{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/7/2015 3:10:04 AM
70
how bout this?
the evidence is the universe. we know the universe appeared from no apparent cause and how else could a universe appear from nothing? maybe our universe came from a multiverse? then where did that multiverse come from? it always existed? so you can have a crazy infinite multiverse that always existed but god is out of the question? and there is just as much evidence for god as there is for other dimensions.
and dont forget about quantum mechanics where particle locations are based on probabilities and allow for crazy things to happen without breaking the laws of physics, things which some people may call miracles.
English
-
The fact of the matter is neither science nor religion can fully explain what we are and how we came to be, or what the universe is and how it came to be. Both are proven wrong everyday, yet both have halfway solid foundations to their beliefs. In my eyes the only way to live true is to except the fact that you are wrong about some things. BUT at the same time you are right about other things. If everyone stopped believing and actually started questioning we might actually learn a thing or two about life. Question everything, even your own beliefs, and maybe science and religion might work together someday as one, to unite in finding out the whole truth to the universe. Because when it comes down to it no one actually knows why we are truly here, all we know for certain is that we are here, and the rest is a mystery. This is meant for both sides, science and religion. They both need some growing up to do, and they both need to accept the fact that they are sometimes wrong.
-
your response is inspirational. very clear and well put. your reasoning is impeccable and your intentions are honorable. i thank you for your kind, thoughtful words and the time you took to type them. that being said, GTFO! this thread is not for people like you. if your not gonna be divisive, offensive and argumentative then dont bother posting
-
Edited by Stickman Al: 9/8/2015 9:29:08 PM[i]The physics community continues to fiercely debate the multiverse hypothesis. Prominent physicists disagree about whether the multiverse may exist, and whether it is even a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry. Serious concerns have been raised about whether attempts to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification may erode public confidence in science and ultimately damage the nature of fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse question is philosophical rather than scientific because it lacks falsifiability; the ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific experiment has always been part of the accepted scientific method. Paul Steinhardt has famously argued that no experiment can rule out a theory if it provides for all possible outcomes.[/i] It's not claimed to be a fact dude. It's just an idea. You're getting annoyed about science coming up with an idea and trying to find ways to investigate it. Science isn't abandoning its foundations and starting to make blind assumptions; we have an idea, we investigate it, and while we do that we tend to get excited about what we might find and discuss it a lot.
-
No reply eh?
-
lol ok, where to start? to quote "You're getting annoyed about science coming up with an idea and trying to find ways to investigate it." im getting annoyed because my original point was that scientists are trying to act like they have this exciting new idea but all they are doing is taking god then changing the name to multiverse and removing any bible references and claiming thats its a new theory for the origins of our universe. and maybe you didnt understand that little quote you put up. "no experiment can rule out a theory if it provides for all possible outcomes" that pretty much says that the multiverse theory can never be tested so it can never be a valid theory. Classic example of scientists over reaching because they desire more meaning then their shallow materialistic science can provide.
-
I understand perfectly that the scientific community aren't claiming this as fact. Its just an idea, and one that might not ever yield any results because it might be impossible to test. That's it. It might be correct or it might not, but at least scientists are being [b]honest[/b]. They are not claiming it has been proven. No one is.
-
I know they're not claiming it as fact, because they have no balls! look dude, its simple. science can only theorize down to the big bang, to even discuss anything beyond that is just unscientific. Anything beyond that is PURE BULL which is pulled out of their ASSES! and as i said before, the only reason they even poke their noses into the idea is because they are desperate to be involved in something that actually matters. Why else would they entertain an untestable idea? those greedy bastards probably think they can get some of that religion money if they preach their unfounded beliefs to enough blind faithful followers like yourself.
-
Damn dude you are incredibly dense.
-
look, i see that we will not reach an understanding. although i have enjoyed our conversation. ive talked to plenty of close minded people before so i know a lost cause when i see one. i just hope that the dogma you follow blindly doesnt lead your any more astray. and remember, its never too late.
-
Hahaha what delicious irony. If you can name one thing I believe in that doesn't have substantial supporting evidence then I'll accept your accusation that I blindly follow dogma.
-
im glad you enjoy the taste of my irony. i dont deny that the dogma you follow doesnt provide 'substantial supporting evidence' if you choose to see it that way. you gotta believe in something right? whether it be thetan testing done by scientologists, radio carbon dating on fossils, or bhuddist monks investigating the mind through meditation. you can find evidence for anything if you look hard enough and close your mind to other possibilities. i may not know your particular dogma but i know it leaves you blind to the truth!
-
If anything my worldview leaves me pen to the truth, not blind to it. I have not decided that gods might not exist, or that the multiverse is an accurate description. I reserve judgement on both until a time when we're not just making [educated] guesses. There is no dogma for me, only honest and open enquiry.
-
if your worldview is science based (which i think is probably a fair guess) then it means you disregard anything that is not physical (immaterial) or anything beyond human understanding. you say you have not decided against god but you have. you know of god but do not accept god, you will never have any more 'scientific' evidence for god than you do now because god isnt an iphone, it just doesnt work like that. so what are you waiting for? science cant probe beyond the big bang into non existence (obviously) and god isnt about coming down here and telling us what to do (or what would be the point?) so what are you gonna do? just walk around your whole life undecided like the answer isnt clearly right in front of your face?
-
Basically, yes. I'll only reach a conclusion when I have what I deem good reason to do so. I remain an open minded skeptic on whether aliens or gods exist, on whether there might be a bigfoot, on the existence of ghosts, the multiverse and so on. Any of these might be real, but none have enough supporting evidence for me to believe in them. You can act like this is an unreasonable position but it isn't.
-
Edited by Jet909: 9/11/2015 11:05:16 AMok mister reasonable i'll hold you to that look at it this way no one can 100 percent prove evolution, right? its just the greatest explanation for complex life ever conceived and it fits what all of the data tells us. in no way is this proof, it is just accepted that this is the best theory we have and we might as well treat it as truth because it is for all intensive purposes but we reserve the right to keep an open mind in case we discover some new evidence that makes us reevaluate our ideas. the same practice is used for most theories such as relativity and quantum mechanics. i assume you do this as well. you accept these ideas as 'soft facts' because they fit into our understanding of 'the natural world'. but this is where you become closed minded because i can do the same thing offer the best existing theory which explains all available evidence but instead of going with it until a more complete theory comes along like you would with some others, you shun the idea because you've been taught by the liberal media to discriminate against certain ideas automatically.
-
"Mister reasonable". I like how you use that as if it is a criticism. The problem here is you can't just go with an idea being most likely simply because we don't yet have other ideas. That is classic 'god of the gaps'. The difference between me accepting evolution as the best explanation whilst not accepting god as an explanation is that we have a mountain of independently verifiable data behind evolution and none behind god. They couldn't be further apart in that sense. As for the rant about liberal media, you're just throwing out ransom accusations based on nothing. You have no idea what I read.
-
oh lolz, you got me with that mister reasonable quip. i would like to say that it was tongue in cheek. (: we have gotten to the point where usually the discussion can go no further because it becomes an argument about semantics. 'god of the gaps' such an easy term to throw at someone. a man can say that god is what keeps our feet on the ground Einstein says that its curved space, is the first guy wrong? i would say it depends what the guy means as god. to say god created the universe is not saying we will never learn understand the act of creation. it is completely possible to hold an idea in your mind (and soul) without it taking the place of a different type of understanding. you are free to love jesus and be loved by jesus while still learning to understand the intricacies of his greatest gift to us (existence) i really hope youre beginning to understand.
-
and about the previous post, the liberal media accusation was made because your track for thinking fits the pattern of those liberal fools who are so quick to jerk off scientists just because its fashionable. maybe im wrong, but you seem like you'd go with the physicists multiverse theory (or something scientifically similar) way before you would go with the idea that is seen portrayed as stupid in popular culture. i hope im wrong but youd probably go with the sciencey sounding idea even thought it doesnt explain anything (Where would a multiverse come from?) thats my problem, that people like you would rather go along with an inferior explanation simply because of cultural bias, peer pressure, or whatever petty bull that keeps you from thinking clearly.
-
You're just rambling now.
-
i love talking about this stuff. it does make me sad how rare it is to find someone who is willing to having a polite discussion about topics like this in which ideas are articulately argued and debated on the merit of the point without resorting to personal comments. i mean rambling? i know its not my doctoral thesis but rambling seems like an exaggeration. next time i'll try to explain the origins of the universe in ten words or less.
