every question out there, really). i know this and accept it. when a better theory is put forward, i'm sure it'll all make a bit more sense, but even that one will be incomplete.

i seriously doubt anybody that believes in creationism in specific or god in general is open to the idea of being wrong, that tomorrow something might be learned that would change everything for them.

[vpkozel]

Looks like you are keeping pace with me on the Chardonnay tonight.

Informative, as always.

[hasbeen99]

i don't know anybody that calls creationism "a theory". it's a belief.

True, but a belief doesn't have to be literal IMO.

I believe wholeheartedly that God created the universe. Nothing else I've seen makes anywhere near as much sense. Did He do it in 6 days? I think it's possible, but not necessarily factual. Could have been 6 time periods spanning thousands, even millions of years. I have no idea. But I'm not staying up nights wondering about it, either.

[ezy ryder]

True, but a belief doesn't have to be literal IMO.


Good point. This is the only way I'm able to accept the bible. Everything is more symbolic than absolute.

[Superfluous_Nut]

True, but a belief doesn't have to be literal IMO.

I believe wholeheartedly that God created the universe. Nothing else I've seen makes anywhere near as much sense. Did He do it in 6 days? I think it's possible, but not necessarily factual. Could have been 6 time periods spanning thousands, even millions of years. I have no idea. But I'm not staying up nights wondering about it, either.
yeah, but i'm not talking about specifics. vp says i require a different level of proof and say it's because "theories" are by their nature "best guesses". "belief" is a whole different animal.

[hasbeen99]

Good point. This is the only way I'm able to accept the bible. Everything is more symbolic than absolute.

Many things, but not everything. Some parts of the Bible are crystal clear and meant to be taken quite literally.

[Miss tery]

Maybe some of the moral precepts.

[hasbeen99]

yeah, but i'm not talking about specifics. vp says i require a different level of proof and say it's because "theories" are by their nature "best guesses". "belief" is a whole different animal.

It can be, yes. But I also think that it can vary from person to person. Some people take what they believe at face value and are never open to any other options. Others, like myself, believe what we believe, but are open to other arguments. Perhaps the latter of the two are a small minority, I don't know.

I guess one could say that the difference between a belief and a theory depends on the commitment level of the individual and the reason for that commitment. On a level playing field, Creationism is just another theory. I'd argue it makes more sense than anything else I've seen, but that doesn't mean I think we should stop looking for answers.

[vpkozel]

vp says i require a different level of proof and say it's because "theories" are by their nature "best guesses". "belief" is a whole different animal.

No, belief is not a whole different animal. I look at the body of proof that I see and I believe that there is a God and taht he sent his Son down to die for my - and your - sins. I am not asking for you to believe that same thing, because that is between you and God. Present me with a different set of facts, and I am sure I would revaluate my position based on them. But right now, I don't see it. You asked repeatedly in another thread to scientifically prove the supernatural things about God, and discount it precisely becasue they cannot be proven. I am simply asking you to be consistent. If you want rock solid proof of all things before you believe in them, that is fine - but you want to require that from religion, but not from science.

[Piper]

>>If you want rock solid proof of all things before you believe in them, that is fine - but you want to require that from religion, but not from science.

I think their is some confusion over the difference between a "hypothosis" and a "theory," here, for my tastes.

Theories are developed, improved, changed, altered, or discounted, based on the collection of evidence presented. The end result of the theory is not supposed to be initially determined.

First of all, nothing is rock solid. Everything is up to change or revision based on new evidence. The theory of relativity, for instance, will like never be "proven 100%," just due to the size, no matter how much we use its principles or divine from it. To do that, you'd have to know all, and no human does, at least not one walking around right now.....


Faith, on the other hand, is faith. Creationism is faith. Its based on conclusions given without supporting evidence, so its not a theory. Its faith.

For instance, as HB pointed out, you don't have to take Genisis literally. You can then, of course, believe God created all things, and believe in Evolution. Or you can take it literally, and discount any evidence that counters that belief. Doesn't make your, or my, beliefs a "theory."

[vpkozel]

For instance, as HB pointed out, you don't have to take Genisis literally. You can then, of course, believe God created all things, and believe in Evolution.

That is exactly my feeling as well.

[Superfluous_Nut]

No, belief is not a whole different animal. I look at the body of proof that I see and I believe that there is a God and taht he sent his Son down to die for my - and your - sins. I am not asking for you to believe that same thing, because that is between you and God. Present me with a different set of facts, and I am sure I would revaluate my position based on them. But right now, I don't see it. You asked repeatedly in another thread to scientifically prove the supernatural things about God, and discount it precisely becasue they cannot be proven. I am simply asking you to be consistent. If you want rock solid proof of all things before you believe in them, that is fine - but you want to require that from religion, but not from science.
so what are the facts that support your belief in god? my position has remained consistent -- i don't bother with science when religion is involved, because the two don't mix. but since you seem to be asserting that god is a logical conclusion from the facts available, i'd love to hear how you got there. i suspect it'll involve more faith than logic.

science has a ton of holes in it, no doubt. but it acknowledges them and strives to figure them out. it doesn't simply say "this is the way it is, case closed" as religion has done for ages.