**** Why not just accept that we don't yet know about the origin of the unviverse?****
I guess for me it's the "WOW" sensation, the vast energy, power and enormity of the universe, and my insignificance compared to it. ;)
MIT Survey on science, religion and origins
by Pterist 57 Replies latest social current
-
-
Apognophos
Why not just accept that we don't yet know about the origin of the universe?
I don't know, why don't you? ;) You're assuming it started accidentally, some people assume intention. It's all assumptions.
-
Pterist
*** Faith asserts things to be true based on insufficient evidence.***
What or where is the sufficient evidence to point to that "nothing" or "no-cause" preceded the "big bang"?
-
cofty
Science not speaking to something is not the same as science being in conflict with something. - Tammy
Firstly please don't use evangelical jargon. Science doesn't speak "to" anything.
Science is in conflict with most things that you write on this forum and even more so on your other forum.
Why not just boldly celebrate your anti-scientific, superstitious fantasies?
I guess for me it's the "WOW" sensation, the vast energy, power and enormity of the universe, and my insignificance compared to it. ;) - Peterist
I know what you mean by the wow factor. The universe is awesome. Everything from the very small to the vastness of space leaves me astonished. That doesn't mean we have to drop to our knees and worship something though. Our ancestors used to be moved to worship by rainbows and thunder, now we know better. "Unweaving the Rainbow" doesn't make it any less beautiful
You're assuming it started accidentally - Apog
No I'm not assuming anything.
I just don't see the logic in inventing supernatural beings to fill gaps in our knowledge. Methodological naturalism assumes there is a naturalistic answer and goes looking for it. Its a working assumption that has led to the discovery of every useful thing we know. Why do you want to throw away a method that works?
What or where is the sufficient evidence to point to that "nothing" or "no-cause" preceded the "big bang"? - Peterist
Again you are making a fundamental error. I'm not saying that nothing caused the big-bang. I'm saying we don't know, and that inventing invisible deities doesn't add a single thing to the quest for truth.
-
Apognophos
No I'm not assuming anything. [...] Methodological naturalism assumes there is a naturalistic answer
So... you are assuming something?
Its a working assumption that has led to the discovery of every useful thing we know.
You don't really believe the "every" part of that, though, right? Surely I don't have to trot out the old examples like Newton believing that God kept the universe moving. This didn't stop him from describing its movement.
Why do you want to throw away a method that works?
I don't. I am agnostic, just for the record (I suppose that's worth repeating from time to time for those who've missed it), but even if I believed in God, why would that stop me from investigating how he did things? There's no conflict there.
-
cofty
So... you are assuming something?
No. You are confusing methodological naturalism with ontological naturalism. As I said its working assumption that even scientists like Francis Collins and Ken Miller have to make in order to do their job. It doesn't assert there is no god - it assumes that there is a naturalistic answer. If a scientist didn't assume that why would he go to work in the morning?
You don't really believe the "every" part of that, though, right? Surely I don't have to trot out the old examples like Newton believing that God kept the universe moving.
Yes of course I believe that.
Newton is a classic example. He made lots of useful observations about orbital mechanics but he couldn't work out why all the planets revolve on the same plane. He should have stuck to methodological naturalism and admitted he didn't have an answer. Instead he made some silly assertion about evidence that god had put them all on the same plane because it was elegant or orderly or some such waffle. Newton was a good scientist right up to the point where he let god into the lab, then he was just another bloke with an opinion.
I hope this also illustrates your final question.
-
tec
Firstly please don't use evangelical jargon. Science doesn't speak "to" anything.
I would not know what evengelical jargon is, Cofty.
Science does speak. The blood speaks as well (using science) as to determine disease and such. Our DNA speaks.
Something that tells us something, speaks.
And you know very well what I am speaking about. Even though I am 'literally' typing, and not speaking.
Science is in conflict with most things that you write on this forum and even more so on your other forum.
I have yet to see the truth in this statement.
Why not just boldly celebrate your anti-scientific, superstitious fantasies?
I do... at comic-cons, and when writing sci-fi/fantasy manuscripts and such.
But as to my Lord and my God, there is no superstition or fantasy. Nothing anti-scientific either... but not necessarily scientific in the first place. At least not according to current scienctific understandings. Two things can run parallel without contradicting one another.
Peace,
tammy
-
Deputy Dog
cofty
Come on now.
Faith asserts things to be true based on insufficient evidence.
Faith resorts to supernatural explanations.
Have you looked at some of the wild "theories" in metaphysics? You’ve got to admit some of them are way out there. I have a hard time with some parts of "metaphysics" being called science. Some of it is not even observable.
-
cofty
I have a hard time with some parts of "metaphysics" being called science. Some of it is not even observable.
Totally agree. I have zero interest in metaphysics.
-
cofty
Two things can run parallel without contradicting one another. - Tammy
They can.
On the other hand there is science and then there are your outrageous fantasies ....