Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-28-2013, 01:44 PM #106
blueshifty
RIP: Underĝath
 
blueshifty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by PBOldTimer View Post
I've never claimed that god is not real. I've only said that no one, and I mean no one, has ever been able to demonstrably show that god is real.
And to what extent do you accept physics as a science? Many parts of quantum mechanics/ physics are accepted as scientific fact and they aren't demonstrable either.
__________________
Feedback: Old (+4)
blueshifty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 10-28-2013, 08:17 PM #107
Mr.Familiar
We're all the same
 
Mr.Familiar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by le823 View Post
God did
what?
__________________
Twothousandandfour.
Any man who knows a thing, knows that he knows not a damn, damn thing at all. K'Naan

Poor man, living a rich life
"Lay your facts by the side of every-day practices of this nation and you will say with me that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival." -Frederick Douglass
Mr.Familiar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2013, 08:21 PM #108
shakeyjonez
In GOD We Trust!
 
shakeyjonez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: One Nation Under GOD!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Familiar View Post
what?
If you can't understand a two word sentence then you're a dumb ***.
__________________
Holy
Kids


"Love those who hurt you the most, because they are probably the ones closest to you.” ― Nikki Sixx
shakeyjonez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2013, 08:26 PM #109
F1VENOM
 
 
F1VENOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueshifty View Post
And to what extent do you accept physics as a science? Many parts of quantum mechanics/ physics are accepted as scientific fact and they aren't demonstrable either.
Such as?
F1VENOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2013, 08:29 PM #110
le823
 
 
le823's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Newark,DE
le823 is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Ask God to show you the answer he will.
__________________
My 100% PoSItIvE FeedBacK 30+
CHRIST KREW
le823 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2013, 08:31 PM #111
F1VENOM
 
 
F1VENOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by le823 View Post
Ask God to show you the answer he will.
Tried several flavors and dishes but he never answered.
F1VENOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2013, 08:46 PM #112
blueshifty
RIP: Underĝath
 
blueshifty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1VENOM View Post
Such as?
Almost the entire study. It is based on math. It's kinda like using predictive statistics to predict the stock market. It may get lucky sometimes, but it's nowhere near a "science." Unfortunately that's the example of where "science" has overstepped it's own bounds.
__________________
Feedback: Old (+4)
blueshifty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2013, 08:53 PM #113
F1VENOM
 
 
F1VENOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueshifty View Post
Almost the entire study. It is based on math. It's kinda like using predictive statistics to predict the stock market. It may get lucky sometimes, but it's nowhere near a "science." Unfortunately that's the example of where "science" has overstepped it's own bounds.
So you don't have any examples?
F1VENOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2013, 09:23 PM #114
Mr.Familiar
We're all the same
 
Mr.Familiar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakeyjonez View Post
If you can't understand a two word sentence then you're a dumb ***.
That was a very holy and Christ-like post.

Are you sure you're not a troll?

I was merely asking what God did...
__________________
Twothousandandfour.
Any man who knows a thing, knows that he knows not a damn, damn thing at all. K'Naan

Poor man, living a rich life
"Lay your facts by the side of every-day practices of this nation and you will say with me that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival." -Frederick Douglass
Mr.Familiar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2013, 09:24 PM #115
shakeyjonez
In GOD We Trust!
 
shakeyjonez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: One Nation Under GOD!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Familiar View Post
That was a very holy and Christ-like post.

Are you sure you're not a troll?

I was merely asking what God did...
It's the truth. Deal with it fggt.
__________________
Holy
Kids


"Love those who hurt you the most, because they are probably the ones closest to you.” ― Nikki Sixx
shakeyjonez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2013, 10:00 PM #116
Mr.Familiar
We're all the same
 
Mr.Familiar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakeyjonez View Post
It's the truth. Deal with it fggt.
__________________
Twothousandandfour.
Any man who knows a thing, knows that he knows not a damn, damn thing at all. K'Naan

Poor man, living a rich life
"Lay your facts by the side of every-day practices of this nation and you will say with me that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival." -Frederick Douglass
Mr.Familiar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 08:38 AM #117
blueshifty
RIP: Underĝath
 
blueshifty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1VENOM View Post
So you don't have any examples?
Almost the entire field is an example. You're dealing with probabilities. Furthermore, entanglement, string/ superstring theory, and almost anything else derived/ covered the EPR paradox. The old double slit experiment and the conclusions one could make. Following any of these theories to conclusion is WAY past a science and is nothing more than science as a religion. Even people like Steven Hawking chase things back before the big bang. He said; "A combination of quantum theory and the theory of relativity explain our existence than divine intervention [...]." It's absurdity. At what point do we acknowledge statements like that as pure conjecture? We can observe an expanding universe, yet Hawking continually offers up half-witted explanations that attempt to skirt a definitive beginning. Even still, what pre-dates the big bang? The laws of nature? So... what predates those? Science has no place in attempting to explain things that cannot and will never be able to be tested. That is the point in which science has made itself an exclusionary religion. If you lend these concepts any credibility then you're putting faith in the apostles with PhDs.
__________________
Feedback: Old (+4)
blueshifty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 08:45 AM #118
F1VENOM
 
 
F1VENOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueshifty View Post
And to what extent do you accept physics as a science? Many parts of quantum mechanics/ physics are accepted as scientific fact and they aren't demonstrable either.
You said fact. Give me specific facts that you're referring to, not just physics is hocus pocus because I don't understand it.
F1VENOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 09:16 AM #119
Carnage88
 
 
Carnage88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Jersey
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueshifty View Post
Almost the entire field is an example. You're dealing with probabilities. Furthermore, entanglement, string/ superstring theory, and almost anything else derived/ covered the EPR paradox. The old double slit experiment and the conclusions one could make. Following any of these theories to conclusion is WAY past a science and is nothing more than science as a religion. Even people like Steven Hawking chase things back before the big bang. He said; "A combination of quantum theory and the theory of relativity explain our existence than divine intervention [...]." It's absurdity. At what point do we acknowledge statements like that as pure conjecture? We can observe an expanding universe, yet Hawking continually offers up half-witted explanations that attempt to skirt a definitive beginning. Even still, what pre-dates the big bang? The laws of nature? So... what predates those? Science has no place in attempting to explain things that cannot and will never be able to be tested. That is the point in which science has made itself an exclusionary religion. If you lend these concepts any credibility then you're putting faith in the apostles with PhDs.
Isn't math demonstrable? Agreed quantum theory is very different, but not being able to be predicted hmmm maybe so far but perhaps in the future a law could be found that would put it in perspective. I agree also that science should stay in the realm it's limited to and not spill over into things like morality which it has no authority to do.
__________________
Who is more to be pitied, a writer bound and gagged by policemen or one living in perfect freedom who has nothing more to say?
Kurt Vonnegut
Carnage88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 10:13 AM #120
blueshifty
RIP: Underĝath
 
blueshifty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1VENOM View Post
You said fact. Give me specific facts that you're referring to, not just physics is hocus pocus because I don't understand it.
I already did. I also don't believe "physics is hocus pocus," but I do believe specific schools of thought are... It's also a little presumptuous of you to assume I don't understand physics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnage88 View Post
Isn't math demonstrable? Agreed quantum theory is very different, but not being able to be predicted hmmm maybe so far but perhaps in the future a law could be found that would put it in perspective. I agree also that science should stay in the realm it's limited to and not spill over into things like morality which it has no authority to do.
Math demonstrable? It's an interesting question you ask... Many of the "confirmations" that are being made relative to observation are done with inadequate (or impossible) correlation. Can I make the math work to prove that the itunes market place is an indicator of coco bean sales in Africa? Probably. With what margin of error? Math is demonstrable within it's confidence intervals assuming a correlative association is established. I go back to the stock market analogy... Can you make an algorithm that fits with the observed data? Absolutely. Is in an accurate indication of the future of the stock market? No. That's what quantum physics/ mechanics is. It is a predictive math model that is based on observable data that may or may not have any relation to the behavior of quantum particles. The problem is that the behavior of quantum particles (in this case) aren't well known and a high correlation model has yet to be presented. I don't have a problem even with any of that. What I do have a problem with is to project that data infinitely and make the assertions that any of that discounts a divine being. Going back to the double slit experiment. Light behaves as a wave and a particle. So... what influences it's behavior? Science says a "conscience observer" is the answer. If I had a religious objective I could make any assertion about a divine being that I wanted based on that experiment.

My point in this is that the value placed on scientists hypothesis are absolutely NO more credible than any other religion. Most scientists don't believe in any type of "god," so their bias naturally makes it into their theories. Don't believe it? Why wouldn't Einstein speak out against a divine being? (I'm not saying he was Christian either.) Why does Hawkings even bother speaking out against religion when not a shred of evidence discounts the existence of a divine being? Are people really so naive to think personal experiences don't play into these things?

It's fine if you don't want to believe in God or a god... that's your prerogative, but try to use science to try to disprove His/it's existence.
__________________
Feedback: Old (+4)

Last edited by blueshifty : 10-29-2013 at 10:16 AM.
blueshifty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 10:20 AM #121
F1VENOM
 
 
F1VENOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Specific examples, use them.
F1VENOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 10:28 AM #122
Stagger Lee
 
 
Stagger Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brasil
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueshifty View Post
I already did. I also don't believe "physics is hocus pocus," but I do believe specific schools of thought are... It's also a little presumptuous of you to assume I don't understand physics.

My point in this is that the value placed on scientists hypothesis are absolutely NO more credible than any other religion. Most scientists don't believe in any type of "god," so their bias naturally makes it into their theories.

It's fine if you don't want to believe in God or a god... that's your prerogative, but try to use science to try to disprove His/it's existence.
Science isn't a religion or an argument against god. You're not going to learn what you don't want to know, so it's easy to bury your head in religion. Do you really think the earth was created in 6 days less than 7000 years ago? Science and logic tell us that's bull****, "but with god, all things are possible."
__________________
The heat came 'round and busted me for smiling on a cloudy day
Stagger Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 10:40 AM #123
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
I'm actually enjoying this conversation more than I thought I would.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger Lee View Post
Science and logic tell us that's bull****, "but with god, all things are possible."
Logic is inherently deductive and therefore has nothing to do with this. Not super relevant; this just annoys me. It's not your fault. Most people have no idea what logic is either.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 11:02 AM #124
blueshifty
RIP: Underĝath
 
blueshifty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger Lee View Post
Science isn't a religion or an argument against god. You're not going to learn what you don't want to know, so it's easy to bury your head in religion. Do you really think the earth was created in 6 days less than 7000 years ago? Science and logic tell us that's bull****, "but with God, all things are possible."
I have never stated what I believe, just that I believe science has overstepped it's bounds. Your statement that "You're not going to learn what you don't want to know" is completely irrelevant to anything said. Not only that, but the context of the scripture you quoted (Matthew 19:26) was made in response to people who placed value on possessions (a rich man) and how he needed to be humble. I fail to see anything in that message that would defy logic and science.

edit: Forgot to address the statement that "Science isn't a religion or argument against God." Science as a whole isn't an argument against God, but many of the theorists have made it so. Furthermore, wikipedia (sorry about the source) defines religion as; "[...] an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence." So if you dispute the existence of a divine being then you're not held to that belief system... the set of moral absolutes. Unfortunately (or fortunately), the result of deductive reasoning of no God is moral relativism which absolutely is a religion that uses the premise of atheism/ agnosticism as it's core and "science" as it's doctrine.

Not all Christians believe the earth was created in 6 days or that it happened 7,000 years ago. Some Christians believe in parts or all of evolution. Like anything some "Christians" pass their interpretation of scripture off as fact, when if read by someone else we wouldn't get that meaning at all. I think religion and science can coexist and neither are exclusionary (of free thought).
__________________
Feedback: Old (+4)

Last edited by blueshifty : 10-29-2013 at 11:11 AM.
blueshifty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 11:03 AM #125
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueshifty View Post
I already did. I also don't believe "physics is hocus pocus," but I do believe specific schools of thought are... It's also a little presumptuous of you to assume I don't understand physics.


Ip
Math demonstrable? It's an interesting question you ask... Many of the "confirmations" that are being made relative to observation are done with inadequate (or impossible) correlation. Can I make the math work to prove that the itunes market place is an indicator of coco bean sales in Africa? Probably. With what margin of error? Math is demonstrable within it's confidence intervals assuming a correlative association is established. I go back to the stock market analogy... Can you make an algorithm that fits with the observed data? Absolutely. Is in an accurate indication of the future of the stock market? No. That's what quantum physics/ mechanics is. It is a predictive math model that is based on observable data that may or may not have any relation to the behavior of quantum particles. The problem is that the behavior of quantum particles (in this case) aren't well known and a high correlation model has yet to be presented. I don't have a problem even with any of that. What I do have a problem with is to project that data infinitely and make the assertions that any of that discounts a divine being. Going back to the double slit experiment. Light behaves as a wave and a particle. So... what influences it's behavior? Science says a "conscience observer" is the answer. If I had a religious objective I could make any assertion about a divine being that I wanted based on that experiment.

My point in this is that the value placed on scientists hypothesis are absolutely NO more credible than any other religion. Most scientists don't believe in any type of "god," so their bias naturally makes it into their theories. Don't believe it? Why wouldn't Einstein speak out against a divine being? (I'm not saying he was Christian either.) Why does Hawkings even bother speaking out against religion when not a shred of evidence discounts the existence of a divine being? Are people really so naive to think personal experiences don't play into these things?

It's fine if you don't want to believe in God or a god... that's your prerogative, but try to use science to try to disprove His/it's existence.
Having predictive power is the line between scientific theory and conjecture. That is how a theory demonstrates its own efficacy. The Standard Model is widely accepted and used because of this. The String Theory umbrella is useless to science, and to everyone really, because not only are its hypotheses untestable, but they contain no predictive power.

I've never heard of the standard model being used as an argument against God. Although I have heard of String Theory being used to do so. This is VERY telling.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 11:04 AM #126
shakeyjonez
In GOD We Trust!
 
shakeyjonez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: One Nation Under GOD!
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueshifty View Post
I think religion and science can coexist and neither are exclusionary (of free thought).
__________________
Holy
Kids


"Love those who hurt you the most, because they are probably the ones closest to you.” ― Nikki Sixx
shakeyjonez is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump