Religion

[Kaylan-R]

I was baptised, I was chistened, I have recieved my first holy communion, I have been to confession - but I was just following my father's faith. I'm old enough now to do what I want, and even though I'm supposed to do this other christian things, I've never done it. I don't think it's the right thing for me because I am an aetheist.

Also, my belief is the same as Kayt's. I don't tell anyone that I'm an aethiest unless they ask, so therefore I don't preach or try to recruit people to become aethiest. I don't think other people really need to know, unless I am involved in such dicussions like this, which is now, and then and only then will I tell people. I just think it's something you keep private unless there's any real need to tell someone because I don't want to be involved in any stupid argument that I don't need to be in.

My belief is that there's no god, there's no heaven, and there's no satan. Though, there's a catch. I do belive in Jesus, though in a different way. I believe that he was just a prophet - but a highly successfull one who reached out to so many people, and I say good on to him! He was a successfull guy and I'm sure he would of been proud of himself.

Atheist is not beliving in god and Agnostic is believing that there can be no proof that god exists - am I right? Here's some quotes from my favourite movie in the whole wide world, Donnie Darko, they give some explanation.

Dr. Lilian Thurman: Donnie, an atheist is someone who denies altogether the existence of God. You're an agnostic. An agnostic is someone who believes there can be no proof of the existence of God, but does not deny the possibility that God exists.

Here's another:

Dr. Lilian Thurman: Do you feel Alone right now?
Donnie: I'd like to believe I'm not, but I've just not seen any proof. I just don't debate it anymore. I could spend my whole life debating the pros and cons and in the end I still wouldn't have any proof. So I just don't debate it anymore. It's absurd.
Dr. Lilian Thurman: The search for God is absurd?
Donnie: It is if everyone dies alone.
Dr. Lilian Thurman: Does that scare you?
Donnie: I don't want to be alone. So does that make me like an atheist?
Dr. Lilian Thurman: It means you keep searching.

I think this is a good enough explanation, don't you think? It's the one I was aiming at in any case.

[had]

I've always thought of 'agnostic' as 'I don't know', rather then 'I can't know', although I suppose it would work like that.

Agnostic, of couse, being formed of 'gnostic', which relates to knowledge, and the 'a' bit flipping the meaning of it.

[Kaylan-R]

It is sort of "I can't know" though, because they can't know whether there is a god or not. Nobody can. We can't ask someone and get a true answer. We can get an answer, but it will never be the true one.

I think the "gnostic" part is true, because agnostic is the knowledge that you don't know.

[had]

I would argue that I don't have to disprove the existance of God to be an atheist and still be rational - I'd argue that theists need to throw some evidence for God/s out there if they want their beliefs to be rational. In which case, the "You can't be certain" element that Descartes brought into everything doesn't really come into effect.

Of course, the fact that most gods are unfalsifiable doesn't really help their rationality.

[Cookie Lover]

Well, Chriatians beleive a lot of what preists tell them about Jesus, God and the Bible. Atheists beleive a lot of what scientists tell them about the Big Bang, evolution and antimatter. Yes, some things make sense, some don't, there's evidence supporting both, but for most of the time the evidence boils down to three points, no matter what side of th arugement you're on.]
1) It just makes sense.
2) I'm right.
3) You're wrong.

Please don't chop my head off with a blunt spoon for generalising at the begining of this post.

[had]

I don't 'believe' what scientists tell me about how the world works - I accept it, on the basis that scientists actually have evidence for this. Belief implies faith in something, and you don't have faith in something that you have evidence for. Belief requires a lack of evidence, by definition.

There certainly isn't 'evidence for both sides', either. There is absolutely, positively no evidence for God. As for the Big Bang, evolution, and antimatter, if you have any doubt that any of those is very much correct, you're sadly plain wrong. Evolution happened. The Big Bang happened. Maybe not in exactly the way the current scientific community envisions them, but life has certainly changed over millenia via small, incremental steps, and natural selection is a very good way of explaining that, given the evidence. The universe certainly seems like it was very very small and very very hot between ten and fifteen billion years ago, and our current model of the Big Bang is a very good way to explain that (Beyond inflation, which is starting to look like an epicycle. Of course, once physicsists come up with a GUT, the problem may well go away). As for antimatter, we've created the bloody stuff in the lab. You can't get much more certain then that.

[Emi267]

I remember having a very long debate with someone I went to school with a couple of years ago. I said the world was created by God, she said it was the 'Big Bang'. It sort of got to a stalemate, because tere is no way of explaining how God came into existance, but I have never yet come across a conceivable theory as to how and why the 'Big Bang' came about in the first place. She said it began with dust, but I wanted to know where the dust came from. If you tell me it was a whole lot of chemicals and heat and other stuff, I want to know where the reactants and the heat came from. And until someone can prove, without any possible doubt, how the world was created, then will happily have faith in God and Jesus and Christianity, and you can go believe whatever you want to believe and I won't bother you about it.

[had]

Nothing 'started' the Big Bang. At least, nothing we know about. Given that it was the 'start' of space-time, there's a reason for that - there wasn't any space for anything to happen 'before' it did, and there wasn't any time for anything to happen in 'before' it. You can't even ask about what was there 'before' the Big Bang, because there was no before. It's a bit mind-bending, but it's not that difficult to grasp.

As for proving it, methinks you set the bar too high. Just because we can't demonstrate to 100% certainty that X happened doesn't mean that alternative hypothesis (Well, "God did it" isn't so much a hypothesis as an idea, as it can't be tested) Y is just as valid as X - what if we were 99% certain that X happened, and 1% certain that Y happened? Accepting Y over X would certainly be foolish in that case.

As it is, there's a fair quantity of evidence for the Big Bang. I won't go fully in-depth about it, because it'll take too long - but basically, the existance of the cosmic microwave background (The 'temperature' of which was predicted by the theory), the existance of Hubble redshifts, and the proportion of light elements in the universe are all evidence for it. (BB theory predicts particular values for the proportion of light elements in the universe, these have been substantiated so far). There are a few problems in it - one of the biggest being the requirement of an 'inflationary' period towards the start, that is difficult to explain with modern physics, but given the evidence, some form of the Big Bang is likely to survive for a long time - just like modern evolutionary theory is substantially different to Darwin's ideas, and avoids some of the original problems with Darwin's theory - but the basic idea is still the same.

Incidentally, what created the world wasn't so much the Big Bang as the slow accumulation of dust and rocks in a ring around our early proto-Sun - a process that has been observed elsewhere in the universe. I'm afraid that one is fairly certain.

[Dark One]

Have you read the latest theory concerning the big bang?

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/020429080540.htm

[had]

Such ideas of a sort of 'cyclic' Big Bang system have been proposed before - really, they don't provide a satisfying answer to the 'what happened to cause x' question, because something needs to have started off the whole infinite pile of bangs.

But yes, I've heard of such ideas before. Incidentally, 'tis not a theory in the scientific sense - a scientific theory is falsifiable, provides predictions, ties together several phenomena in some sort of explanation, and has survived a long period of testing to come out as the best explanation for the phenomena it ties together. This hypothesis hasn't been around long enough to be a theory - plus, it hasn't actually demonstrated that it's a better idea then the Big Bang theory. It's not to say it's without merit, it just hasn't proved itself yet.

[Dark One]

Sorry, this was the theory i was looking for

www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/paralleluni.shtml

I remember reading about it in my science magazine a few months ago

[had]

Actually, that's the same thing - just from another angle.

Although I'm fairly sure that they're talking about M-theory when discussing their colliding 'parallel universes' (Which are just sort of 'slides' in a higher dimension - imagine CDs stacked on top of each other. Each CD is a 'universe'), and the article seems to be describing quantum-theoretic parallel universes (And the idea that they exist is just one interpretation of quantum theory in that regard)

[esspess]

well truly HAD they arent the same thing, as one is saying that the universe (just the one) has always existed in a cycle of creation and destruction, and the other is saying that there is more than one universe that coincide next to each other. i do admitt though that i didnt read the whole of either of these articles, so maybe further on they over lap in their information but from what i read that is what i gained.

the funny thing about both these articles is that they are stating supposedly new theories, but vaishnavas (hare krishnas) have always beleived these things. i think i have even touched lightly on the subject of infinate universes in my earlier posts on this thread but only breifly while explaining other things, ill not go into it now or anything, but i just found those links highly amusing.

[had]

They are the same thing. Read closer - both ideas were apparently conceived by the same people, and there's a reason for that - the cyclic Big Bangs are caused by branes colliding in whatever higher dimension they tend to be in (I thought modern versions of M-theory reduced the number of extra dimensions required to 6?)

Regardless of whether Hare Krishna's have had this idea for a while, this is the scientific version. The one with maths, rather then "This happens and we don't know precisely how". Admittedly, untested maths, but maths nonetheless.

[Dark One]

But even if something works mathematicaly, it cannot always have an explanation as to how it works.

For example, the Titus-Bode law allows you calcualte the orbital distance of any planet from its parent star It works fairly acurately for most of the planets, and when Uranus was found it was exactly where the Titus-Bode law predicted it would be. However, as yet no-one has a thorough explanation of how it works

[esspess]

;D sorry HAD you are right they are very similar, but i wouldnt say the same. they are like two seperate parts of the same idea. one kind of elaborates on a part out of the other. my bad i should really read things through thoroughly lol sorry about that.

in my last post i mentioned how hare krishnas believe in these things about the universe, and true this is the scientific version but i was merely highlighting a similarity between two beliefs or ideas, so i feel it was a little harsh when you replied with "regardless..." as it is very much not regardless, seeing as this is a thread for everyone to share their opinions and what they know or believe so that others who may be interested can view them if they like. it is not about what is right and wrong. therefore in future i would appreciate it if you didnt make it seem that you were trying to make one idea more plausible than another. either of them can be wrong and either can be right, it doesnt matter that is not the point, what is right for you may not be right for someone else. this thread isnt a debate or arguement so we are not trying to prove or disprove anything said here, and "regardless" would imply that someting is of unimportance, when to someone else, besides yourself, who might happen to read that post it may not be of unimportance.

Hare krishnas derive their basic belief from Vedic philosophy which has its basis in science.
people cant refute what they know nothing about.

[had]

But even if something works mathematicaly, it cannot always have an explanation as to how it works.

That's a very, very strong claim. Cannot implies that there are some mathematical thingies that work but don't have an explanation as to how they work, rather then don't have an explanation that we know of. Just clearing up here, because I'd argue with the first claim, and accept the second.

Away from that issue, my point stands irregardless of whether the maths is a description rather then a explanation.

Hare krishnas derive their basic belief from Vedic philosophy which has its basis in science.

The Vedas was written a long, long time ago. Before science was invented. It can't be based on something it pre-dates, by definition. Science is a fairly recent phenomena - even Newton wasn't really all that scientific. The idea wasn't really firmed up even in Darwin's time. Our modern idea of science is only about 200 years old, at the most.

There's not really much of a similarity - beyond the idea of cyclic rebirth, it just isn't the same idea.

but i was merely highlighting a similarity between two beliefs or ideas

Ahhh, sorry. I thought you were trying to claim that Hare Krishna 'had it first', or some such idea. Possibly, I've spent too much time with complete nutcases. It sort of causes you to expect that sort of inanity. I apologise.

this thread isnt a debate or arguement so we are not trying to prove or disprove anything said here

It's a reflex action, I swear! Sorry, I'm always getting into arguments about this stuff. I enjoy debate - I think it helps sharpen the philosophy of both sides - and that leads me to often engage in it.

people cant refute what they know nothing about.

Must... Resist... Urge... To... Make... Sarcastic... Reply....

[Kaylan-R]

I'm a strong believer in science. I belive science over god. I thought that article was interseting though because it tested my knowledge of what I knew and didn't know. I am not going to debate on the issue on whether there really was a big bang, because personally, I can't prove that it exists. However, I will give a slight insight to my mind.

In astrophysics, dark matter is matter that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation (such as light, X-rays and so on) to be detected directly, but whose presence may be inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter. Among the observed phenomena consistent with the existence of dark matter are the rotational speeds of galaxies and orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet cluster, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Dark matter also plays a central role in structure formation and Big Bang nucleosynthesis, and has measurable effects on the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background. All these lines of evidence suggest that galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and the universe as a whole contain far more matter than is directly observable, indicating that the remainder is dark.

The composition of dark matter is unknown, but may include new elementary particles such as WIMPs and axions, ordinary and heavy neutrinos, dwarf stars and planets collectively called MACHOs, and clouds of nonluminous gas. Current evidence favors models in which the primary component of dark matter is new elementary particles, collectively called nonbaryonic dark matter.

The dark matter component has vastly more mass than the "visible" component of the universe. [1] At present, the density of ordinary baryons and radiation in the universe is estimated to be equivalent to about one hydrogen atom per cubic metre of space. Only about 4% of the total energy density in the universe (as inferred from gravitational effects) can be seen directly. About 22% is thought to be composed of dark matter. The remaining 74% is thought to consist of dark energy, an even stranger component, distributed diffusely in space. [2] Some hard-to-detect baryonic matter (see baryonic dark matter) makes a contribution to dark matter, but constitutes only a small portion. [3] [4] Determining the nature of this missing mass is one of the most important problems in modern cosmology and particle physics. It has been noted that dark matter and dark energy serve mainly as expressions of our ignorance, much as the marking of early maps with terra incognita.

That was a definition of Dark Matter.

I belive that the whole universe is right in front of our very eyes and all we need is some kind of tool to see it. Kind of like Phillip Pullman's Lyra trilogy. Also, in the Da Vinchi Code (I think, it could be angels and demon's, though I'm sure its Da Vinci), there is a special kind of matter that is made. I belive that the the world was made out of that. You may call me crazy, but that's what I trully belive in.

[Kangaruth]

Nyaaargh! You had me right up until Dan Brown....!

Angels and Demons is nonsense! Dan Brown doesn't have a clue about science and didn't do any research into that part of his novel. This is what CERN have to say about it.

The special matter mentioned there is antimatter, which we can already create and study - indeed many kinds of particles we produce in a collider experiment contain antimatter particles (they're called mesons). These are part of what we call "baryonic matter" which is everything we can see due to interactions with photons. The world could have been made with antimatter - we'd have no way of telling, because which we choose as matter and which as antimatter is completely arbitrary - we've only chosen it this way because we take the normal matter to be that which makes up most of our universe.

[esspess]

The Vedas was written a long, long time ago. Before science was invented. It can't be based on something it pre-dates, by definition. Science is a fairly recent phenomena - even Newton wasn't really all that scientific. The idea wasn't really firmed up even in Darwin's time. Our modern idea of science is only about 200 years old, at the most.

There's not really much of a similarity - beyond the idea of cyclic rebirth, it just isn't the same idea.

true the vedas were written a long time ago but they do have their basis in science, they did have science back in those days, but of course it was a bit different than it is now a days...but it is a form of science. anyway lets not go into that.
the ideas are also similar in the sense of infinate universes, and the fact that there are always new universes being created. anyway im not really learned enough to go into a full on in depth about it so ill just leave it at that.

and about the rest of it...lol...maybe we both have misinterpreted each other a bit, oh well i wast offended so there is really no reason to apologise, i just wasnt in the mood to argue and felt there was no need so i had to get that out before we were biting each others heads off and not knowing why. hehehe. ;D

hey kay ive read those phillip pullman books, i got them they are pretty good, although i think the first is the best, and he had great ideas but certain things about those books make me feel like he just killed them. it frustrated me alot and it makes me quite annoyed just thinking about some things in those books. but i think its just me.
and i agree with kangaruth, Dan brown is sooo overrated, he p!sses me off even more than annoying things in the His Dark materials trilogy. ive only read Da vinci code and i ssooo do not agree with everyone who said it was such a great story with intricate plots and well written and yada yada ya...i hated it pretty much, which is why i havent read angels and demons. anyway Pullmans books were a good example cause they really do have stuff to do with what you were talking bout but personally i think Dan Brown shoulda been left off lol.

[had]

they did have science back in those days, but of course it was a bit different than it is now a days...

Errr... are we talking about the same science here? Scientific method? Make hypothesis, try to disprove hypothesis? Testable/repeatable, experiments, all that?

Because that is very much a recent phenomena, and that is science. Aristotle didn't do science - he did logic. He got a few things right, but it wasn't science. Newton did it more via looking at heaps of data - and even then, he started going into alchemy and occultism in his old age, and by then alchemy was already considered a bit of a dead end. Darwin was close, but even then the basic idea of science hadn't been stated, and it was considered to be a bit of non-serious rambling that the upper classes got into when they were bored.

[Fuil Dearg]

i'll probably (hopefully) post extensively in this thread after moonfair. i'v been busy and i still am.
there's quite a few posts i'd like to reply to and post about. i don't have the time right now though.

---

had said:

Errr... are we talking about the same science here? Scientific method? Make hypothesis, try to disprove hypothesis? Testable/repeatable, experiments, all that?

HAD, your definition of science is very narrow and specific. that isn't necessarily a bad thing in a sense. BUT for you to expect others to define and consider science in that way only is somewhat quite unreasonable.
also, these 'scientific methods' and the 'logic' and principles they are based upon don't make nearly as much sense as you apparently think they do.

[Dark One]

Quotes from Wikipedia on Science

Science in the broadest sense refers to any system of knowledge attained by verifiable means. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.

The earliest recorded scientific practices can be traced back to Egypt in North-East Africa. Isaac Asimov (a Russian-born American author) in his book Biographical Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology reports that science is a gift from Ancient Africa to the modern world. Imhotep (an Egyptian priest) was the first recorded person to practice Medicine. The earliest scientific centre could possibly have been the Library of Alexandria in Egypt (North-East Africa), where many notable early scientists like Euclid and Heron of Alexandria came to study. The Greeks also practiced science in its early forms but the oldest trace of science still lies in Egypt.

The Main Article

[had]

HAD, your definition of science is very narrow and specific.

How so? It's precisely what science is - the application of the scientific method. It's the use of inductive logic in a rigorous sense. I would quite like to see another definition that actually made any sense (Beyond quibbling about whether the results of scientific research - say, fluid dynamics, or Newton's laws of motion - are science).

also, these 'scientific methods' and the 'logic' and principles they are based upon don't make nearly as much sense as you apparently think they do.

Once again, how so? Given that nearly all progress in the past two centuries has been the result of scientific research, it certainly has *something* going for it. Sure, Descartes and Godel's incompleteness theorems exist, but Godel's theorems don't work for inductive logic, and if you're going to question everything a la Descartes, you may as well fall back on a view of the universe that has provided some definite results.

Dark One, the first quote is precisely what I described science as. The scientific method is 'empiricism, experimentation and methodological naturalism'

Imhotep, Heron and Euclid were only scientists in the same sense Aristotle or Newton were scientists. They were precursors, not the real deal. They wouldn't have applied the principles of experimentation, or even naturalism, likely. Saying "Well, it looks like X does Y" is not science. You have to put "X does Y" to a vigorous test to make it science.

And, uh, I'm fairly sure Euclid was a mathematician.

[Dark One]

Yes, Euclid was a mathemitician.

Imhotep, Heron, Aristotle, Newton etc were still scientists. There is no precusor about it. Just because they don't follow todays scientific methods makes them no less a scientist than anyone working in that field today.

By your argument a steam locomotive cannot be called a locomotive because it doesn't conform the the same methods used to propel todays electric locomotives.