The difficulty with all of this is that 'proof' is defined by scientific standards. i.e. testable and re-testable. But we know that science is just another belief system, albeit one that tries to eliminate personal views, emotions, cultural standards and subjective experience. BUT it is still subject to all of the nuances of the human experience, because it is born out of - and embedded in the human experience, we are always within and a part of our observations and thus our outcomes are coloured by it. We are never objectively outside of our experience and therefore cannot eliminate our bias, however unconscious. One scientific edict sums this up perfectly - 'The absence of proof is not proof of absence'
Piskie, I fully agree, "science" just sums up all the theories that have been tested, and are yet to be proven wrong. It is basically our "best guess" at understanding everything that goes on around us. Nothing is certain. The fact that the laws of thermodyamics are tested thousands of times a day does not make them the truth, because one experiment or experience can prove them wrong, meaning the theory has to be adjusted. I think that though, is the difference. Science, whilst you might argue is just another religion, is different in that it is happy to completely change itself. Sure, it takes time, peer-review and evidence, but if a research group could prove that, actually, the sun does go around the earth, then all theories based on the previous assumption would have to be reviewed, and changed. Thats a part of science, whilst I feel (and this is more personal) that sometimes religion does not move with the times, and obstinately defends beliefs a thousand years old, because thats what the religion says, and forget anything that contradicts this. My exposure is mainly limited to Christianity, but I do not see how they can defend theories, like that stating the Earth is only a few thousand years old, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I don't think the Laws of Thermodynamics is the best example, as they are undoubtedly correct. Nor the way you phrase that point - "one experiment or experience can prove them wrong" - which implies that such an experiment has occurred before, which is clearly false. I agree with the second paragraph though. Edit: But again, you imply there is a chance that evidence may arise that shows the Sun orbits the Earth.
Ok, in the instance of thermodynamics, I might be pushing it a bit, but, as with all science, they are still just a theory, a well corroborated one, that nearly all physics, chemistry and engineering is based upon, but a theory nonetheless. If an experiment was devised which gave evidence of something that is contradictory to the laws of thermodyamics, then we'd have to reassess them. Its like that with anything. The only true proofs have to come directly from maths, which is a pure subject and not based on the world around us. I'm trying to use unlikely events to prove my point further, sorry if that wasn't the best idea!
i'm just back from my kids communion and to be honest i was allergic to the priest goin on and on but as much as we dont believe in the great bearded one making everything, and science says the big bang was gasses and whatever colliding but who put the gasses there ? aww there naturally occuring you say but if thats the case why isnt there big bangs everyday with gasses colliding out of nowhere ?
I accept science can't explain everything, thats not the point. Science offers theories for these events, and in that respect is no different to religion. I think I've said this before in another thread, but the only two points in history that, thinking scientifically, allow the possibility of a God, are the start of the big bang, and the start of life. But even then, the theory of a God is no better than any scientific theory, as there is no evidence to support either theory currently. With the creation of life, scientists are closer to a proof, with the fact they can make highly complex organic molecules in primordial conditions, but the leap to life can still technically be attributed to God, until proven otherwise. With the Big Bang, scientists have no evidence to support any theory about what caused it, so, as a scientist, you cannot rule out God.
i know that but it doesnt take from the guys who do believe in the supernatural and cant explain it. personally i dont give a **** im in hell now as i wasnt beamed up at 6pm on rapture day
Talking of rapture day, I can't wait to see the guy behind the thing try and worm out of why it didn't happen in an interview - if he gives one! That'll make fun viewing. PNE, I understand big bang theory, and I'm not arguing with it at all, throughout my argument I was only referring to what initially triggered the big bang, rather than the event itself.
Agreed I'm a fan of science because it tries to be objective and is built to question its own findings, I just think we all need to be aware that it's still a construct of our own subjective consciousness, embedded in the context of our collective human experience, in the context of our measurable environment. It's an interesting conundrum that we can never objectively view our experience because we are in it. Like a Maze, you're only ever able understand it in it's entirety by viewing it from the outside. When you are in it, you are subject to it's design. "Best guess" is an honest and accurate acknowledgement of Science.
I don't think he means so much "who put them there?" but more "how did they get there?" The big bang theory is the most likely theory there is, but for me the events that triggered it are hard to comprehend. It's the idea of "nothingness" that gets me. How can a 'big bang' (or whatever caused it to happen) come from 'nothing'? There isn't much the Bealster doesn't know, but this is one of those things that if I think about it too much I take to the streets and start killing innocents. It's so frustrating that such knowledge is beyond me.
I appreciate the response Ian, but it wasn't that part of his post I was worried about. It was the fact he thinks the Big Bang was an explosion of a few gas clouds that came together.
It's also feasible and logical that the melting of the ice sheets 10-12,000 years ago in the Northern Hemisphere continental regions, would have been cataclysmic and stories could have easily been passed down via an oral tradition/allegories. The fact the people are by necessity, riverine also infers they would live in fear of floods as well as other natural catastrophes.
back to the posts about the odds being stacked in favour of life also existing elsewhere in the universe..... I used to pretty much agree with this , however , I was listening to a radio discussion on this yesterday where a large brained scientific chap - whos name escapes me - made the point that the odds are indeed stacked in favour of other intelligent life in the universe but the odds of this life existing "synchronised" ,as it were, with our own extremely brief appearance on the scene in terms of the age of the universe are actually pretty small.
When you consider the cutting edge theories of quantum physics - the idea of multiverse and inter dimensional existence, the laws of physics change so radically from what we currently understand, so that time / space equation means that space travel and the amount of time it takes to get from one point in the universe to another could potentially happen in an instant.
I was merely giving my personal opinion on a subject which has fascinated me for 20 odd years, a forum like this is as good a place as any to have a debate on the subject of aliens having visited this world, however a debate can rapidly deteriorate into a tit for tat claim and counter claim as to what the truth is. What I should have said yesterday is that there are vast gaps in our knowledge of how man settled the earth, myriad unsolved mysteries from pre history, far too many too mention. Many no doubt will be answered one day but many more will remain unanswered but they cannot be dismissed simply because a few - whom are usually called nutters - claim some outrageous origin. Many large contructions all over the planet are a complete mystery despite what "experts" may claim, many of these structures were constructed apparently by civilisations who had no knowledge of the wheel or even the pulley, we are led to beleive that they were able to move, carve, chisel, lever and pull through sheer manpower, masssive objects like the Baalbek stone which weighs over 2000 tons. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_baalbek_1.htm I'm afraid that when there is no logical explanation we have to look to other ideas regardless of what we are told by historians and scientists. "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident". Arthur Schopenhauer How many times in our history has Schopenhauer been shown to be correct? As for aliens visiting us, how about the Apollo 11 Astronauts report of their ship being followed and observed?
