Faith vs Science - a rant on why is the Universe so big?

[Doug]

Netwolf, many things are not testable and so can be viewed as faith in the absence of hard empirical fact. Regardless if a faith system promotes 6 x 24 hour days or 6 gazillion years for creation, it is not testable because we can't go back there and verify the reality. However, there are some things that are testable;

And from water we made all living things. Would they believe? "
<Qur'an-Anbiyaa 21:30>

when life departs a formerly living body, what is ultimately left? Is it steam? Is it a puddle of water? No, it is a powdery residue from the many and varied chemical elements/molecules that contributed to that bodies form. True a body in good nic contains a lot of water, but it is a testable fact that it is not made from water. As Adam was reportedly told 'from dust you came and to dust you will return'. Now that is testable, we have the testimony of the evidence of our own eyes. At the time of writing, a precise chemical analysis would have been both meaningless and superfluous to the intent. It is testable; it does have a high correlation of truth; unless a person is in complete denial. What we can eventually find after life departs a formerly living body is a 'dusty' residue. Even bone given the right conditions will break down to a dusty residue.
I like to check most references given on the internet, and I am dismayed at the amount of false information or falsely represented information that is published. Faith can be good in certain circumstances where it is used to fill a void in knowledge and understanding, but when any faith system fails to find the support of its own testable claims, it needs to be amended don't you think?

Doug

[Doug]

g__day, I think it was you who asked why the universe is so darned big, why so many stars?
Can't say I have an answer, but I think we might be all a bit psychotic if there was only the Sun and moon out there and then just nothing...period. Maybe we would feel like bugs on a microscope slide.

Doug

[Starcrazzy]

[quote=netwolf]Starcrazy,

Science is also man made, and to some it would seem that it to has become a faith. Science started the car, i dont think so. Without the will of a person wanting to start the car the car would not start.

I disagree..it is nothing but science that starts that car...if you take a link out of the chain rection that causes that car to start ie, the fuel, or the battery, and that car will not start...you can will it to start all you like..you can even pray and ask god to start the car...but i garentee, it won't start..In fact...lets use the scientific method to see if your statement or hypothasis that it is the will of the person that starts the car, is true or not...get in your car, will with all your might that the car won't start..i mean really will it not to kick over...then turn the key...if it starts whats happend to your hypothesis..thats right, the science still works, weather you will it or not...

and yes i do speak of science as if it were a system of beliefs...what is it if it isn't??yes, it is a method for which we come to find the truth's of our universe, and thus, believe in them...i am confronted daily by creationist's who only take from science that which doesn't contradict thier faith..and that's why you end up with wacko theories full of half truth's and bad science..

i appolagise if in my previous post's i offended you , but i can't find any mention (by me) of you going off topic..

[Adrian-H]

to anything you know, everything you do, is towards beleif?

if you believe you have faith?

to have faith in science?

so tell me.

what is the difference between science and faith?, can you really defie?

is not science a faith?



i sure do know you have faith in your books.

[g__day (Matthew)]

Science relies on a method of model -> hypothesis -> tests -> data -> statistical analysis (e.g. F or P tests or regression analysis of Chi squared tests etc) to obtain a confidence interval for the likihood of outcome not being chance when viewed against all otther data!

[xelasnave]

The Universe is so big because we are so small.. The Universe is even bigger than we can see and is bigger than we can imagine. Into this Universe we put humans and declare them to be above all that it is, was and shall be.., and that we are created using GOD as the model (man was created in God's image it goes someplace) and that the whole place was created for them. I dont know what model he used for all the other animals..maybe copies of units placed on other worlds??? Maybe the Universe was not made all for us... that would make it appear smaller to us as we would know that only this part over here was made for us and that part over there was made for another reason or other creatures. Or go the other way there is no God and all this just happened..sure we have ideas (big bang) but they dont go much past "it just happened" either.so on either side a giant leap of faith is required to accept the respective proposals.. so when it all boils down faith is required for belief in a totally scientific approach or a totally religious approach.
The thing I think we need to guard against is those who seek to suppress others opinions because they offend their belief systems... If your faith can be offended so easily maybe you should work on building your beliefs if you feel threatened be anyone discussing ideas contrary to yours rather than seek their silence for fear they may say something "unpleasant and contradictory".
I dont like having a book written by man thrust in my face and being accused of being a heathen because I dont believe all contained therein is "gospel" any more than I like Richard Green sprouting that he has the TOE thing worked out and he is more wonderful than Einstein ... both lack evidence and physical support for the basics they put forward.. fool me once shame on me fool me twice shame on me... If it is God that we can thank for our intelligence I think he may be disappointed how so many fail to use it to qualify the information that enters their thinking. I bet if God appears to us all the first things he will get rid of are the religions of the world profiting by using his name in vain.
To suppress this style of thread would be wrong because it is in effect seeking to salience someone’s view.. is that what we want controlled thought??? I dont get bitter and twisted if someone thinks my gravity rain idea is nonsense why should anyone become bitter and twisted if I wont give authority to their God via a book written by man (many men over many years and supposedly inspired by, and secretly "edited" by God).
AND I am not a heathen I practice Christian ethic in a loving and non hypocritical manner more so than most believers I have met who profess a total following of their faith.. so I have no fear for being struck down for blasphemy. Thank goodness the Universe is so big as we must all be able to fit without a fuss. It is certainly big enough for all views to coexsist in peace...maybe not when one looks at the "experiments" of tolerance.

alex

[Doug]

G'day Alex, who is Richard Green? There was one who played in 'the adventures of Robin Hood', though I think he was 'Greene', there is a current day Richard Green; a golfer, but which one do you mean?

I tend to agree with you in some ways, however it might be helpfull for people to confine discussion to the topic area, and that is what I see is being asked for. The 'Pandora's box' of faith versus faith has been opened several posts ago and a good deal of care needs to be taken to avoid WW3. Faith versus Science is one thing and it is a good healthy thought provoking topic. Faith versus Faith is not part of the same discussion, but when it is injected in, it is not unreasonable to expect an inrush of antibodies. Best thing would be if people were to remain on topic, me thinks.(myself included)

You have expressed some misgivings about a certain book (probably the Bible), accepting your concerns as well founded, that has nothing to do with 'Faith versus Science' that would be 'the Bible versus science' would it not?
The Bible is just a collection of 66 books from which a multitude of various faiths have come into being. Even the Koran has spawned more than one faith, (sunni, shee-ite (sp) and maybe others, the book of Morman at least 2 sects, but not one is definitive of 'Faith' IMHO.
I don't personally see that wanting to remain on topic is gagging debate, just keeping on topic. If someone wants to start another thread, (eg. Religion versus Faith versus Christianity)that would be another thing, and people who can't weather the storm could choose to stay out of it.
Couse it would be a moderators worst nightmare, so better not.
Sadly I can't imagine that anything new and on topic remains to be said, but I can live in hope.
BTW I can tolerate your Gravity rain idea FWIW.
cheers,
Doug

[xelasnave]

I thought the guy with the string theory was Richard Green.. but I could be wrong names is not a strong point with me. Sorry Mr Green that your name is not burnt into my mind given my interest in your area of expert experience.
Doug I dont disagree with anything you say should I look again? I hope I have not been on a tangent to the point, and yes I guess that could be it.
Moreover please remember that if I have nothing to say I will go to the trouble to say it... I dont seek to annoy people but I would be stupid to think that my views dont irritate some. I would like to think I give everyone as hard a time as the rest and not single out any group for undue attention. I like christains and support their right to their beliefs.I live the christain ethic of love your fellow man etc and have no problem with following the ten commandments. I have been a believer in the past so I have experienced the "joy" of believing in something.
My point really was I get alarmed when warned off certain subjects as if I am going to insult someone, I would not intentionally do so and will listen to any direction that I am coming close. AND if anyone thinks I am having a go I suggest they have never witnessed me having a verbal attack on someone.. I can be very hard and destructive if I choose... which I do not...Nevertheless I feel these areas benefit from discussion as long as it is polite and considered. I personally enjoyed this thread greatly and worry when I interpret comments that the thread is not going anyplace as attempts to shush things up because it may upset someone..which I think is not right.
alex

[Shawn]

Sc ,,Your last post is directly on topic, as far as I can see. Although the discusion here is miandering slightly "actually a lot" from the original post. Science vs Faith and why the universe is so big. Let us just consider that we have all been influenced by a faith,"no matter if we like it or not, or even aware of it"?. how much further would science & research evolved without the impediment of faith. I think that is what the thread is supposed to be about. Any individuals beliefs aside, the end result does not change. The question was a double ender 1 faith vs science, which do you trust, ?.2. why is the universe so big, goes back to the first question as a sub clause..Answers we have been told so, Dont ask questions, or be burnt at the stake as a heretic. only recently the last couple of hundred year has it been OK to question the past. mainly because burning at the stake is frowned upon in most civilised countries, hence starts a trend towards another type of belief. It may take decades, centuries even but the misguided tracks laid down by our ancestors will eventually become the norm and subsequently be challenged by new ideas..

A consensus of opinion here is impossible, indoctrination you see.

We have but one faith , and science has nothing to with it.

Just be human. And the universe being so big, " get over it, it is."

[Shawn]

Alex you hit the post button before I did,,,well said...

...

[netwolf]

I accept Science for it is, i dont take it paritaly and pick and chose what i like. I accept that the Scientifc method has thus far proved only so many truths, but I also accept that the method is improved and those truths change.

The human will is behind all discovery and knowledge, our determination to understand the universe is what drives the scientific method. Science is not a being so you can atribute anything to it. It is the method used to understand how/why things work. Using this we cand seek to create machines that take advantage of these truths. But with my will i dont simply sit and pray, my will will give me the motivation to get up and check and test what is wrong with the car to stop it from starting. My will to use the Scientifi methods will help me diagnose the problem and resolve it. I use Science it does not use me. I make science it does not make me. I am infalable so can science be infalable.

And what we have achived today with Science, may tomorow be questioned with tomorows Scinece to show it was not good prorgress or the correct assement. Scince of today is used all the time to change the Scinece of the past. Adding 3 extra Planets to the textbooks, creating more energy efficent systems, less use of fosil fuel. So Scince is a method and the method does not say observer and stop, it says continue to observer, and increase the resolution of the data and the quality of the data. This constant reaplication of the method brings us closer to the truth.

Yes the universe is big and no we humans dont no why.

We are not made in the image of god, that would be idoltry. And i dont belive the source for that is any faith i know. And the universe was not just create for human beings, No such claim is made my faith. There is much much more other than us.

Religion has not surprsed Scince, people have surprsed it for ther own gains. Dont place the actions of people on the Faith. In what faith is it written that it is wrong to understand the universe. Faith itself does not require proof, but it does not supress the search for proof. People have done this. Forget 100 years ago, oil companies surpress research into alternaitve fuels, they buy out any such research. Tell me has faith detered this or the peoples greeed. Perhaps if they had morals and did not only seek capital gains, then would seek Scinece for the true reason. For the improvement of all mankind.

Regards

[netwolf]

I agree that we will not reach any consenus, but that is not the goal. The goal is to engage people to 'think' about it. Everytime we think we come closer to understanding. And understanding does not need consensus. We are each at diffrent places in our journey each engaging our mind from a unique perspective. This unique perspective is the wonder of life. "Infinite diversity in infinite combinations"

Regards

[avandonk]

Sorry G__day I am only a lowly Physicist and my short paraphrasing was only meant to convey some idea of Godels thinking. The fact that a self referential well defined system such as simple number theory stumbles is cause for concern, at least it was in the thirties.
Chaos theory has this as well. In other words even seemingly well behaved systems if they are non linear are not deterministic. And yet the paradox is a non deterministic system can lead to stability. One example is your heartbeat.

I also agree with all you said, the bits I understood. The impression I got was that to get rid of the inconsistencies and paradoxes the defining system had to be outside the system under scrutiny. I missed the point that even this does not solve the problem. The problem is inherently embedded in the system as it gets more complex.Have I got this correct now? I am amazed we can even begin to elucidate how things work, let alone be so smug to think we can get a Theory Of Everything. That should not stop us from trying however no matter how futile.
I will now go back to cavorting with all the other gnats in the sunshine! Or is that join two cockroaches Pons and Fleichmann arguing about nuclear fusion.

Bert

[netwolf]

Hmm i recall reading somewhere that the potential for chaos is high in a ordered system, and the potential for stability is higher in a chaotic system. At the time (year 10) the nearest thing i could associate to that was the energy converstion. The kinetic energy of moving an object to a height is converted into the potential energy when it stops at that hight. And when its droped the potential energy is realised as the kinetic energy. Hey i was 16 and just grasping at straws to understnad things more complex than I.

Regards

[xelasnave]

re thread not going anywhere that may be so but the counter shows more interest in this thread than any other, I would like to think that the interest is more than search bots sniffing out the many key words to be found therein.
As to being a little off topic, is that so bad given the opportunity that is presented to discuss sometimes abstract ideas (or views).
The input by all shows a healthy group of people enjoying exploration of the concepts presented...

alex

[Doug]

Netwolf, I suppose in making the following statement;

We are not made in the image of god, that would be idoltry. And i dont belive the source for that is any faith i know. And the universe was not just create for human beings, No such claim is made my faith. There is much much more other than us.

you do believe in a God of some sort or other. How would such a God, having none of His attributes reflected in man ever be able to relate to man, or be related to by man?
Seems to be a bit like a cobler trying to relate to a shoe box and maybe expecting the shoe box to relate to him in return.

It seems to me that any creative, directive agency, be it God or Intellegent design factor 'X', being sentient would seek contact with the fruit of His labours. Seems to me that there would need to be some common ground as it were for this to take place.

Doug

[netwolf]

Doug,

Finlay some questions that i have myself pondered on much over the years.
I think the creator of the universes does not need to make us in his image in order to relate to us. I think the creator is far superior in an ability than we can possibly imagine. To say that it must be otherwise how can he relite is to place a restriction on a entity that knows no bounds. In my opinion this is human rationalisation to atribute human traits to this entity. In a way if you follow this line of thinking one could eventually rationalise and conceptualise this entity and hence reach a state of nirvana. Or as i call it this is the Single Soul theory, as opposed to the monthestic concept ot a creator seprate from creation. Or as i call it seprate soul theory.

Regards

[xelasnave]

It really bolis down to man thinking he can contemplate a God and understand his motivations. Be there or be there not I think one must see the futility of such an attempt, still many feel they are priveledged to understand his intentions and directions. Very presumptious I recon. AND I have not a bible in my possession but I am sure it contains a specific statement "that man was created in Gods image" if I did not get that idea from there where could it have come from I wonder.
alex
alex

[netwolf]

Alex, I agree that man can not presume to know the intentions of God. But faith often stipulates this intention in its divine litrature.

Doug
And why does man need to relate to God? Are we going to provide some comfort or empathy to God? This again is a human rationalisation there is not need to relate. Like you example states it is not possible and more over like your exampl shows its not necessary. Why shoul a shoe relate to a man it simply must to as is intened for it. Serve its purpose. A Star is born and it dies, it serves its purpose like all nature. Man however has freewill to chose not to follow any purpose or set his own purpose.

SirDystic, thanks you have given me something to look into. What was done a while back by religious leaders to surpres ideas is still done in the modern world for profit. And it begs the question that perhaps it is selfishness/greed that drives man to supress other men from exploring. And these are often atributed to religion or God, when they do not say this. Indeed in life we alwasy percive faith as how others practice it, rahter than actually study that faith for ourselves. Pehaps this is a seprate topic beyond this forum, but thank you for giving me something to think about.

Regards

[Doug]

Net wolf,
consider the implications of your own statement:

And why does man need to relate to God? Are we going to provide some comfort or empathy to God? This again is a human rationalisation there is not need to relate.

"There is no need to relate" is at minimum just as presumptuous as saying there is a need to relate. Actually it is the Atheist who would most be expected to say there is no need.

Moreover if it is the creator who says it, not man, how is it you say it is presumption on man's part? This is not rational surely, unless you do not admit the possibility that it was actually said in the context of which it was said. Yet, you quote from the Qur'an as though it was given by divine disclosure,(yes, in this very thread) then you should admit such disclosure is not without precedent. Otherwise you must entertain the notion that mankind was left in ignorence for an awefull long time waiting for ad 610 to come along. So why then are you being so presumptuous (your argument line) as to disallow other literature from being given in a similar way? Why the monopoly? Every religion thinks they alone are the holders of truth; in what way do you differ from all the other religions? Atheists think they are right and everone else is crackers, Judaism says no it is not us, we're not crackers it is all the others, Zoroastrians ditto, Jws ditto Mormons ditto etc. etc. Well there are a few non conformists that take the less confontationist approach and say 'Everybody has the truth, it just varies from one to the next'.
(posted under the last part of the thread topic..............'a rant' )

Doug