Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 187

Thread: The equivalence of religion and science?

  1. #81
    Registered User RedFox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    121
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    As far as I understand it, those that believe in God, would assert that God has always existed.....
    ... science fudges it by concentrating on the moments AFTER the Big Bang.
    So Judaeo-Christian religions fudge it twice by saying that God has always existed (which saves a lot of explanation), and that God had nothing better to do than to create the universe (a trivial passtime for a God - though Gods don't have time to pass, of course) and resists further questioning. Science fudges it once by concentrating on the moments after the Big Bang, strives to explain the remaining questions too, and would be prepared to ditch the Big Bang theory entirely if a superior theory was developed using the Scientific Method. There's not much equivalence there.
    Last edited by RedFox; 25th-January-2008 at 01:58 PM. Reason: spelling!

  2. #82
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by TA Guy View Post
    You are mixing two different questions up.
    How did the big bang happen?
    Did the the big bang happen?
    They are not the same. You are claiming 'denial' when in fact it's ignorance.

    Science accepts it cannot currently explain how the big bang occurred (outside some bleeding edge, more or less unsubstantuated string/quantum gravity theories). Science also accepts it has no evidence, direct or otherwise, that might indicate how the big bang occurred.
    That is (the 'how' question) irrelevant to the different question of 'Did the big bang occur'. To which there is direct evidence (directly related to the fact in dispute) via background radiation, expansion of universe etc.

    Science would argue that although it cannot prove 'how' the big bang occurred, it has accumulated more than enough evidence, direct, circumstantial and indirect, to prove the big bang did occur. I guess it's up to the individual whether they believe it or not...
    Well put sir.

  3. #83
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedFox View Post
    So Judaeo-Christian religions fudge it twice by saying that God has always existed (which saves a lot of explanation),
    Actually, that is an explanation. You may disagree with it, but that's a different matter.

    Although, I'm not completely sure that Christianity specifically says much about God's relationship to time. And "time" itself, of course, is a subjective and complex concept.

    Quote Originally Posted by RedFox View Post
    and that God had nothing better to do than to create the universe (a trivial passtime for a God - though Gods don't have time to pass, of course) and resists further questioning.
    Such as?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedFox View Post
    Science fudges it once by concentrating on the moments after the Big Bang, strives to explain the remaining questions too, and would be prepared to ditch the Big Bang theory entirely if a superior theory was developed using the Scientific Method. There's not much equivalence there.
    If "time" was created with the universe, then "What came before the Universe" doesn't really make much sense as a question - before the creation of the universe, there was no time to pass. It's a difficult concept to get your head around, admittedly.

    But, interestingly, this concept was propounded 1,500 years ago by Saint Augustine - who said
    The world was created with time, not in time
    Which would dovetail quite nicely with the view of someone like Stephen Hawking, who (basically) thinks time evolved with the universe.

    Augustine also said:
    What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.
    Which is a pretty cool answer

    In short, I think that it's quite plausible to have a religious explanation of creation, which is consistent with our current scientific understanding.

    EDIT: Yay! I made an on-topic post!

  4. #84
    An Eclectic Toaster
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    2,042
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
    EDIT: Yay! I made an on-topic post!
    And so finally the English have a momentous literary event to mark on this day.

  5. #85
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart M View Post
    And so finally the English have a momentous literary event to mark on this day.
    Blimey, is it Weird Incomprehensible Poetry Reading Night again already?

  6. #86
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
    In short, I think that it's quite plausible to have a religious explanation of creation, which is consistent with our current scientific understanding.
    This is called 'the god of the gaps'.

    However, the religious explanation which is consistent with scientific understanding, is superfluous. If so, it falls victim to Occam's razor.

  7. #87
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedFox View Post
    So Judaeo-Christian religions fudge it twice by saying that God has always existed (which saves a lot of explanation), and that God had nothing better to do than to create the universe (a trivial passtime for a God - though Gods don't have time to pass, of course) and resists further questioning. Science fudges it once by concentrating on the moments after the Big Bang, strives to explain the remaining questions too, and would be prepared to ditch the Big Bang theory entirely if a superior theory was developed using the Scientific Method. There's not much equivalence there.
    So what ?

    People who know Gods exists are going to 'make music and party', they will let the scientist stare out at space on top of a cold mountain inside a cold observatory. Scientist will catch up, which leads us to....


    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    This is called 'the god of the gaps'.

    However, the religious explanation which is consistent with scientific understanding is superfluous. If so, it falls victim to Occam's razor.
    Science a few years ago was more keen on a steady state theory of the universe, however as its moved towards Gods creation (big bang) I believe the reverse is true. You could argue science is catching up with the gods creation

    I like the cartoon re the ridiculous theory re the big bang cira 1940s in the attached

    Big Bang or Steady State? (Cosmology: Ideas)

    Back in 1952 the church was saying catch up

    --------------------------------------
    The cosmological debate acquired religious and political aspects. Pope Pious XII announced in 1952 that big-bang cosmology affirmed the notion of a transcendental creator and was in harmony with Christian dogma. Steady-state theory, denying any beginning or end to time, was in some minds loosely associated with atheism
    --------------------------------
    Last edited by ducasi; 25th-January-2008 at 05:53 PM. Reason: fixed link

  8. #88
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
    Blimey, is it Weird Incomprehensible Poetry Reading Night again already?
    Isn't it weird that the rule is 'i' before 'e' except after 'c' and yet that's not how you spell weird? Do you suppose some bright spark thought that it would enhance the meaning of the word if they spelt it in a weird way?

    The more likely explanation is that it has some kind of foreign route - oh, bloody hell, there's another one! I suppose foreign has a foreign route too?

    Whilst painting the ceiling, I received a call from my foreign neighbour: a scientit called Dick. He was weighing up the weird concept of how our species may have evolved in a similar fashion to how Genesis describes and wondered if there was sufficient evidence to support such a claim. In the kaleidoscope of thoughts that followed, I seized upon the idea of suggesting that he ring Barry and ask. He did, and Barry told him to f**k off...

    It's not a very good rule to be telling our children is it? It's almost as bad as all that Religious nonsense.

  9. #89
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    --------------------------------------
    The cosmological debate acquired religious and political aspects. Pope Pious XII announced in 1952 that big-bang cosmology affirmed the notion of a transcendental creator and was in harmony with Christian dogma. Steady-state theory, denying any beginning or end to time, was in some minds loosely associated with atheism
    --------------------------------
    ...and that is called jumping on the bandwagon. Or cutting your cloth. It certainly isn't anything to do with whether genesis gives us any useful information about how we got here.

  10. #90
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    ...and that is called jumping on the bandwagon. Or cutting your cloth. It certainly isn't anything to do with whether genesis gives us any useful information about how we got here.
    You gotta laugh haven't you? Here's a quote that Stuart has found that shows that maybe, just maybe the Catholic Church isn't sooooo rigid that it might consider moving a wee bit with the times.

    No acknowledgment from Barry that was a good thing, no... it's just jumping on the band wagon... As I said waaaaay back at the beginning. Give it a rest Barry, if you're not prepared to offer a balanced approach then don't participate.

    Oh, I forgot, there's no point in me addressing Barry is there, 'cos he has me on his 'ignore list'..

  11. #91
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    For those who dont know much about the big bang

    This is one of the best brief 'summaries' ive seen

    Big Bang

    Its nice to get actual measurments in the early inflation period

    Its funny we can talk about what happen cira 10 to -43 secs of the start but are a few billion yrs out re when it started

  12. #92
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    For those who dont know much about the big bang

    This is one of the best brief 'summaries' ive seen

    Big Bang

    Its nice to get actual measurments in the early inflation period

    Its funny we can talk about what happen cira 10 to -43 secs of the start but are a few billion yrs out re when it started
    Stewart, thank you for that excellent link! When I get home I shall be bookmarking it.

    I was not allowed to rep you however, so

  13. #93
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Stewart, thank you for that excellent link! When I get home I shall be bookmarking it.

    I was not allowed to rep you however, so
    What I particulary like about it , its the first site ive seen that gives some 'size' e.g

    ---------------------------------------

    the Universe grew by a factor of 10-35 (100 billion trillion trillion) in 10-32 seconds, from being unimaginably smaller than a subatomic particle to about the size of a grapefruit.
    --------------------------------

    --------------------------


    10 - 35 Kelvin (100 billion trillion trillion) to give you an idea thats 9 times hotter then a Prawn Phal and 23 times hotter then a chicken vindaloo
    --------------

    etc etc

  14. #94
    Registered User RedFox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    121
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    The cosmological debate acquired religious and political aspects. Pope Pious XII announced in 1952 that big-bang cosmology affirmed the notion of a transcendental creator and was in harmony with Christian dogma.
    After the heliocentrism / Copernicus / Galileo affair, I'd have thought the church would think twice before ruling on which bits of science they agreed with!

  15. #95
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    10 - 35 Kelvin (100 billion trillion trillion) to give you an idea thats 9 times hotter then a Prawn Phal and 23 times hotter then a chicken vindaloo
    --------------

    etc etc
    And if you eat all that lot in one sitting the CBR (Cosmic Backside Radiation) would prooooobably be evident for 13.7 billion years. Just doing a quick calculation...

    Hmmm... so that means that God had a wild night, out got back late after 18 pints, had a prawn phal and a chicken vindaloo and we're the result!

    The evidence is there - and it could also explain why the junction of the M25 and the M3 smells of sh1t. And presumambly that means that 'inflation' was caused by a monumental amount of hot gas?

  16. #96
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    Oh, I forgot, there's no point in me addressing Barry is there, 'cos he has me on his 'ignore list'..
    Every time someone puts you on their ignore list you feel the need to go on about it constantly. Can't you just, you know, take part in the conversation like the rest of us ?

    Only an idiot would now reply to this with the words "ignore" or "list" in the post anywhere

  17. #97
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    Every time someone puts you on their ignore list you feel the need to go on about it constantly. Can't you just, you know, take part in the conversation like the rest of us ?

    Only an idiot would now reply to this with the words "ignore" or "list" in the post anywhere
    OK DS, just to humour you.

    Of course the only reason why your defending Barry's (again..?!) right to use the 'omit' function is because you made a big thing of doing the same a little while back when you too spat the dummy. And that's fine, I completely understand that if someone is constantly making you look a fool why you would want to do that... I mean if you really, really can't help yourself but to reply to a person's post then that's what you should do. EXCEPT if you make a big an'nonce'ment of it (did you see what I did there...?), it takes on a different meaning. You're not just quietely using the 'omit' function, your 'declaring' it. Now, that that means your using it as a tool to desparage the other person; and on that basis that person has the right to use your use of that tool to rub your nose in it.

    And why is it such an issue? Well obviously, we have a different opinion, but for me the use of the 'omit' function in this way is the last resort of the intellectually bankrupt. It's the person who says, even though I can be adult about this and simply choose not to read this person's post I won't, I won't, I won't AND I'm going to tell everyone else I won't, I won't, I won't...

    Now, don't get me wrong, in other circumstances I can see why some people would want to use it: For example to tune out Barry's religious attacks. But the people who do that DON'T announce it, they just quietly get on with their business - and good luck to them..

    But what's EVEN worse is when someone makes a big announcement of putting someone within their 'omit' 'program' and then doesn't actually do it!! Hmmm..... now who might that be... And this then follows two routes:

    The reply to Mr X's post on the justification that someone else quoted him and that meant that now having seen it, it required a reply... Errr.... no... Mr X is within your 'omit' 'program' that's not just about the functionality it's also about the fact that you took a stance AND made an announcement, not to be drawn into a debate with him. How foolish do you think you then look when you start replying?

    And secondly, they then use the weedy excuse of saying, I'm only replying to Mr X's post in this thread because I tuned him back in to see if he had anything worthwhile to say.... he doesn't, but I'm going to use this opportunity to sling some mud anyway.. sound familiar?

    In this situation I think it's pretty obvious who the real 'idiot' is...

    PS. Only an idiot would reply to this using any actual words or symbols, or any links to external or internal threads, posts or websites. Share prices can go down as well as up, your home is at risk if you take out a mortgage and cannot maintain your payments..... but you CAN quote it if you like..
    Last edited by Rocky; 26th-January-2008 at 10:28 AM.

  18. #98
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    'nuff said obviously.

  19. #99
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    because you made a big thing of doing the same a little while back when you too spat the dummy.
    It was worth mentioning because most conversations descend into argument with you, so hopefully you take the hint and stop. Except you don't - when I had you on ignore, there were people quoting you and you often mentioned the people who had you on ignore in some sort of disparaging way. Now you're doing it again. You're a funny man - and not in a good way
    "spat the dummy" is a good one, when you have this huge post on why you think people shouldn't ignore you


    And why is it such an issue?
    It isn't, you try to make it so, but with you its just another cry for attention - "look at me , they have me on ignore, I'm better than them" I doubt it impresses anyone.

    But what's EVEN worse is when someone makes a big announcement of putting someone within their 'omit' 'program' and then doesn't actually do it!! Hmmm..... now who might that be...
    No idea. Please enlighten us.

  20. #100
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    PS. Only an idiot would reply to this using any actual words or symbols, or any links to external or internal threads, posts or websites. Share prices can go down as well as up, your home is at risk if you take out a mortgage and cannot maintain your payments..... but you CAN quote it if you like..
    Ooops!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    DS's reply to my post...
    If you're going to set some rules out to abide by then you can't just ignore them - but you can't help yourself can you DS? Maybe you should put me on your 'omit' 'program'?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •