Science has revealed nothing in comparison to what is self-evident.
Science can't research or observe in regards to the existence of any deity, ghost, or spirit. (Although science has disproved and does disprove some claims that some religions make, but that is another topic.) This can have a few different explanations.
Given that science has concrete and true laws about how things function and interact within our atmosphere, it can disprove stories of magic and miracles which religions believe to be true without any visible evidence of these things ever having taken place at all. Given that, I see no reason why science should waste it's time any further trying to disprove anything more about religion that makes claims which go against any of the established laws of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, etc etc etc etc etc.SO....I'm not a fucking scientist and I can figure this out. Why in the hell are people like Stephen Hawking wasting their precious time mentioning something as ludicrous as the name of God when modern aircraft engineers are level-headed enough to disregard thoughts of Santa Claus and his flying reindeer when designing jets?
'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
Geez, another link to that Lawrence Krauss speech? I've watched that video about three times already...
They wimped out. Man always needs a prime mover, the cause of all actions. It's innate in our brains because we are temporal and we see cause-and-effect every day, therefore there must be a primary cause of the universe. This is the self-evidence that people like reaper can't let go of. Science wimped out by saying the prime cause of the big bang was unknowable, leaving room for religion and God in the "gaps". Hawking is correcting that mindset by saying the fundamental causality is chaos itself.
Something must always exist, because if there was truly nothing, as we generally think of it, nothing can come from it. I have no problem with something always existing, because that's the only possibility.
But yes I find it quite convenient that "nothing" forms into exactly what I would formulate given the choice.
Quote from: reaper on September 13, 2010, 07:45:18 PMBut yes I find it quite convenient that "nothing" forms into exactly what I would formulate given the choice.What do you mean? What exactly would you formulate? Would people still have to struggle to take shits? Would kids and infants still die of cancer? Would you forumlate all of the blind paths of the evolutionary process, that have left 99% of every species that ever existed, extinct? Would you formulate the same evolutionary process which has arrived at an 'eye' along multiple separate paths, and left the octopus eye without a blind spot, while the nerve fibers in our vertibrate eye pass in front of the retina, yielding a blind spot around which our own brains must compensate?Did I mention the innocent children?What 'exactly' would you formulate, given the choice?How about your top ten, five, or even foremost two things you would improve about our mammalian existence, "given the choice"?(Don't even tell me you can't think of TWO improvements in the past 14 billion years, or you are BANT. )
Quote from: reaper on September 13, 2010, 07:48:07 AMgreat pointless graphs!Apparently, it's all part of God's plan!
great pointless graphs!
Oh, religion. Is there anything you can't do?
How about your top ten, five, or even foremost two things you would improve about our mammalian existence, "given the choice"?(Don't even tell me you can't think of TWO improvements in the past 14 billion years, or you are BANT. )
Religion and science will never come to an understanding. They apparently attempt to negate each other. Religion can claim that the origins of life on earth cannot be attributed to mere "chance" because of how perfectly it all functions, and therefore MUST have been designed to do so. Yet when science points out just how imperfect the system really is, religion reaches into it's magic bag and pulls out their philosophy of "to live is to suffer", which is to say that it was quite obviously designed with flaws included for a holy purpose. That's one thing I'll never be able to wrap my head around WHY someone could allow themselves to believe that. Most of these religious texts claims that the afterlife of the believer will be a life without want, without suffering, with many rewards. That doesn't make any sense. How could imperfections and suffering through that which is "unholy" on earth lead to "holiness" in the afterlife? Why would there no longer be a need for suffering and pain as a means of purification? Why would heaven be automatically holy, and earth can only be made holy by eventual destruction with fire? Why does God feel the need to send his son as a (non)sacrifice (he lost nothing)? I suppose God really does move in mysterious ways. Or maybe he's just a sadist.
Does this mean I can't quote Mother Teresa and 2PAC without being banned? That seems kind of messed up .Am I allowed to explain the harmony of life, and all things, as well as compare the differences between other possible worlds?