The Science Delusion

[Underverse]

Ok you build things based on what you know and what you logically believe will happen. You try to discover things based on what you know and what may or could logically exist.

Sometimes accidents happen and people figure out things. They didn't know that things would be that way. A lot of discoveries through accident. But they were attempting something different. I'm kind of missing you here again where you say they 'change their actions' based on their hypothesis. Where would this happen unless they changed their hypothesis?

-Nish

A scientist would not change their actions. Otherwise they would no longer be a scientist.

Accidents do lead to discovery. But if you made the same accident twice, the outcome is always the same.


The point I'm trying to make though is that everyone, scientist or not, makes hypotheses. Your hypothesis in this case might be that God exists. This is a valid hypothesis by the scientific method (if it's testable). However, as soon as you skip the 'testing' part and move right to the conclusions, you've lost science. You're now basing conclusion on premises that don't exist, because you haven't made them.

This is the difference between hope and faith. Hope stops at the hypothesis - something else might exist. It's possible. Once you conclude that something else does in fact exist, you're basing your opinion on faith.

Hope can take the place of faith, Hope is strong. And hope can coexist with reason.

[Herecius]

If someone tells me how to convert and become religious and therefore change my life i have all the right in the world to shut them up.

Woah, woah, woah. I don't know how I can make this any clearer, but I have zero desire to push my beliefs on anybody else. That's why I've been incredibly vague. Don't put words in my mouth.

[Underverse]

1. Communism did much better than religion could about Social control, much more effective and without the "fairy tale" stories. Roughly the same death counts, and good at making the people to not criticize the system much like religion did. Communism: It's useful. If it wasn't, it wouldn't exist.

Not even close. Communism was essentially forced social control. The best form of social control is the one everyone agrees with, and the one that is compatible with discontent.

2. We have science and theories for that.

Yeah. I was just pointing out one of the major drives behind religion. It fulfilled a human need. I'm not saying that it was the best way to do that.

[Herecius]

We're not commanding you, we're debating with you.

If you lived in a vacuum with no human contact, then yes, I'd be perfectly fine with whatever belief you had. But I assume you don't, so therefore it does matter to me & everyone else you come in contact with, what your beliefs are.

May I ask why? Why do my beliefs matter to you? If I keep my beliefs really to myself? I've been intentionally vague about my own beliefs, not really talking about anything more than personal faith and how important I consider it to be, simply because I don't really want to get into a pointless debate about religion that helps nobody, simply because others will almost assuredly not share my beliefs. Please keep in mind I'm 100% accepting of science and am not in the 'science delusion' cult mindset here at all. I'll link that awesome article about directly imaging a hydrogen atom again if I have to.

[Herecius]

Cryz, stop posting irrelevant pictures/videos. They're not helping you at all. If you want to engage in debate then go ahead and do it, but don't use pictures and totally irrelevant videos to make some kind of nonexistant point.

[Espe]

Not every, but everyone of the minority? At least for myself I will say...

'Creationism is science!' - Creationism is about the creation of man, earth, the universe...not science. Science is a term and idea that human has created to understand the facts and possibilities of life. You could include Science and God in the same sentence because neither can disprove one or the other. For instance, I believe our God did in fact start the Big Boom theory and who is ever expanding our universe with the possibility of creating new Earths along the way. Something that science cannot disprove because science just doesn't have the proof yet.

'Science is wrong because God did it'- God created man and man created science. Science can't be disproven by the belief of a God because it's a man made theory. People should believe in both God and Science.

'Science is always wrong about everything; at least the [insert holy book of choice] tells us what REALLY happened!'- I don't believe, at least the book I read, disproves any science. If science proves something, I am whiling to believe it.

You can't know anything! Only God knows everything!'- He gave us a brain so we can make our own choices and to live. We might know 99% of everything but we are never going to know "everything" which is what makes living so fantastic and having science around to help figure out the 99%.

If you, at some point or other, pass critique on science based on your spirituality alone, you are doing that. - Sorry but that is simple not true. Science has proven what the Big Bang is and I believe it to be true. But I choose to believe that God is the one who started it. People will agree that no one is ever going to know WHO or WHAT did in fact create the big bang, no?

Too funny. God did it, and He is a man!

The fact that you can even make such a claim says more about you than anything else. Instead of saying "God did it" why not just say "Nature did it" or "It happened." People like you prefer the idea of a big, supernatural overlord because that is more comforting than having to actually think critically about everything that we perceive in this reality.

That you can attribute everything that happened and everything that will happen to some kind of identifiable consciousness... just boggles my mind. What a claim - without any evidence, of course, because that is baked in to your "theories."

[pucko97]

Not even close. Communism was essentially forced social control. The best form of social control is the one everyone agrees with, and the one that is compatible with discontent.

Well religion is basically forced upon you at birth (depending if parents are religious nutjobs) like in my religion you are baptized weeks after birth and the parents have pressure from the rest of the family to get the child baptized.

[Karadros]

Large image snip.

I'd like to draw your own attention to #8.

[Stir]

Picture

Yes... I think we know all of this. So far, we've been doing a pretty good job, I believe. Overall. I think Herecius got into trouble by people assuming them to take a stance they didn't, but otherwise, I think we're doing quite well.

[crzyman007]

Cryz, stop posting irrelevant pictures/videos. They're not helping you at all. If you want to engage in debate then go ahead and do it, but don't use pictures and totally irrelevant videos to make some kind of nonexistant point.

I don't need help, not running a race or trying to prove a point. Just stating the truth. Do what you will with it. I just want to show it and see reactions and if you don't like what i post in the topic then why are you here?

[Herecius]

I don't need help, not running a race or trying to prove a point. Just stating the truth.

If you want anybody to buy into your truth, then you're going to have to actually engage in debate.

[Stir]

Too funny.

You do realize that that poster started off with 'for me, at least:'
That would imply personal opinion. Just because someone believes something gives you no right to ridicule that belief outright unless that person (who was trying to defend their stance against one of my posts, and therefore, your citation is out of context) tries to influence your beliefs.

I don't need help, not running a race or trying to prove a point. Just stating the truth. Do what you will with it. I just want to show it and see reactions and if you don't like what i post in the topic then why are you here?

Okay; you're just trying to state the truth.
I'll bite.
A: What is the truth?
B: Can you verify that, using evidence? What was your zero-hypothesis? By what means did you test your hypothesis, and under what conditions?

If you claim truth, you had better be able to give evidence. Claiming truth =/= claiming belief.

[crzyman007]

If you want anybody to buy into your truth, then you're going to have to actually engage in debate.

I don't want anyone to buy into anything. Now you are assuming things.

[Nish77]

I sure didn't say anything about anyone's life being forfeit, but if my parents or SO rant about being possessed, I'm going to hustle them into psychiatric care as quickly as possible.

Honestly, psychiatric care has done nothing for me. Therapy with one of the greatest therapists alive has. Talking to normal people who live a normal life has helped. Medication does nothing and as a biochemist I can tell you antipsychotics are the most unknown non-understood medication on the planet. They used to cut off the front of people's brains (that was 'science'). There 'are' other things out there. What can we do about it? I can't say really. I have not been able to stop them but they're smarter than me and all humans combined by quite a bit. I am looking for the good things to stop them. Don't shove your mentally ill off to the side (and I know that sounds like a statement people make about mentally ill often that they get shoved off to the side) but they really really do. It's horrible. I get very few phone calls because of a combination of 'them' and the depressingness of the situation.

[Endus]

I never said there was nothing before the explosion. I clearly said there was a ball of energy, or the "singularity" as you put it. The question is this. Where did this thing that exploded come from? At some point, a creation had to occur.

There's a host of problems inherent in this statement.

1> You're positing that there is a timeline, and any effect (like the Big Bang) must have a cause. The problem with this is that prior to the Big Bang, space-time didn't exist, so there is no such timeline for an initial cause to exist upon.

2> Why does there have to be a creation event, at all? That's just begging the question. You can't assume there was a creation event to "prove" there was a creation event.

3> The singularity wasn't a ball of energy. That's a gross oversimplification. It wasn't "energy". Nor was it "matter". Those are both effects relevant to a modern physical understanding of the universe, which did not exist at the time you're talking of.

In short, none of what you said amounts to a rational criticism. Just a statement of gross misunderstanding of basic concepts.

[Palmz]

You probably didn't get my argument, since you debate the analogies in a context they were not meant to be placed in, centering on them and their newly created contexts rather than my actual argument:
The fact that sand can be found everywhere on this planet is not evidence that my bearded dragon put it there. It is another analogy, this time directly analogous to your claim rather than me trying to explain what is actually mechanically going on inside of your claim.


If you believe that, then by your own admission (and the rest of the post you responded to, but seem to have ignored), you are not the object of that post. In fact, there is only one thing you said that was blatantly wrong:

And this is wrong because people should (dis)believe based on their own personality, and not force indemonstrable claims unto others.

No I agree. I should of re-read my post. Edited to correct my fix.

[Garnier Fructis]

I don't need help, not running a race or trying to prove a point. Just stating the truth. Do what you will with it. I just want to show it and see reactions and if you don't like what i post in the topic then why are you here?

I would like to direct your attention to #2 in your picture and then recommend you re-watch your video.

[crzyman007]

I would like to direct your attention to #2 in your picture and then recommend you re-watch your video.

Recommendation denied.

[Frozen Death Knight]

I can't really pretend to know what God wants. I try not to sweat it.

I like you.

[Nish77]

A scientist would not change their actions. Otherwise they would no longer be a scientist.

Accidents do lead to discovery. But if you made the same accident twice, the outcome is always the same.


The point I'm trying to make though is that everyone, scientist or not, makes hypotheses. Your hypothesis in this case might be that God exists. This is a valid hypothesis by the scientific method (if it's testable). However, as soon as you skip the 'testing' part and move right to the conclusions, you've lost science. You're now basing conclusion on premises that don't exist, because you haven't made them.

This is the difference between hope and faith. Hope stops at the hypothesis - something else might exist. It's possible. Once you conclude that something else does in fact exist, you're basing your opinion on faith.

Hope can take the place of faith, Hope is strong. And hope can coexist with reason.

Here is how it works. The hypothesis that God exists may come from others may come solely from your own experiences and may come from a combination. The hypothesis is actually a belief that you may or may not be able to prove. It is aside from science which works based on what you can prove. You could make a hypothesis that everything will be ok and God will fix everything but most people believe they have to do things on their own. And when they do (here is my point when I say 'who does that') they do the mowing of the lawn, the building of the house, the working in the lab, the paying of the bills with science. Two separate things. You work with science, you 'believe' in God.

Here's an idea. Lets pretend there are yetis out there. They are giants and they love to crush humans but they only come out and crush 1 in 1000 people in their lifetimes. When they do few people see them. Now the hypothesis is to someone else that these yetis do not exist. The hypothesis to someone another person is that these yetis do exist. While the person who has come in contact with the yetis may take precautions. They will both (if chemists) try to solve a problem without the idea the yeti is going to squash them in 5 minutes.

Someone might come up with the hypothesis that yetis like to move your chemicals around and change the labels. That chemist will still continue to do (maybe with some precautions) as if the yeti will not do that and therefor use science and not change their hypothesis.

-Nish