Do you believe in God?

[Exorcet]

First, "age" of the universe, and, life as we know it, are two different entities, in my estimation.

Likewise since science is basically a process of trial and error, your assumptions based on current evidence, with regaurd to age of the universe, could be overturned tomorrow, so they are suspect as well.

More like hypothesis and validation. There is nothing suspect in science, it's been shown correct countless times. Things can be added or corrected tomorrow. Overturned? Not really.

 

[Bobalob]

SuperCobraJet, are the consistencies between, astrology, archeology (fossil records sedimentary deposits etc.), carbon dating etc all opinion and speculation?

 

[XoravaX]

That rather seems to fundamentally misunderstand gravitation.

All objects - and systems are also objects - revolve not around the next biggest thing, but around a gravitational fulcrum (barycentre) that results from their relative masses and distances.

The Moon doesn't revolve around the Earth. The Moon and Earth revolve around a common centre - though because of the relative masses, the common centre is within the Earth and this results in the Moon having a big, sweeping, 200,000 mile orbit around the common centre while the Earth just wobbles a bit.

The Earth/Moon system doesn't revolve around the Sun. The Sun and Earth/Moon system revolve around a common centre - though because of the relative masses, the common centre is within the Sun and this results in the Earth/Moon system having a big, sweeping, 93.5 million mile orbit around the common centre while the Sun just wobbles a bit.

This distinction can be clearly seen within our Solar System, if you go far enough out. Recently demoted dwarf planet Pluto has "a moon" that is a significant proportion of Pluto's size and mass - Charon. The common centre of the two bodies is not within either of them, so Charon cannot be said to orbit Pluto - both orbit around a common point that's about 1,000 miles above the surface of Pluto.

This also applies at smaller scales (artificial satellites and asteroids) and larger ones (the Solar System and Sagittarius A).

You are right.
Though, in mechanics one of the objects is often viewed stationary, as that makes the operations a lot easier and yields accurate approximations as results (physics is not an exact science in the same way as maths, as the measured values are already only approximations). The reason why the heavier one is usually the one in the "centre" is that the bigger the difference in masses the closer the mutual centre of gravity is to the heavier obnject's centre of gravity, so in a two-object system they can be viewed as revolving around each other, depending on in relation to which one the calculations are made.

Also, measuring gravity and its effect on (smaller) objects accurately is really hard even in a solar system scale, as there are tens of (large) objects that cause disturbance to each other. That's because using approximations multiple times causes the final result to have a really large margin of error. Until we get some computers that are significantly faster (well, exponentially faster) than the current supercomputers, measuring other than two- or three-object systems' gravity and its effect on each of the objects is pretty difficult.

Even though the centre of gravity between the Earth and the Sun is somewhere in Sun's outer layers, in mechanics it doesn't matter which pulls which, hence Newton's third law of motion. The force at which the Sun pulls the Earth is the same as the force at which the Earth pulls the Sun.

In relation to the Earth the Sun revolves around it. However, if we take gravity into this, the common practice is to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Even though the centre of gravity is not at the centre of the Sun.

Famine has already put forward any scientific difference I had with you here, but what exactly is your point in relation to this thread? Are you defending one of the biblical cosmologies over Gallileo or modern astronomy?

I am not defending it (it's false in the view that all the planets primarily revolve around the Earth), I am just pointing out that all depends on the point of view. Even in physics.

SuperCobraJet, are the consistencies between, astrology, archeology (fossil records sedimentary deposits etc.), carbon dating etc all opinion and speculation?

Astrology?
You mean there is a consistency between horoscopes and archaeology?

I believe you meant astronomy. Or at least I hope so.

 

[Famine]

Though, in mechanics one of the objects is often viewed stationary, as that makes the operations a lot easier and yields accurate approximations as results (physics is not an exact science in the same way as maths, as the measured values are already only approximations).

Special relativity disagrees. And "relativity" is the important word there, because it allows for a pair of frames of reference moving relative to each other regardless of which is perceived as static.

 

[XoravaX]

Special relativity disagrees. And "relativity" is the important word there, because it allows for a pair of frames of reference moving relative to each other regardless of which is perceived as static.

Indeed. If there were only the Sun and the Earth in the universe, it would be impossible to tell which actually revolves around which. It can only be said that their mutual centre of gravity is somewhere in the Sun's outer layers and that they pull each other with the same force. If we took the Earth as the reference point, it would look like the Sun revolves around the Earth, while taking the Sun as the reference point makes it look like the Earth revolves around the Sun. Also, if we take the Solar System as an entity (Earth and Sun in this case) it can be seen that the system revolves around itself.

Although, there is no object that is absolutely stationary. Stationariness is relative to other objects too. Actually, everything is relative.

 

[Famine]

Indeed - hence relativity.

 

[Bobalob]

Astrology?
You mean there is a consistency between horoscopes and archaeology?

I believe you meant astronomy. Or at least I hope so.

Blast how did I manage that, quite right

 

[homeforsummer]

*Stuff*

Now you're back from your little vacation, I'd appreciate if you could scan over this post of mine and let me know your thoughts. It's about neither probability nor science, so it should be right up your street.

 

[DK]

Don't believe in God? According to the Pope, you're not 100% human!

 

[homeforsummer]

Don't believe in God? According to the Pope, you're not 100% human!

But thankfully unlike the Pope I'm also not n% Nazi, either.

 

[Liquid]

Now you're back from your little vacation, I'd appreciate if you could scan over this post of mine and let me know your thoughts. It's about neither probability nor science, so it should be right up your street.

Revision of the word science is also in order.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

SuperCobraJet, are the consistencies between, astrology, archeology (fossil records sedimentary deposits etc.), carbon dating etc all opinion and speculation?

No, I already said there is evidence for it.
How accurate it is, thats another matter.

More like hypothesis and validation. There is nothing suspect in science, it's been shown correct countless times. Things can be added or corrected tomorrow. Overturned? Not really.

Corrected, is probably a better term.
Overturned, isn't likely, but certainly possible.

There is nothing but speculation and opinion as far as trying to take man back more than about six thousand years.
As I said, in my estimation, the "age of the universe" and the "age of man", are two different things.

Something else on this subject, bears repeating as well.
At best this is of low priority, since regaurdless of the fossil record, carbon dating, etc.,
and other pieces this puzzle contains, it is ultimately of little influence to our lives in reality.

We must contend in, and with, the here and now.
That's why the Bible majors in causes and effects of relational problems, the core priority and pivotal dimension, that life is actually lived in.
This is the key dimension I have been, with little effect, pushing to get recognition of, from many of you science freaks.

You can continue in your charade, of living entirely in the single dimension of the remote science lab bubble, but you are only fooling yourself.
You certainly aren't fooling me with that song and dance.

 

[Famine]

I'm sure that a book where the central theme is a being who makes another man's wife pregnant without either of their consent contains sound advice about resolving problems in relationships.

 

[Scaff]

Corrected, is probably a better term.
Overturned, isn't likely, but certainly possible.

Which is a central tenant of the scientific theory, something that basing your version of events on religious texts doesn't allow for.

There is nothing but speculation and opinion as far as trying to take man back more than about six thousand years.
As I said, in my estimation, the "age of the universe" and the "age of man", are two different things.

A lot more than speculation and opinion exists for taking both man and the universe back well beyond 6,000 years exists.

Its been covered in depth in this thread and others.

Something else on this subject, bears repeating as well.
At best this is of low priority, since regaurdless of the fossil record, carbon dating, etc.,
and other pieces this puzzle contains, it is ultimately of little influence to our lives in reality.

We must contend in, and with, the here and now.
That's why the Bible majors in causes and effects of relational problems, the core priority and pivotal dimension, that life is actually lived in.
This is the key dimension I have been, with little effect, pushing to get recognition of, from many of you science freaks.

You can continue in your charade, of living entirely in the single dimension of the remote science lab bubble, but you are only fooling yourself.
You certainly aren't fooling me with that song and dance.

I'm quite amazed that following your time away from GT Planet you have not realized that insults are unlikely to help you get your point across or remain as a member here. I don't care how much you disagree with other members, refer to them as 'freak' or by any other derogatory term again and you will be banned.

Now on the subject of your point here, yes some of what the Bible has to say on day to day matters is valid (and a lot of it is not), however it doesn't have a monopoly on it at all. Not to mention that a significant amount of the valid material (particularly from the NT) can be found outside of the Bible and to also predate it.

As such I don't personally see it as a reason to adopt an entire credo, nor does it mean that simply because someone doesn't follow the Bible or agree that God exists that they live in a one dimensional world or are devoid of any moral code or understanding of how the world and relationships exist. To event state or imply such is a massive leap to make.

 

[homeforsummer]

This is the key dimension I have been, with little effect, pushing to get recognition of, from many of you science freaks.

And if you bothered to read the posts of those of us trying to discuss your religion in greater detail (myself and Liquid, for a start - see a few posts above yours) rather than embarking upon a pointless crusade to re-define words that already have very clear definitions, then perhaps you'd get more recognition from us "science freaks". At the very least, I'd prefer you attempt to answer them before getting banned again.

Oh, and god forbid we live in a world in which people who want to expand human knowledge are looked down upon in a derogatory way.

I'd rather be a "science freak", live with the supposed stigma and strive to better myself, than get my world view, morals and pseudo-scientific knowledge from a 2,000 year-old book.

 

[TJC_69]

SuperCobraJet
....from many of you science freaks...

He's just not gonna stop until he's perma-banned is he ?

It must be a wonderfully ignorant one dimensional world in which you live sir .
A world where nobody apart from the mighty SuperCobraJet is correct ... Oh and God too , let's not forget him .

How can I block this user ? His ignorance is pathetic ....

👎

 

[Azuremen]

This is the key dimension I have been, with little effect, pushing to get recognition of, from many of you science freaks.

You can continue in your charade, of living entirely in the single dimension of the remote science lab bubble, but you are only fooling yourself.
You certainly aren't fooling me with that song and dance.

You know a lot of us have asked you other questions extending well beyond science, as hfs pointed out.

You've ignored them in favor of arguing the definition of clearly defined words.

 

[G.T.Ace]

I'd rather be a "science freak", live with the supposed stigma and strive to better myself, than get my world view, morals and pseudo-scientific knowledge from a 2,000 year-old book.

/Thread

of living entirely in the single dimension of the remote science lab bubble

Quite funny, especially when you consider that science gives us new options and views on our lifes and the world we live in, while religion makes the complete opposite and gives you very limited views.

 

[Bobalob]

"Water is two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen. What if someone says "Well, thats not how I choose to think about water."? All I can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share those values, the conversation is over. If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?

-Sam Harris

 

[TheDrummingKING]

^I saw that quote on a facebook page yesterday.

 

[Bobalob]

 

[Exorcet]

There is nothing but speculation and opinion as far as trying to take man back more than about six thousand years.
As I said, in my estimation, the "age of the universe" and the "age of man", are two different things.

I've never followed biology or anthropology, so my numbers aren't going to be completely correct, but humans go back 2,000,000 years. Modern humans go back about 150,000 I think. This isn't really up for much debate. At the very least, 6000 years is grossly wrong.

Something else on this subject, bears repeating as well.
At best this is of low priority, since regaurdless of the fossil record, carbon dating, etc.,
and other pieces this puzzle contains, it is ultimately of little influence to our lives in reality.

Not really, studying this gives us a look into evolution, human behavior and capabilities, and a lot more. Studying human evolutionary history probably won't make life today very different from life tomorrow or next year, but over decades it probably makes a difference.

A bit ironically though, what you said is how I feel about the Bible and God.

We must contend in, and with, the here and now.
That's why the Bible majors in causes and effects of relational problems, the core priority and pivotal dimension, that life is actually lived in.
This is the key dimension I have been, with little effect, pushing to get recognition of, from many of you science freaks.

I'd look elsewhere for advice on that.

You can continue in your charade, of living entirely in the single dimension of the remote science lab bubble, but you are only fooling yourself.
You certainly aren't fooling me with that song and dance.

Well, the bubble of science is a good bubble to be in when it contains all we can ever know and experience.

But again, you're completely mischaracterizing science. By its very nature science is open to religious ideas, but will only accept them when they can be shown to be more than stories written by people who died a long time ago with limited knowledge of the world.

 

[Bobalob]

I think this...

But again, you're completely mischaracterizing science. By its very nature science is open to religious ideas, but will only accept them when they can be shown to be more than stories written by people who died a long time ago with limited knowledge of the world.

Sums up weeks of debate.

 

[Kingland093]

I'm Catholic and I believe in God and the Trinity and I'm proud to admit it!

 

[D3ATHS1NBUNCH3S]

The question I pose is this: Why do we as a society worship different Gods? Why is there not a common God for everyone (if there indeed is one)?

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

The question I pose is this: Why do we as a society worship different Gods? Why is there not a common God for everyone (if there indeed is one)?

Modern science, transportation, and the Internet. They weren't always around.

 

[lalaurentide]

I don't believe in god, it could exist, but until I see proof, I don't. Same with unicorns, minotaurs, nagas, titans, giants, etc.

I'll believe the day I become miserable and need a walker to go through life. My mother gave me self-confidence, not self-doubt.

 

[Teflonicus]

I am not defending it (it's false in the view that all the planets primarily revolve around the Earth), I am just pointing out that all depends on the point of view. Even in physics.

I think the science of physics has proven more than capable of taking into account "points of view". While, for the sake of simplicity, one set of calculations may be emphasised over another, it's not as if the whole science is in a quandary over whether to take the perspective of the Earth or the Sun. There's differentiation between what a biophysicist and a quantum physicist do because the subject matter is so complex, not because they disagree with each other's work.

Moving on, there was more than one biblical cosmology. The flat-Earth theory was still lingering among Christian scholars beyond the writing of the New Testament:

"The devil took him (Jesus) to a very high mountain and displayed before him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence...."

"I saw a tree of great height at the center of the world. It was large and strong, with its top touching the heavens, and it could be seen from the ends of the earth."

-Neither of these verses make any sense if the earth is understood to be a sphere. Moreover, in 400AD, Saint Augustine was still trying to convince his contemporaries that a spherical Earth was possible.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I'm sure that a book where the central theme is a being who makes another man's wife pregnant without either of their consent contains sound advice about resolving problems in relationships.

Interesting comment.

One of the reasons they were chosen, was because they would consent.

He's just not gonna stop until he's perma-banned is he ?

It must be a wonderfully ignorant one dimensional world in which you live sir .
A world where nobody apart from the mighty SuperCobraJet is correct ... Oh and God too , let's not forget him .

How can I block this user ? His ignorance is pathetic ....

👎

Are you really that thin-skinned?

Is this a GTP forum, or Dr. Phil and Opra Winfrey?

Because you won't, can't or refuse to acknowledge the dimension of the Spiritual, don't get mad at me.

I'm just trying to tell you, it absolutely does exist.
It's not discovered, learned about, or accessed through, science.
Something for which I have no say so about, and therefore cannot be held accountable for.
Likewise it is undoubtedly, a science unto itself.

 

[Touring Mars]

First, "age" of the universe, and, life as we know it, are two different entities, in my estimation.

I'm not disputing that. But whether you were talking about either (in reference to your estimation of '5000 years') you are still off by several orders of magnitude.

Likewise since science is basically a process of trial and error, your assumptions based on current evidence, with regaurd to age of the universe, could be overturned tomorrow, so they are suspect as well.

Rubbish. Science is very effective at ruling out possibilities and honing in on the truth. The fact that the universe is not thousands of years old will never be overturned - so your estimation will never be anywhere close to being correct.

You, nor science, nor anyone else, has a conclusive evidential lock on origins of the universe, or life as we know it, so you can keep your self determined comments of "willful ignorance", "sympathy and respect" to yourself.

No. I maintain the right to an opinion and my right to express it in a civil manner. I pity those who have been misled or who have not been exposed to the evidence that contradicts what they've been told. But I have no time for those who know full well that there exists contradictory evidence but choose to ignore it. There's a big difference in my book, just as there is a big difference between making an honest mistake and making deliberately misleading comments.

Science qualifies itself by being open to new evidence, and is therefore open to the discovery of new things all the time. But being open to new evidence doesn't mean that there can be no such thing as an established fact - far from it actually. What you are describing is an overwhelming skepticism that cannot accept anything as factual and where evidence ultimately means nothing. All of mankind's scientific achievements stand in direct contradiction to this view.

Educated to some extent, it's still a guessing game and you know it.

If you believe that science is a 'guessing game', then you clearly don't understand jack about how science works - although your previous posts regarding science have already demonstrated this beyond any doubt.