Page 11 of 74 FirstFirst ... 6789101112131415162161 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 1473
  1. #201  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    I stand by what I said Toby.
    Stand by it then. It's an unsubstantiated opinion not supported by reality.
    I'm not talking about 'Voodoo science'. I'm talking about people who choose to put their faith in science as opposed to religion, or philosophy.
    I think you failed to notice that I didn't deny that such people exist, but rather that not all scientific people view science that way.
    How many scientific theories have been fervently preached, until they were later disproven?
    Therein lies the rub. With real science, people are willing to accept evidence which disproves their theory.
    People flocked to the idea, not the science.
    Sure, these people exist, but you do a disservice to those that truly take a scientific outlook on things by lumping them in with 'science sheep'.
    There are millions of people who believe in evolution as truth, although it remains a theory, because they feel it makes more sense.
    So what? This doesn't prove anything in considering science only a faith-based belief system.
    How many 'average joes' run around spouting scientific theories (Einsteins's theory of relativity!) without understanding the science, taking it on faith because they heard/read an 'expert' proclaim it. Very few people question deeply into the meaning of their existence. Quite a few leave it to the "experts", be that religious, philosophical, or scientific. They haven't 'reproduced' anything. Don't try and tell me that for most people science is not faith based, that's disingenuous.
    I didn't try to tell you any such thing. On the contrary, you're trying to establish that everyone who 'believes in' science is like that. Even if I'm the only person in the world who doesn't accept science blindly, this disproves your statement.
    To a lot of people scientists are akin to high priests, that's why so many Sci-Fi movies are crap. They're just fantasy dressed up in shiny mylar.
    I agree. Who ever said science-_fiction_ bore any relation to real science, though?
    I don't know what the acronym AAOMF stands for,
    AAMOF = As A Matter Of Fact.
    but once again I stand by what I said. A 'pure' scientist, one who is swayed by neither religion or philosophy, just science, couldn't believe in life after death (or souls, etc.) without some proof. If he had a feeling that something more lay after death, he would attempt to find out what that was, scientifically.
    Or he might just know enough about science to realize that it was beyond the realm of science. Just because one has a hammer, does not mean that every problem should be treated as a nail.
    Nobody does anything without first having an idea of where they're going. They may end up in another place it's true, but they were heading somewhere.
    Again, the difference is that a fundamental tenet of science is the admission that this is a very real possibility.
    That all being said, I don't think there is anyone completely over into one camp. We all have a mix.
    *sigh*
    Ok, what ever you say. Science has proven it, but if you believe other wise....
    Where has 'science' proven it? Ultimately, no theory in a real world science is ever proven beyond dispute. We live in a dynamic system. The parameters don't stay constant, and we don't have control over them (like in Geometry or a lab environment).
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  2. #202  
    Originally posted by Soul Raven
    I believe that would be "As A Matter Of Fact".

    I know that I haven't posted anything on this thread, but I am a huge lurker (any similarity to my lurking status and my physical size is purely coincidental), I just want to thank everyone for the civil and varied discussion. It is fascinating reading. I agree with some of you, and disagree with some of you, but it's nice to see everyone talk about what could be an inflammatory subject in such an open and sharing manner.

    Go VC!
    I have to agree. This has been fun to participate in as well as just read. Of course, half of what Toby, ****-Richardson, and BobbyMike say goes so far over my head I would need a 737 to catch it. Quoting this theory and that theory, most of which I never even heard of. Whether any of these guys believe in God, they all appear extremely knowledgeable and openminded. That, are they're great at making stuff up...
    In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. JOHN 14:2
  3.    #203  
    Originally posted by GSR13
    That, are they're great at making stuff up...
    <Josh abashedly raises his hand.>

    Bobby, science and religion are entirely separate entities. Given that we live within the bounds of space and time, they have been forced to interact (with some disastrous consequences and some very beneficial), but a science only believes as truth that which can be proven - the problem comes in during the "interpretation" of that proof. Religion only believes through faith that which cannot be proven. Where science leaves off, religion goes forward.

    Ideally.

    The problem comes in that things that have been believed - by necessity - through faith have now been able to be proven or disproven scientifically. Religion is shrinking. I believe that it's shrinking in a similar way to the graph 1/x (my eternal gratitude to the first to name the adjective that's on the tip of my tongue), in that there is a point where proof is impossible. But that getting into the same territory as global warming, as proof will appear at the exact moment it is too late to do anything about it.
    Last edited by dick-richardson; 07/27/2001 at 10:33 AM.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  4. #204  
    Originally posted by GSR13
    [...] Of course, half of what Toby, ****-Richardson, and BobbyMike say goes so far over my head I would need a 737 to catch it. Quoting this theory and that theory, most of which I never even heard of. Whether any of these guys believe in God, they all appear extremely knowledgeable and openminded.
    Well, I've got friends and acquaintances that range from all ends of the spectrum (theist, atheist, pantheist, agnostic, etc.), so I've heard lots of this stuff before. I must say though that my favorite theists tend to be Jesuit educated. They tend to have the most logical and realistic viewpoints, IME.
    That, are they're great at making stuff up...
    Could be a bit of both too.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  5.    #205  
    Just thought I'd point out that orgasms can't be proven scientifically at this point. Physiological changes can be (and have been) measured, but how they relate to the entirely mental experience that is "orgasm" is anyone's guess. I believe in them, though.

    I just wish my wife did, too.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  6. #206  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    [...]Where science leaves off, religion goes forward.[...]
    Speaking of quoting Einstein: "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Now here's where the semantical part comes in. "Faith" seems to be a sticking point here. Einstein believed that faith was a requirement of any 'genuine scientist'. But as people have tried to use his references to 'God' as proof of things, his definition of 'faith' seems to be a bit different than most religions' as well. I could go on more, but you could also read it yourself...Note: using the essay printed on that site bears no correlation to my endorsement or lack thereof of any other content on that site (since I have no idea what's elsewhere on the site ). It was simply the first place I found the essay from Ideas and Opinions on the web.

    edit: fixed missing URL
    Last edited by Toby; 07/27/2001 at 11:04 AM.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  7. #207  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    Religion is shrinking. I believe that it's shrinking in a similar way to the graph 1/x (my eternal gratitude to the first to name the adjective that's on the tip of my tongue)
    Is that shrinking exponentially. Technically, what you mean (I think) is that
    F(x) approaches 0 as X approaches infinity, where x is what we can know, and F(x) is religion's exclusive path to knowledge.
    (Thanks to my Math Teacher wife who's helping me over the phone!)
  8.    #208  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn


    Is that shrinking exponentially. Technically, what you mean (I think) is that.
    It's not exponentially. That would be the graph of n^x

    edited: nevermind. if x is negative (n^x), the graph is closer to my mental picture. Exponentially it is.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  9. #209  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson

    It's not exponentially. That would be the graph of n^x
    Hence the word "Shrinking," above. But I know that 1/n^x is a little more extreme than what you were looking for.
  10.    #210  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn


    Hence the word "Shrinking," above. But I know that 1/n^x is a little more extreme than what you were looking for.
    Nope, I was looking for just 1/x - no exponents, but it's been hashed out.

    I'd say we two were predestined to banter semantics.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  11. #211  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    I'd say we two were predestined to banter semantics.
    That depends on what you mean by predestined. If god knows what we're going to do, do we have the free will required to banter semantics?
  12. #212  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    I believe that it's shrinking in a similar way to the graph 1/x (my eternal gratitude to the first to name the adjective that's on the tip of my tongue),
    Geometrically? (yeah, that's actually an adverb, but...)
    But that getting into the same territory as global warming, as proof will appear at the exact moment it is too late to do anything about it.
    Except that the problem with this concept is the de facto assumptions that a) 'Global Warming' will happen (which it probably will since the temperature of the Earth has probably fluctuated many times over its existence, but...) and b) That humans had anything substantial to do with it.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  13. #213  
    Originally posted by Toby
    I could go on more, but you could also read it yourself...
    Toby--no link! Can't read "it"
  14.    #214  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn


    That depends on what you mean by predestined. If god knows what we're going to do, do we have the free will required to banter semantics?
    LOL! I'm following the advice from one of Toby's links and staying out of this one.

    Although, I'd point out that given a different set of coefficients, n^x may not necessarily meet zero at infinity (which doesn't exist given the linear nature of time at any rate).
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  15. #215  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    Although, I'd point out that given a different set of coefficients, n^x may not necessarily meet zero at infinity (which doesn't exist given the linear nature of time at any rate).
    n^x meeting 0? Do you mean 1/x?

    Anyway, we all can see the graph & get the point...

    Time's not linear, and so far as I know, there's not a really good geometric metaphor for time, although a sphere might work... problem is, we don't know what happens before the universe begins, or what happens as we (maybe) begin to enter the 2nd half of the universe (who knows, maybe we're currently acting out the reverse of what's already happened)... It's all very confusing to me, but I will say:

    "infinity" exists just as much as any number can be said to "exist, regardless of time
  16. #216  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson

    It's not exponentially. That would be the graph of n^x

    edited: nevermind. if x is negative (n^x), the graph is closer to my mental picture. Exponentially it is.
    If x=-1, n^x = 1/n, so you evidently did mean shrinking exponentially. My math adverbs were fuzzy.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  17. #217  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon
    Toby--no link! Can't read "it"
    Sorry. Fixed it.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18.    #218  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn
    Time's not linear,
    How do you figure? My experience of time is that it's very linear. Even science hasn't been able to prove otherwise. "It is possible that time is linear."

    "infinity" exists just as much as any number can be said to "exist, regardless of time
    Ok. Give me infinite apples.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  19.    #219  
    Originally posted by Toby
    If x=-1, n^x = 1/n, so you evidently did mean shrinking exponentially. My math adverbs were fuzzy.
    thank you. I'm not sure what good my eternal gratitude will do you and dietrichbohn, since eternity doesn't exist on a timeline, but you have it.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  20. #220  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    Ok. Give me infinite apples.
    Show me the number 1 as it exists in this universe. Or the number 3. All numbers are abstractions of reality, and infinity is in the same class. I can more easily give you one apple than I can infinity, but I can never give you 1 in itself.

Posting Permissions