We're just cells.

Remove all ads!

Hi, NOG. It is really not that important, as I conceded that testing really is central to science anyway. I was just bringing up a point that goes way beyond "science is about testing things".

For everyday use you could say that a theorie can be proven by verifying it or disproven by falsifying it. But if we're trying to be exact, we will find that the first part of the sentence is not true. Testing cannot prove anything in a rock solid way. Disproving things is another matter. But "the point where we can't find anything wrong any more" as you call it is not the proof of the theory. It is the point where we can not find anything wrong any more today with our current knowledge . This distinction may border on splitting hairs but it must not be forgotten when talking about a topic as this, a topic where science, religion, esotericism meet. (Not in reality, of course, but in the heads of the participants of this discussion.)

People readily believe things that have been disproven time and again. And people readily disbelieve things that have been shown to be in accordance with current theories. So, testing is just the necessary part in a scientific theory, it is not really sufficient.

(Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Harper & Row, 1963))

I just found this interesting enough to share in this discussion.

Apart from this idle chatter, there's still something disagreeable in what you wrote, NOG:

Exactly. And science will do the explaining. Because there's nothing else. What's the point?

As to the hows and whys. An answer to "how" is useful, because it leads to understanding. An answer to "why" is useless, because it will just lead to other whys, thus not generating understanding but confusion. Did you ever drive your parents furious with constantly countering their explanations with whys? I sure did. It keeps you amused for quite some time (if you're young, that is) but it really leads nowhere.

Why does the universe exist? - Because God created it.
Why did God create the universe? - Because he thought it a good idea at that time.
Why did he think it a good idea? - Well, we cannot fathom God's plan, so hush, little one.

Where's the understanding in the "whys"?

 

Hi Darkthrone! Welcome back I haven't seen you post in a while.

I imagine the explanation would involve the mechanics of plate techtonics (sp?), and how these natural phenomenon cause earthquakes. The occurrance of an earthquake in the three days time allotted could be chalked up as coincidence, happenstance, or just dumb luck. It certainly doesn't do anything to refute the theory of plate techtonics.

 

Glad to see this thread has deteriorated into a debate about religion. Always a crowd favorite!

Biologically it is simple. Look at you, a big wad of cells, chemicals and electric impulses.Dam, I wish iwas you.
Seriously, look at it this way. All of these cells, chemicals and electric impulses came together to make one good person, You. And they also collaborated to give you Friends and family that love you, a world to explore and more entertainment than you can see in a lifetime. Grab this world by the neck and choke it's guts out.Have fun, live hard and fast for a day. Do everything people tell you not to or is too dangerous to do. Get your heart broke 2 or 3 times, join the Navy or something. Hell, you're from England, run through the streets with a gun.
I'll bet that would be A site. After all that you
may be ready to hear about religion and philosophy
and such. And based on what I have seen on these
boards you can find some good guys to discus these matters with. So from one bunch of cells to
another, cheers

 

Okay, so I'm a little bit confused by this, because to me it does sound like you're making the Bible (at least) into a metaphor (well, this is pretty much what most non-fundamentalists do I suppose...). The Bible say how the universe/Earth came into being and how it was set out etc etc.

But if it's not answering the *how* of it but rather the *why* - and thus the how up above isn't what literally happened - then what do we end up with? A story that demonstrates God as all-powerful, all-loving, etc?

... Bit if he didn't literally do that, why think even God is true? That's the thing I'm stuck on - if the story is trying to say something other than what it presents on the surface, why should only parts of the surface (like the existence of God) be taken to be true while other parts (such as the way man was created) are decided to be false when shown to be wrong?

(Er - sorry if that's a little bit incoherent...)

And thus faith in either of them is silly
I don't think it's as simple as you put it, but I'll go with that anyway. Blindly believing anything for which there isn't evidence for is, to me, silly (silly might not be the best word there - but still...). If it can't actually be tested and there isn't some really really strong circumstantial evidence for it - I don't know why someone would believe it. Believe that it may be valid, sure - have 'faith' in it - well, I don't understand that line of thinking. Makes little sense to me

 

@My prophet analogy:
The 'more explaining' is as validly how the prophet knew it would happen as looking for a cause connected to the prophet. And I would worry if any scientist chalked it up to dumb luck and didn't even bother to investigate.

@Darkthorne:
The why questions are just as important as the how questions, just to a different group. They're generally called philosophers. Questions like, "Why are we here?" can lead to answers that point to what makes life valuable, which leads to answers about when it is ok to execute someone, which leads to laws being written.

@Aikanaro:
I don't take the Bible as a metaphor, except the parts that were meant to be, like the parables and such. What I'm saying about, for example, Creation, is that the Bible was never meant to be a text book on the process. The Bible doesn't contradict science in any way, not if you know what it actually says, but the Bible is God's way of telling the ancient Israelites that He did it all and not to worry about it. I hope this hasn't confused the issue any more.

Faith is not silly, not unless it is in something proven false. And there's plenty of evidence backing both up, we just can't make scientific, repeatable tests of either. I've seen plenty of evidence for God, the God of the Bible, and Jesus. I didn't have a cam-corder at the time, and I couldn't make it happen again for you, but it still happened.

 

I do not believe that there is a separation between my thoughts and my physicality. I am a thinking object. I am a writing man. There is no other "I" dictating me from some mental realm whereby commands are relayed through spiritual filament. A thought is just a particular conformation of energy and matter within the narrow system of "me". There is a reason that head trauma victims are not the same people afterwards.

Realizing this has actually allowed me to become much more effectual in my life. I do not feel emotions, but rather I am emotions. I am not a being which feels love, but rather I love.

 

LNT:
How do you explain near-death experiences where people can accurately report conversations from other rooms or lables on the tops of ceiling lamps?

 

I can't explain those things NOG. I can guess... And any explanation you offer for those phenomena is really only a guess as well. But my guess would be the "monkey purple loud" effect of repeating a story through many people. Or just people lying. People do lie you realize.

 

I do realize that, but there are methods, developed by sociologists and historians, for testing the probable veracity of such claims, and some of them, at least, meet the criteria for credible first-hand accounts. I'm not saying these are absolute proof of anything, but they are something to be concidered.