what's the deal with CONVERSION?

[___]

Ypu're wrong, though. You can have faith in a fact. You put your faith in the truth, instead of in the unproveable.

You may distort the definition and concept of faith as you wish. I don't have 'faith' that there is a logical reasonable explanation for everything, I have a reasonable expectation based on the fact that everything else I've ever examined or heard examined has turned out to have a logical, reasonable explanation. Therefore when someone tells me there is no logical, reasonable explanation for something, I maintain a healthy skepticism.

So, light has an immutable, unchangeable speed, right? WRONG! Scientists have managed to stop light and freeze it in place, at least temporarily.

First off, you're confused. The 'speed of light' is immutable and unchangable as far as we know, as a number. The speed and wavelength of a photon are mutable and changeable - every time photons pass through a lens they get slowed down a tiny bit. Well in a more technical sense, what's happening is the photon is getting absorbed by an atom inside the lens, then remitted a short time later, and then reabsorbed again, and so on down the line till it's spit back out, which is a little different from it changing speed. The experiments you're referring to are experiments using supercooled gasses to work in a similar fashion to a lens, and I'm aware of them. If we do someday manage to prove that lightspeed is mutable that'll be wonderful news for science because it'll mean we can break heretofore presumed universal speed limits so we'll all be happy about it.

Did you know that science can't explain why the universe is behaving the way it is? As in, they can't explain why ther universe is expanding at it's current speed without hypothetical "dark matter" or "god particles" that may never be able to be proven to exist, and could very well be just as mythical as Zeus.)

Theoretical physics != hard fact. Really it should be called hypothetical physics. Until a testable, falsifiable hypothesis is presented, these sorts of things are basically philosophy and not to be taken as fact; theoretical physicists understand this as do people who are interested in their ideas. However there have been several experiments that have tended to show evidence for the existence of dark matter by way of showing that there's a need, according to the current model, for such a thing to exist. This is different from me inventing the flying spaghetti monster and insisting it exists in spite of need, reason or circumstantial evidence beyond that a noodle dropped on my head once.

Also, the most accurate calendar ever devised (before the atomic clock, anyway) was the Aztec calendar. Their calculations of time are only a couple of seconds off now when compared to when they first met the Spanish, several hundred years ago. Did you know that they predicted the world would end December 12, 2012? That doesn't mean it will, but it shows that science and math, though different, are still much the same then and now. (As in, they may be very accurate, but they are most certainly not infallible)

That was the Mayan calendar and to understand that prediction you need to understand some things about Mayan mythology. The Mayans believed that the world existed in cycles, and that at the end of each world was a great cataclysm that destroyed the world and allowed a new one to be born. The Mayans had very advanced astronomy and geometry from what little we know about them, and their calendar was based off the paths of celestial bodies. On the date in question a particular alignment happens which they believed marked the end of each world; we are currently in the Mayan 5th world and it is supposed to end on that date and usher in the 6th. You could think of a Mayan world like a mayan millenia if you like, leaving off the myth, and their mythology (i.e. faith) has nothing to do with their science (i.e. astronomy). They very accurately predicted that particular astronomical setup, more accurately than we could have until this past century; their prediction of global destruction is likely to go the same way every other does but since it's a testable hypothesis we only have to wait till 2012 to see if there's something to it.

Everything else you said was utterly nonsensical, rambling, off topic, or philosophical and having little to do with the subject at hand, but the irony of the argument is that this thread is about people converting people. So while I'll be happy to continue correcting you on facts, you're welcome to have faith in whatever nutty psuedoscience and hippie stuff you like.

 

[Glitchfinder]

Actually, It wasn't really nonsense, but it was an example of how facts can be twisted to fit an opinion so that only someone who actually knows what they're talking about can sort out the truth. Yes, I do believe that you can have faith in fact, but I also believe thagt that's just my own personal perception of what faith is, and I'm not going to be able to explain it in words. Instead, I gave a perfect example of what people do when they try to convert others: take a little fact from all over the place, triwst it, and spit it out as the gospel truth. In other words, try to be a shitty lawyer and fail miserably. I commend you on being able to counter pretty much every argument, instead of hingeing on one. Did you already know all of that, or is Google your friend? Have a look at what I said, and how I said it. It's actually rather similar not only to how the tobacco companies responded to and used the media before hard facts were revealed that proved that ciagarettes do kill, and almost identical to how global warming is being "proven" now. If you ever get a chance, ask a professional geologist about the geological view of global warming. DId you know the actual marmest year on record is in the 1930's, and that Al Gore essentially lied when he said it was '98? DId you know that that chart they are always touting around is colloquially called the hockey stick model, and it doesn't include the "little ice age" or the times in the Roman Empire when the temperatures were actually warmer than they are now? Once again, examples of how misinformation is used to convert.

Anyway, let's get back to the argument at hand: why do people try to convert each other? Really, I believe it is psychological. If someone holds a belief, and they find someone who doesn't, then it brings up the possibility that their belief is wrong, and so to validate their point of view, they try to convert the other person. Now, to see how strong this effect is, studies have shown that more than two-thirds of people will choose an obviously wrong answer to a quastion if they see that the rest of a group they are in chooses that answer. That shows how easily we can question our own beliefs on anything, even something as simple as a question of which line on one side matches the provided line. (With three lines of obviously different lengths, only one of which actually matches the provided line) And then there's the people who just want to share what they believe to be a good thing, be it chocolate cake or a belief in a God, gods, goddesses, etc.

 

[___]

Yeah actually I did already know all that stuff, because when I hear a crazy idea that sounds interesting I check it out. If it seems like I know a lot about a lot of strange things it's because I don't bother to talk about things I don't know much about, anyway. Oh, and I saw the thing about photons on the Science channel a couple weeks ago, but I also checked into that a little more (the show explains it pretty well). I believe that kind of curiosity is a common attribute of a free mind, never taking what a person says for granted and always wanting to know more. But more importantly, if I didn't know it I would have looked it up before attempting to say anything about it, because that's what an intellectually honest person would do. No fault on you for not having correct information, but it would have been my fault for believing *you* and being wrong if I chose to.

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

IMO what makes science not just 'another faith' is that it has absolutely no problem with completely reinventing itself if something in the world is discovered that proves it wrong.

I wouldn't say that. Sometimes if they find something that disproves what they've been saying, they just add a piece to their theory that can't be disproven.

 

[Ellie]

Such as?

There's nothing that can't be disproven.

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

Fine, let me correct myself, something that can't be disproven now.

You know the big bang theory was pretty much disproven? You guys all know the laws of conservation of energy, right? If something is moving, it will move at the exact same speed unless energy is gained or lost? Well, it turns out that there wasn't a single event "Big Bang" that is causing the expansion of the universe, because everything is accelerating. If the big bang caused everything to expand, then all of the galaxies moving and such should stay the same speed or slow down (Actually, they should slow down because, unless they are infinitely far away from everything else, the gravity of each will affect the others), right? Well, they aren't. They are moving away from the 'center' at an accelerating rate. They decided that this must mean that there's a new type of energy called "Dark Energy" that is causing them to move farther away.

I'm not saying that Religion is better than science, I'm a member of no religion either. I am saying that people screw up whatever they touch.

 

[Sorvius]

Oh yeah I didn't even want to give the AIDs thing the satisfaction of a response, I have a low tolerance for the use of pseudo scientific nonsense in propping up superstition, but thanks for the in-depth.

I would like to mention that there are some really cool prospects in artificial blood and blood surrogates that we might see in the near future, but I am not sure what the JWs think about them. Could it be... screwing with God's intent by replacing blood with some synthetic abomination of nature?!

In the meanwhile allowing oneself or one's child to die over the otherwise incredibly miniscule possibility that they could contract aids from a transfusion and thus suffer from a chronic but treatable illness, which furthermore should be covered by insurance in a situation like that or else liability, is just mind-bogglingly ignorant and/or evil.

I certainly agree. Still, some of the most heinous acts in history were committed for religious reasons. Think of the Inquisition, the extermination of Jews in WWII (Although that was more politics disguised as religion), the Crusades, and pretty much any other war before the American Revolution, as well as many after.

Think about what religion is. It is a suspension of logical thought, with the replacement of faith. They have faith that they are serving the proper deity (Be it Christianity's God, Ancient Egypt's Ra, or any other deity that may come into play), and that, since they are serving their deity, then what they do in his (or her, depending on your religion) name is actually good, no matter how evil it really is. If you murder "sinners" in God's name, then you are doing "good" and, even if punished in the modern world, will be "rewarded" in the afterlife.

The problem is, when you replace logic with belief, you lose a lot, specifically, a set universal truths, and have those replaced with whatever truths your religion dictates. (Or cult. Some cults make suicide a good thing, although most world religions think of it as a sin. Although, the Japanese have that odd notion od sepukku, or "honorable death", where you commit suicide to prevent something about you from dishonoring your family, lord, or any other figure in your life.) When that happens, you get a lot of odd notions that logic dictates are untrue, evil, or simply just stupid. (You won't actually ascend to the mothership if you commit suicide during the solar eclipse, no matter how many times they say you will)

The problem is, some of these notions can prove dangerous to yourselves or others. (Giving all your money to the "religion", committing suicide, or killing others are just a few examples, and all religions have had major figures within them endorse one of those three at one time or another. Usually the third) Really, the thing you have to keep in mind, no matter where you put your beliefs, is that they may seem good to you, but they may be blatantly incorrect to others, and no one wants your beliefs forced down their throats.

Allow me to show you what real faith is, hm?

In John chapter 20:24-29, Thomas (one of the 12 disciples) was beyond upset over Jesus' cricificition.  When the other discpiles told Thomas that they had seen Jesus after they all just watched him die and get buried he said, "Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe."  Doesn't that sound like a lot of people nowadays?  Unless thay have unbelievably conclusive evidence, they will not believe.

Well sure enough they took Thomas to Jesus and He said, "Reach your finger here, and look at my hands, and reach your hand here, and put it into My side.  Do not be unbelieveing, but believing.  28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

He got proof and he then believed, and I'm sure he felt a little guilty about doubting Jesus after all they had been through.  Now, this is the part of the story that defines faith, look at what Jesus says next:

Verse 29, "Jesus said to Him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Wow...what a profound look at real faith.  And it goes on to say, "And truly Jesus did many other sings in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name."

Now, I'm not trying to give a sermon here, but I just wanted to clarify that when you have faith you're not always sacrificing logic, and it is logical to believe in something if it IS truth

 

[___]

Now, I'm not trying to give a sermon here, but I just wanted to clarify that when you have faith you're not always sacrificing logic, and it is logical to believe in something if it IS truth

Right, and Thomas in that parable would not have been sacrificing logic. In fact he had no faith at all, he didn't need it and didn't exhibit it - in fact as a good rational man he required extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims. In the parable, Thomas gets his extraordinary proof. Unfortunately time, technology and circumstances denied Thomas the ability to carry that evidence on to the rest of us so all we have is a nice story about a supernatural event that, much like other nice stories about supernatural events, probably had some basis in fact but didn't play out quite the way the 1700-year-old-book says they did.

 

[Sorvius]

Now, I'm not trying to give a sermon here, but I just wanted to clarify that when you have faith you're not always sacrificing logic, and it is logical to believe in something if it IS truth

Right, and Thomas in that parable would not have been sacrificing logic. In fact he had no faith at all, he didn't need it and didn't exhibit it - in fact as a good rational man he required extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims. In the parable, Thomas gets his extraordinary proof. Unfortunately time, technology and circumstances denied Thomas the ability to carry that evidence on to the rest of us so all we have is a nice story about a supernatural event that, much like other nice stories about supernatural events, probably had some basis in fact but didn't play out quite the way the 1700-year-old-book says they did.

So a supernatural event, like Jesus' ressurection, which happened only ~2,000 years ago is less believeable than an event, like the Big Bang, which supposedly happened 13.5 billion years ago?  Neither events can be proven with a picture or video nor can anyone say they witnessed it first-hand, but denying something as recent as Jesus' death and ressurection is an insult to people's logic and reason when compared to the latter...

 

[Glitchfinder]

So a supernatural event, like Jesus' ressurection, which happened only ~2,000 years ago is less believeable than an event, like the Big Bang, which supposedly happened 13.5 billion years ago?  Neither events can be proven with a picture or video nor can anyone say they witnessed it first-hand, but denying something as recent as Jesus' death and ressurection is an insult to people's logic and reason when compared to the latter...

Aside from the fact that there is actual evidence of the big bang (you hear some every time your radio is not set on a specific station), you're saying that something as illogical and impossible to prove, like the ressurection of Jesus, should be more believable than something that not only does had physical (if indirect) evidence and a lot of substantiating research, just because it supposedly happened more recently? That's like saying that I should believe that Lost is real, but that the Diary of Anne Frank isn't, just because Lost is more recent. In both examples, the first is theologically possible (If you take into account certain things that "cannot be explained"), the second can be substantiated and supported by real fact that can be verified by multiple sources. And, let's face it, logic never comes into play when you're talking of Jesus' death and ressurection. It's all faith, and faith, by its textbook definition, denies logic. So, how can you insult the logic of people who, in the act of faith, decide to not use logic? (And besides, the whole point of that story is that you have to havefaith in something that can't be proven, because proof denies faith. Try looking up Hitchhiker's Guide babelfish god on Youtube. It's really funny, but it makes a good theoligical point) Also, don't go into why I suddenly switched sides on the "faith vs logic" debate. I can argue any point I want, and, usually, the only people who can counter me have even more random knowledge than I do. Oh, and ~2000 years ago is Jesus' birth, not death and ressurection. Thus, "B.C." is "Before Christ".

 

[Sorvius]

So a supernatural event, like Jesus' ressurection, which happened only ~2,000 years ago is less believeable than an event, like the Big Bang, which supposedly happened 13.5 billion years ago?  Neither events can be proven with a picture or video nor can anyone say they witnessed it first-hand, but denying something as recent as Jesus' death and ressurection is an insult to people's logic and reason when compared to the latter...

Aside from the fact that there is actual evidence of the big bang (you hear some every time your radio is not set on a specific station), you're saying that something as illogical and impossible to prove, like the ressurection of Jesus, should be more believable than something that not only does had physical (if indirect) evidence and a lot of substantiating research, just because it supposedly happened more recently? That's like saying that I should believe that Lost is real, but that the Diary of Anne Frank isn't, just because Lost is more recent. In both examples, the first is theologically possible (If you take into account certain things that "cannot be explained"), the second can be substantiated and supported by real fact that can be verified by multiple sources. And, let's face it, logic never comes into play when you're talking of Jesus' death and ressurection. It's all faith, and faith, by its textbook definition, denies logic. So, how can you insult the logic of people who, in the act of faith, decide to not use logic? (And besides, the whole point of that story is that you have to havefaith in something that can't be proven, because proof denies faith. Try looking up Hitchhiker's Guide babelfish god on Youtube. It's really funny, but it makes a good theoligical point) Also, don't go into why I suddenly switched sides on the "faith vs logic" debate. I can argue any point I want, and, usually, the only people who can counter me have even more random knowledge than I do. Oh, and ~2000 years ago is Jesus' birth, not death and ressurection. Thus, "B.C." is "Before Christ".

Ok, this is why people debate this matter.  The story goes that the universe was once a spinning mass the size of the period at the end of this sentence.  Regardless of whether or not that can be supported by math and/or science, it does sound a little absurd. 

But if that is true than the question is where did that tiny mass come from?  Well (says the logical person) that's an easy one.  You see, the current universe is expanding, but it will reach a critical point in it's expansion and begin to implode.  This implosion will eventually return the universe to the dot it once was, then in turn will explode again to form another new universe and so on.

...

So where did that previous universe come from?  Well (says the logical person) that's an easy one.  You see, the previous universe was expanding, but it reached a critical point in it's expansion and began to implode.  This implosion eventually returned the universe to the dot that in turn exploded into the universe we live in currently.

...

So where did the universe that created the previous universe come from?  Well (says the logical man)...
So where did the universe that created the universe that created the previous universe come from?  Well (says the logical man)...
So where did the universe that created the universe that created the universe that created the previous universe come from?  Well (says the logical man)...
So where did the universe that created the universe that created the universe that created the universe that created the previous universe come from?  Well (says the logical man)...

See my point?  You too have to believe in this unexplainable concept or you are insulting your own intelligence and logic, or at the very least sounding like a fool.  Logically there cannot be an infinite expansion and implosion of the universe because it had to have an origin in order to begin it's infinite path, right?  If you can explain the origin then you can be sure of your logic, otherwise (logically speaking) you have to accept that it came from somewhere by having faith that it did.  This is why it is called the Big Bang theory.

It's also interesting to note that the word universe comes from the latin UNI = one or single and VERSE = a spoken sentence.  So UNIVERSE means 'a single spoken sentence'.  God said "Let there be..." and it was.

 

[Glitchfinder]

Ok, this is why people debate this matter.  The story goes that the universe was once a spinning mass the size of the period at the end of this sentence.  Regardless of whether or not that can be supported by math and/or science, it does sound a little absurd. 

But if that is true than the question is where did that tiny mass come from?  Well (says the logical person) that's an easy one.  You see, the current universe is expanding, but it will reach a critical point in it's expansion and begin to implode.  This implosion will eventually return the universe to the dot it once was, then in turn will explode again to form another new universe and so on.

...

So where did that previous universe come from?  Well (says the logical person) that's an easy one.  You see, the previous universe was expanding, but it reached a critical point in it's expansion and began to implode.  This implosion eventually returned the universe to the dot that in turn exploded into the universe we live in currently.

...

So where did the universe that created the previous universe come from?  Well (says the logical man)...
So where did the universe that created the universe that created the previous universe come from?  Well (says the logical man)...
So where did the universe that created the universe that created the universe that created the previous universe come from?  Well (says the logical man)...
So where did the universe that created the universe that created the universe that created the universe that created the previous universe come from?  Well (says the logical man)...

See my point?  You too have to believe in this unexplainable concept or you are insulting your own intelligence and logic, or at the very least sounding like a fool.  Logically there cannot be an infinite expansion and implosion of the universe because it had to have an origin in order to begin it's infinite path, right?  If you can explain the origin then you can be sure of your logic, otherwise (logically speaking) you have to accept that it came from somewhere by having faith that it did.  This is why it is called the Big Bang theory.

It's also interesting to note that the word universe comes from the latin UNI = one or single and VERSE = a spoken sentence.  So UNIVERSE means 'a single spoken sentence'.  God said "Let there be..." and it was.

Actually, the big bang theory doesn't explain where it came from. There are all sorts of people working on that problem right now, and if had been reading Discover Magazing in the last 5 or so years, you'd see an interesting trend toward the "multiverse" spitting off new baby universes, and each universe theoretically having different laws of physics, etc. Anyway, I'm diverging from the topiuc at hand. I've heard it explained in more simplistic terms, so here goes:

Imagine a sphere with an infinite diameter. What would the surfact of the sphere look like? It would appear completely flat. Still, you could continue along that surface for as long as you want, and once you have continued for an infinite amount of time, you're right back where you started. That how it works. There was never a beginning or an end. You start from any point, and you continue along, and, although we can never do it, you eventually return to where you started off, and everything happens all over again. The big bang, the spawning of new baby universes, everything is stuck in an infite loop with no escape, and nothing that points to a beginning or end. The only reason this cannot be proven is because the loop happens on an infinite time scale, and the time scale of our universe is finite. THen again, there's another theory that our universe is a giant math equation, and that Einstein found a small piece of it, and that the beginning was the equation's full form, and the end is the final solution. (Of course, this could have all sort of theological implications, like the beginning is literally God saying "let there be light", only it's more like x=...., and that the end, or x, is final judgement, the literal end of the universe)

 

[Cruelty]

this thread seems to have rabbit-tailed a bit!


i find most theories explaining the nature and possible origins of the universe pretty silly because what we're doing is taking man-made abstract concepts such as measurement of time and distance (based off of an imperfect numeral system - yet another man-made abstract concept) and trying to apply them to the rest of the universe. at its very core, that doesn't seem right to me. (this is actually covered under my earlier rant about building knowledge off of possibly-questionable fact)

so when we take the limited means of measurement and apply them to what may very well be infinite, we think "woah, wait a minute thats unthinkable. how do we explain this?". then some guys try very hard to rationalize it based on what we know about our own planet, and things get kinda blurry and objectionable.. and kinda crazy!


theres a quote ive remembered for some time (not sure of it's origins), it goes "we measure things by what we are"; that is to say - we measure everything against ourselves. to the fish in the sea - the sea is the universe. to my pet cat, my house it the entire planet. and to us, the universe is the universe (so to speak). while its vastly larger to scale, its not entirely impossible that this simply isn't true.

now if someone were to perceive these things this way, as i do, all this crazy science stuff seems kinda unbelievable on about the same level as "god made the earth in 7 days" or something. and i'd actually sooner believe in creationism than i would believe that we have, or ever will truly understand the true nature and origin of the universe or even all the natural phenomenons of our own planet. its just theories based on formulas based on concepts based on numbers which WE invented in the first place.

and, returning to my point (if only for the sake of trying to at least steer this thread back to the original topic, tho i doubt it'll happen this easily)..  you can succeed financially without ever going to church. you can succeed without ever going to tibet for a spiritual retreat in a monastery. you can't succeed without going to school, tho. and the fact that we're forced to know, maybe not necessarily believe, but to at least learn these things in our school system seems somewhat unfair to me.
you don't have to go to a catholic or christian church school or whatever if you dont want to be fed information about god and the bible as fact. but if you happen to find problems agreeing with or accepting the inquiries of the scientific community... well, fuck you man. we all just decided this is the way things really are, this is the real explanation of everything. we believe it, and everyone else is going to as well. if you don't like it, too bad; we're giving it to you anyway. if you refuse, you never get to have a cool job and enough money to live comfortably. and, to me, that's much more unfair than a few heavy black women trying to talk to you about jesus while you're eating breakfast.

 

[___]

Once again, theoretical physics =/= hard science. There is a lot of evidence suggesting that there was a big bang event; if you would like to know more about it, you are welcome to use Google. There is not a lot of evidence to suggest that any person in the history of mankind has ever been resurrected 3 days or more after death. There are plenty of reasons to believe that such an event is impossible, while there are plenty of reasons to believe the big bang, or something along those lines, was possible (in fact, the big bang doesn't even really conflict with Christian theology - remember that phrase "let there be light"? yeah, that one).

When it comes to theoretical physics, the hypotheses are based off extrapolation of observed facts. When it comes to faith and religion, beliefs are based off anecdotes, often second-hand and originated in a distant past when humanity's understanding of the world was much more narrow and primitive. In theoretical physics, the goal is to come up with a viable theory about something we don't quite understand but see evidence of and then to find ways to prove (and more importantly, to disprove) the theory. Once you have your theory, supporting evidence that is all congruent with the theoretical model, and an series of experiments providing more supporting data, you submit your theory for peer review. Others cross-check your theory against the evidence, reproduce your experiments, and if everything works out well eventually your idea becomes an accepted theoretical model, at least until new evidence that breaks the model is introduced. Then it's back to the drawing board. Sometimes this series of events can take decades or even centuries to come to pass; we are still looking for the mechanism behind gravity, although Isaac Newton theorized its existence centuries ago. Darwin expected there would be some sort of chemical mechanism for recording, mixing and passing on genetic traits but it wasn't until the late 1950s that the actual structure and mechanism of DNA was deciphered. The basis for atomic theory was proposed by a greek philosopher over 2000 years ago, but it wasn't until the beginning of the last century that any experimental evidence was found in support of the idea. This is how science works. Religion works like this:

Guy 1: "I saw this guy chilling on the road yesterday, you might know him"
Guy 2: "yeah that's not possible, he died 4 days ago, I saw it myself"
Guy 1: "well I'm telling you I saw him yesterday, he's magical"
Guy 2: "bullshit"
Guy 1: "HEATHEN! DISBELIEVER!"

... aand a new religion is born. 30 years later the first of a series of accounts is written, and almost two centuries after that these accounts start to coalesce into a big book, some kept and some discarded according to the apparent whims of a few respected leaders of the time who go on to broker a deal with a Roman emperor. Then we have the burning of the Library at Alexandria and the flaying of its keeper by a religious mob and many similar events contributing to the fall of western civilization, and over a thousand years of social and technological regression, oppression, torture, genocide, and many other atrocities at the hand of the church, and you know the rest.

@Cruelty: the simple question is, does it make more sense for us to apply an understanding of the universe based on all the cumulative observations of humankind, or to apply an understanding of the universe that seems to fly in the face of all those observations at practically every turn? The whole thing about the scientific method is that it does not pretend to produce absolute, objective, perfect answers. It just presents a method to find the things that are most likely to be true in the field of all proposed ideas based on all available evidence. If the scientific method didn't work and our understanding of the universe wasn't pretty good and growing by the day we wouldn't have things like the microwave oven, the atomic power, the internal combustion engine, or really any machine or tool more complex than an unmodified rock or stick. If there was a huge degree of uncertainty as to how the world worked the kind of accuracy and precision necessary to make such devices functional and reliable, along with the base of knowledge which allowed their invention, would not exist. If we lived in a world with arbitrary rules, or if our concept of the rational rules of the universe were seriously askew, devices like lasers, particle accelerators, silicon chips, LCDs, quantum computers, and other complex technology would simply not work or not work reliably because they are designed and built according to specifications that rely on our theoretical models of the universe working as expected.

 

[Ellie]

I think the thing Sorvius is getting wrong is that not all "they" believe in the big bang.

Science is the search for truth. "They" (whom everyone seems to mention in this thread, that big lump of scientists who all evidently behave as a hive mind and don't have freedom of thought apparently) don't believe in the big bang, they are trying to find out whether it did happen or not and if so how it happened.

Religion, or those that we're talking about here, has a theory but it isn't testing that theory, it never says "hmm, perhaps we're wrong".

 

[Sorvius]

@ Glitchfinder:  While I partially agree with your statements I would like to point out that any object, namely the sphere, with an infinite diameter could not possibly have a surface because you would never reach it.  Also, travelling for an infinite amount of time does not have a resulting destination because there is no end point.  It doesn't just "loop around".  Even so, a multiverse must still have an origin, unless you call it God, it cannot just be, remember that matter can neither be created or destroyed (in the 3rd dimension). 

@ Cruelty:  I think I see your point, but it's pretty clear to me that the school system (which is run by the governement) ONLY teaches evolution and billions of years (theology) to it's students and even questioning the cirriculum can get you fired or expelled anymore.  This is called forced indoctrination and is a common flaw in almost all religious belief systems, including Christianity.  I personally would never force my beilefs down someone's throat or tell them that it is the only way (even if it is).  My job as a believing christian is to give others the knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ, God takes care of the rest.
  Also, being successful isn't something that can only be acheived by non-christians, even though that is the way it goes most of the time.  What matters is a) if you're willing to turn from sin, b) if you're willing to humble yourself, c) if you trust that Christ is your savior and, d) that you keep on the righteous path till your dieing day to receive your rewards in heaven.  Simple

@ Nphyx:  I agree with your observation that God's speaking could have been the big bang.  It may even be supported by science that this explosion did in fact occur at the time of creation.  The problem is the time line.  According to the Bible the beginning of our known universe and existance happened much more recently than the textbooks describe.  The age of the earth currently rests at about ~6,000 years.  This number is found by adding up the geneologies of Adam, Abraham, and many other biblical figures throughout the bible.  It doesn't matter if it's true or not, this is simply how we arrive the 6,000 number (more specifically, the "beginning" could have happened at 4,004 BC).  Now I understand about radiometric dating methods and the trigonometry used to calcualte star distance and all that, BUT it's not perfect and usually so inconsistent that the mesaurements of both time and space just have to be accepted by a group of prominent people for the common man to have any faith in it at all.  Then you have those that want so badly for God to not exist that they will skew the scientific method by using unproven theories and concepts to produce facts instead of using facts to support the theory, whatever it may be.  On the contrary, there are Christians that will also point fingers before looking at themselves and use religious mumbo jumbo to say that if people don't believe in their doctrine something unspeakable will happen to them.  This shows us that no matter what you follow, you are still imperfect when compared to the Creator.  As a result of this we try to find anything and everything we can to explain our existance without being held accountable for what we do and say, and THAT'S where all these issues stem from.

@ Wyattina:  I admit to somtimes following the religious cadance of blaming this "they" group and it is not fair to "them".  It is better for me to say the majority.  The majority of people/scientists/religious leaders/politicians/teachers/etc. believe in the billions of years scenario described in the magazines and textbooks, mostly because of the ideas presented that support the findings, and the credentials of the people studying it.  Unfortunately, history has proved time and time again that the majority is not always right and usually use that percentage against any opposing idea.

I can name 3 examples clearly to demonstrate this:  Geocentric solar system theory, flat earth concept, and the Salem witch trials. 

Gallileo can be credited with giving us the correct version of the solar system as opposed to the majority belief that the earth was the center of not only the solar system but also the entire universe.  The issue wasn't that man was more primitave or less educated, it was that they misinterpreted what they observed.  It certainly does appear that the sun circles the earth day after day, but it has been since discovered that this is simply not the case.

What about a flat earth?  During the late 15th century, anyone opposed to the idea that the horizon was the edge of the planet was convicted and executed!  Sounds a lot like religion to me.  It wasn't enough that you couldn't prove otherwise, it was against the law.  But unless you achieve a high enough altitude or leave the planet entirely, your observations will certainly conclude without a shadow of a doubt that the earth is indeed flat >_>

Finally, and my favorite one, is the Salem Witch trials.  The quick and dirty version is that in 1692 in Salem, Massachusettes people were having visions, convulsions, speaking in tongues (babbling), and causing great turmoil.  The Salem Witch Trials were the court cases held to convict anyone experiencing these symptoms to be practicing witch craft and were hanged, and this was in direct violation of the Puritian standards.  Now we apply science and prove the majority wrong once again; here's what happened:  The rye seeds growing on the wheat would sometimes get harvested late in the season.  If you let rye sit for too long you know what happens, it get's moldy(fact).  These moldy rye seeds would get ground up with the rest of the wheat in the mills an made into bread.  Moldy rye seeds contain lysergic acid (fact)...now where have I heard that term?  Oh that's right!  Lysergic acid is LSD! 8D  The reason these people were freaking out is because they were tripping balls!  It had absolutely NOTHING to do with demon possession or witch craft, it was hard drugs.  Now I realize that during that time these people had little to no knowledge of microbiliogy, but the point is clear that in all three of these common examples, the majority was not only dead wrong, but were proven wrong in the end. 

Also notice how long it took for the proof to make itself known.  In some cases it was cneturies, but it happened.  The Bible tells us that God, too, will prove the majority wrong when Christ returns and the graves are opened, and because you have read this, you will be without excuse.

 

[Glitchfinder]

@ Glitchfinder:  While I partially agree with your statements I would like to point out that any object, namely the sphere, with an infinite diameter could not possibly have a surface because you would never reach it.  Also, travelling for an infinite amount of time does not have a resulting destination because there is no end point.  It doesn't just "loop around".  Even so, a multiverse must still have an origin, unless you call it God, it cannot just be, remember that matter can neither be created or destroyed (in the 3rd dimension). 

You've got to take into account that the newest multiverse theories say that not every universe follows the lame laws of physics as us. What is infinite to us may be finite to others, and what is law here may just be fiction elsewhere. Imagine a universe with inverse gravity, where it puches instead of pulls. According to these theories, it does exist along this infinite continuum. Also, I never said that matter was ever created or destroyed. It just gets recycled. Two multiverse theories for what the big bang actually was, although very different, are both intriguing. The first is that, as a black hole grows larger, it forms a deeper and deeper hole in Einstein's metaphorical "fabric of the universe", until the fabric tears and some matter gets pushed out to form a new universe.  The other, older theory I remember is that matter could also be "recycled" when two universes collide with each other, creating a new universe. (I believe this theory explained our multiverse as multidimensional space that we could not percieve, and that our universe was the equivalent of the 2D oil spot on the top of the 3D bowl of chicken soup.) And, as I said, it was only IF you could continue around, you would eventually come back to where you started. There is no possible way for something that lives in a finite universe, (like us) to actually do that. I never came up with that oversimplifplification, but it does explain how the multiverse could easily have NO beginning or end, simply becasue it exists in an infinite loop. It's like looking for an end to a circle. There is no end, only a continuation. Although, according to this theory, it may not be a perfect circle. By actually following the loop, you may alter it from a circle to, say, on oval. It still has no end, but it isn't the same as it was before.

Anyway, I think this argument has turned into a perfect example of what the thread creator was talking about. We are no longer arguing the main point, but what we actually want the others to believe. Go ahead and counter me if you want, but I'm going to recommend that this debate either be scissored out of the thread to continue, or that we remain on topic,  becasue we're doing a terrible injustice to the thread creator.

 

[Sorvius]

You've got to take into account that the newest multiverse theories say that not every universe follows the lame laws of physics as us. What is infinite to us may be finite to others, and what is law here may just be fiction elsewhere. Imagine a universe with inverse gravity, where it puches instead of pulls. According to these theories, it does exist along this infinite continuum. Also, I never said that matter was ever created or destroyed. It just gets recycled. Two multiverse theories for what the big bang actually was, although very different, are both intriguing. The first is that, as a black hole grows larger, it forms a deeper and deeper hole in Einstein's metaphorical "fabric of the universe", until the fabric tears and some matter gets pushed out to form a new universe.  The other, older theory I remember is that matter could also be "recycled" when two universes collide with each other, creating a new universe. (I believe this theory explained our multiverse as multidimensional space that we could not percieve, and that our universe was the equivalent of the 2D oil spot on the top of the 3D bowl of chicken soup.) And, as I said, it was only IF you could continue around, you would eventually come back to where you started. There is no possible way for something that lives in a finite universe, (like us) to actually do that. I never came up with that oversimplifplification, but it does explain how the multiverse could easily have NO beginning or end, simply becasue it exists in an infinite loop. It's like looking for an end to a circle. There is no end, only a continuation. Although, according to this theory, it may not be a perfect circle. By actually following the loop, you may alter it from a circle to, say, on oval. It still has no end, but it isn't the same as it was before.

Anyway, I think this argument has turned into a perfect example of what the thread creator was talking about. We are no longer arguing the main point, but what we actually want the others to believe. Go ahead and counter me if you want, but I'm going to recommend that this debate either be scissored out of the thread to continue, or that we remain on topic,  becasue we're doing a terrible injustice to the thread creator.

Exactly, and this is why the theories ramains unprovable.  If I start on a path in a straight line on this planet and continue on that path I will eventually end up in the exact position that I began.  Why?  Because I am travelling along a measurable distance; in this example, the surface of a sphere.  You cannot measure infinity no matter how hard you try, you can only imagine and believe in it.  The control here is the fact that the earth exists in a 3-dimensional environment.  Are there other dimensions?  Well, of course there are, and 4th dimension is even mentioned in the Bible!  Does this mean there are other universes?  It could.  But that doesn't automatically disprove the existance of God, nor does it prove otherwise, which brings us right back where we began with this discussion ^^

I know that we've gone down a rabbit trail here, but due to the sin that taints all of society there is no religious discussion that will ever remain on topic.  There is just too much BS out there that distracts us from the message of Christ, the ultimate conversion.

 

[___]

@ Nphyx:  I agree with your observation that God's speaking could have been the big bang.  It may even be supported by science that this explosion did in fact occur at the time of creation.  The problem is the time line.  According to the Bible the beginning of our known universe and existance happened much more recently than the textbooks describe.  The age of the earth currently rests at about ~6,000 years.  This number is found by adding up the geneologies of Adam, Abraham, and many other biblical figures throughout the bible.  It doesn't matter if it's true or not, this is simply how we arrive the 6,000 number (more specifically, the "beginning" could have happened at 4,004 BC).  Now I understand about radiometric dating methods and the trigonometry used to calcualte star distance and all that, BUT it's not perfect and usually so inconsistent that the mesaurements of both time and space just have to be accepted by a group of prominent people for the common man to have any faith in it at all.  Then you have those that want so badly for God to not exist that they will skew the scientific method by using unproven theories and concepts to produce facts instead of using facts to support the theory, whatever it may be.  On the contrary, there are Christians that will also point fingers before looking at themselves and use religious mumbo jumbo to say that if people don't believe in their doctrine something unspeakable will happen to them.  This shows us that no matter what you follow, you are still imperfect when compared to the Creator.  As a result of this we try to find anything and everything we can to explain our existance without being held accountable for what we do and say, and THAT'S where all these issues stem from.

If you really want to get into that, first off, the book of Genesis in the original Hebrew speaks of 6 'periods of time' in literal translation. Not that I'm claiming that Genesis is anything more than a creation myth, but if you must have science consistent with your myth of choice in order to believe it, you need to be properly familiarized with your myth - which it turns out Christian fundamentalists are particularly bad about. So, periods of time, in the Hebrew, along with the 'there was a beginning and an end' or something to that effect, is often translated as days, and dawns and dusks, because in Hebrew the words in question are generic and determined by context. Ancient Hebrew has a lot of words like this; it's a contextual language with a narrow vocabulary. So, in the context of the creation of the universe, there is no need to believe that they were days, specifically. On the argument based on the (incredibly boring) genealogy trees built from Biblical text, there is no definite authority on them and there are some serious inconsistencies and gaps up until the time of David, where I am made to believe that it gets fairly accurate and specific.

On radiological dating (which, contrary to fundamentalist belief, is not the entire basis for our estimates of the age of the universe or the only context in which we determine the age of *anything*), even supposing that it was prone to inaccuracy, due to the rate of decay of unstable isotopes changing over time as opposed to being consistent as we currently assume, based on a truckload of evidence and no contravening evidence whatever, you are talking about incredible differences of scale. You believe the universe is 6000 years old, science puts the date in trillions. That would mean that the decay of radioactive particles must have accelerated on an exponential scale, according to your model, then suddenly plateaued sometime in the past 600 years or so. It would also require that all the other supporting evidence we use to determine the ages of objects and locations be completely, utterly inaccurate - from the amount of time it takes a silt deposit to develop in a delta, to the rate at which things like stalactites and crystals grow, to the time it takes to build calcium deposits of a given thickness rich with fossil sea life. Basically, for your model to work, sometime in the past 6000 years everything about physics, space and time must have worked so incredibly differently it'd be mind boggling - sea creatures would have had to reproduce, consume, produce waste and die millions of times faster than they do today, rivers would have had to rush at thousands of miles per hour, limestone would have had to have the consistency of mud while existing in an environment almost devoid of gravity, crystals would have had to blossom into existence with the rapidity that one stabs with a knife in combat, etc. etc. etc. It makes absolutely zero sense.

The problem you're dealing with, apparently, is that you are very strongly indoctrinated into a particular brand of fundamentalism that believes there's a scientific conspiracy to deny God, which in my opinion is utter nonsense; science would be just as happy to find there is a God as to find that there is no God, as long as it turned out to be the rational truth upon which a better understanding, and thus a better mastery of, the universe could be obtained. Science is utterly disinterested in religious belief; its only goal is to discover the most likely truth out of a range of proposed explanations for an observation. Unfortunately, your proposals fail to meet the evidence.

 

[Glitchfinder]

If you really want to get into that, first off, the book of Genesis in the original Hebrew speaks of 6 'periods of time' in literal translation. Not that I'm claiming that Genesis is anything more than a creation myth, but if you must have science consistent with your myth of choice in order to believe it, you need to be properly familiarized with your myth - which it turns out Christian fundamentalists are particularly bad about. So, periods of time, in the Hebrew, along with the 'there was a beginning and an end' or something to that effect, is often translated as days, and dawns and dusks, because in Hebrew the words in question are generic and determined by context. Ancient Hebrew has a lot of words like this; it's a contextual language with a narrow vocabulary. So, in the context of the creation of the universe, there is no need to believe that they were days, specifically. On the argument based on the (incredibly boring) genealogy trees built from Biblical text, there is no definite authority on them and there are some serious inconsistencies and gaps up until the time of David, where I am made to believe that it gets fairly accurate and specific.

On radiological dating (which, contrary to fundamentalist belief, is not the entire basis for our estimates of the age of the universe or the only context in which we determine the age of *anything*), even supposing that it was prone to inaccuracy, due to the rate of decay of unstable isotopes changing over time as opposed to being consistent as we currently assume, based on a truckload of evidence and no contravening evidence whatever, you are talking about incredible differences of scale. You believe the universe is 6000 years old, science puts the date in trillions. That would mean that the decay of radioactive particles must have accelerated on an exponential scale, according to your model, then suddenly plateaued sometime in the past 600 years or so. It would also require that all the other supporting evidence we use to determine the ages of objects and locations be completely, utterly inaccurate - from the amount of time it takes a silt deposit to develop in a delta, to the rate at which things like stalactites and crystals grow, to the time it takes to build calcium deposits of a given thickness rich with fossil sea life. Basically, for your model to work, sometime in the past 6000 years everything about physics, space and time must have worked so incredibly differently it'd be mind boggling - sea creatures would have had to reproduce, consume, produce waste and die millions of times faster than they do today, rivers would have had to rush at thousands of miles per hour, limestone would have had to have the consistency of mud while existing in an environment almost devoid of gravity, crystals would have had to blossom into existence with the rapidity that one stabs with a knife in combat, etc. etc. etc. It makes absolutely zero sense.

The problem you're dealing with, apparently, is that you are very strongly indoctrinated into a particular brand of fundamentalism that believes there's a scientific conspiracy to deny God, which in my opinion is utter nonsense; science would be just as happy to find there is a God as to find that there is no God, as long as it turned out to be the rational truth upon which a better understanding, and thus a better mastery of, the universe could be obtained. Science is utterly disinterested in religious belief; its only goal is to discover the most likely truth out of a range of proposed explanations for an observation. Unfortunately, your proposals fail to meet the evidence.

There is one loophole in your argument. Specifically, with the fundamentalist beliefs comes the belief that God can do anything. (They ignore the classic logical problems like "Can God make a boulder so heavy He cannot lift it, or a chilli pepper so hot He can't eat it?") So, if God can do anything, then he could easily create a universe that appears to be much older than it really is, so that people who choose not to believe can find other explanations for the universe. Specifically, God could easily make the universe begin trillions of years into its life, instead of at the beginning.

I personally don't see the point in arguing against that kind of point, becasue fundamentalists often ignore the irrefutable arguments. (Like the logical problem I presented before) (If God can do anything, can He die?") Anyway, I personally try to avoid one sided arguments like that. It gets annoying when someone ignores every point you make, while using logical fallacies to make theirs.