the new science deals in concepts like relativity and quantum, which are irrational. it says about annihilation by black holes. it says everything "created" from singularity out of nothing. it says virtual particles collide.
will it ask as to "believe" in all these and worship that too?
"Is science the new religion?"
What a ridiculous question to whit the answer must be No, science does not and never has asked anyone to believe anything that cannot be challenged and proved by independent means a simple statement of fact that runs contrary to any religious belief.
religion ask people to believe in it and is dogmatic. but people are free to choose whatever they want to believe and change the religion if they want(though they promise eternal damnation for it).
why religion is false is because the beliefs are irrational.
the new science like relativity and quantum mechanics and the explanation of origin of universe is also irrational(like bang from nothing_) and is dogmatic. so the term religion is only in context of irrational ideas and being dogmatic and nothing else
true science- that is the explanation of reality is not irrational as science is subjective to rationality and cannot be dogmatic either and i agree with you that science is not religion.. in that respect.
The Big Bang theory is fairly well established; if you look at say a big firework exploding in the sky it starts from a single point and then expands in all directions which as far as we can tell the universe is doing.
Now to the singularity itself, Black holes are fairly new on the scene and in truth cannot be seen, we can only detect their presence by observing the accelerated spiral movement of everything in the proximity of the Black hole. There is another reasonable theory that it is massive black holes that create the gravitational energy to create spiral galaxies.
We know as a fact that nothing escapes gravity, here on earth no matter how large the explosion what goes up must ultimately come down.
Now expand that theory to the Big Bang, not from nothing which I must agree is a ridiculous notion by any standard and I never truly bought into it. But what if the Big Bang was from the Mother of all Black holes ? The entire mass of the universe in one place ?
Right now we see the Universe as expanding, that is fact, therefore it has to be accelerating away from something.... courtesy of Space telescopes we now have first hand evidence of Galaxies eating Galaxies...
Is this how the Universe will end ? Collapsing back in upon itself into one colossal Black Hole ready to start the experiment all over again.....?
How do we know this hasn’t already happened many times before ?
This is not religion, nor am I a priest, everything above is but one theory or set of theories based purely upon personal observations and the thoughts of others. Others will come along and challenge these thoughts and present their own and hopefully if we live long enough answers will be forth coming.
Science demands an open mind and everything comes from the simple statement, “I do not know !”
Unlike Religion which starts with the statement, “ I know so therefore YOU must Believe !”
there is some problem with black holes too...
they say time and space bent in the vicinity of a black hole
also they say black hole has no size or '0' size
what is these time and space for it to bend?
how can something exist without size and shape?
no, i again reiterate, i am tno saying science is all wrong, but when some science say space and time bents then certainly that is not science and that is the present day relativists and quantum physicists are doing.
There are probably people still on earth that will say that it is obvious that there are little people inside a TV as well. These things are due to ignorance (not stupidity, ignorance that is correctable).
Should you spend the necessary years of effort to learn to speak the language of science and study the points your are puzzled about, you would undoubtedly understand more about them and find that they are not so irrational after all.
For instance, existing without size or shape - what is the shape of a photon? Or gravity. How big is a gravity?
As far as "bending" time and space - realize that the english language does not translate well from science. Time is certainly "bent" around a gravitational source, but the term "bend" is not accurate unless you truly understand what is being talked about. Learn the language and you will learn the concept.
None of which makes science a religion, of course.
For instance, existing without size or shape - what is the shape of a photon?
you have not addressed the question?
how can anything exist with out size and shape?
exist-physical presence-so anything existing should have size and shape, may be near zero but NEVER zero-that is irrational
what about space bending?
what is these space time?
how nothing can bang and produce everything?
how time- a concept bend?
only objects can bend. no concepts ever bend nor will.(does love or justice bend?)
the basic problem of any belief is it is irrational, and that is why people with sense reject it. but that should not be to believe in some new irrationalities which are described by glorified language
Have you though that perhaps shape, size, time, space, are and were always this odd and it's only been recently that we discovered how strange they can be? And that it is hard to comprehend because our senses are very limited and addapted to survive and navigate around the world?
Technology enables us to look way beyond our basic capabilities, and if you don't leave behind those concepts that judge how things should be, in order to look at things for what they really are, you won't get very fair. A full elegant suit may look gorgeous and make you stand out in social gatherings, but it will only slow you down if you try to swim in it.
nd that it is hard to comprehend because our senses are very limited and addapted to survive and navigate around the world?
is this what the believers/religionists say?
Perhaps, some study on your part would benefit you greatly in understanding those concepts rather than just dismissing them out of hand.
Right now we see the Universe as expanding
no the universe is not expanding.. there are blue shifted galaxies.
our nearest galaxy -andromeda is is moving towards as rather than going away.
Unfair Merlin, you may be right about continuous exploding and contracting experiments "I do not know!" and actually neither do you, nor 'science' (which despite what you state is worshipped by many as the ONLY way to believe, hence it is a religion).
As for my belief, well it is founded on personal experience and therefore it's not so much: "I know so therefore YOU must Believe !", but more "I know so therefore I cannot not believe".
What you believe you know is suffice for you, and what I know is suffice for me (and billions of others)and eventually one of us will be proven correct.
I rather hope (for your sake) that it is you, but know in my heart, that this is not so.
It's nor irrational. Science doesn't state the big bang happened from nothing. It simply says, this is as far as we can go for the moment.
But it's not really like that, because the problem of everything from nothing is still being questioned by scientists themselves, and even the big bang is questioned. Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bGx3UB-Slg
Science has never claimed to be a religion; and it is no alternate for a religion. There is no contradiction in science and religion, however, in reality.
The core of intellectualism is science.
Intellectualism is that which takes truth and covers it with a lie.
Intellectualism is not a religion per se, but forms the basis for all religion...now the way of the false is to constantly divide..
So it sshould be the natural expectation to see intellectualism divided against itself...thus the various religions, and their antagonist in which science serves it purpose.
Though this intellectualism is divided within, you would also see it is difficult for each side within to utterly dismiss the other.
So divided they remain but each still relying on each other for support.
Because all about one task, which is to utterly decieve this entire world with an offering of a false identity.. instead of Truth.
No, science is not the new religion. It's just a modern tool of convenience.
Science does not ask anyone to believe anything, much less that you worship anything.
No one and nothing forces you to believe in anything science proposes, in fact most scientists will encourage you to find out for yourself.
Science is not DNA, black holes, evolution, the big bang, nuclear fusion, those things are Nature. Science is simply a method for understanding Nature.
It really doesn't matter if something is "irrational" if its observed and documented. Something that is demonstrably true is allowed to violate our common understanding, especially at the quantum level.
In order to be a religion science would need to involve the supernatural, there would need to be some sort of god or, at the very least, an afterlife. Religion generally concerns itself with beliefs, whereas science is concerned with knowledge. Religion also deals heavily with setting up moral guidelines, science generally doesn't.
So I think the idea of science being a religion doesn't work, science simply doesn't fit the criteria.
actually there is a new trend now. the one about Penrose. The difference between religion and science is this. Science changes every couple of years, it's an on going process of questioning. Religion however changes every couple of hundred years and only minutely. It is very slow in the uptake because what it does is provide answers and discourage questions.
they are however mirror images. science questions what religion answers. and so science answers what religion does not even want to question.
religion never learn from mistakes. it stifles question and never tries to answer. it is dogmatic. science on the other hand is a continuous study of nature and its rational explanation. it asks questions and look for answers. it is not dogmatic nor is it reluctant to correct where it is wrong.
I'm afraid you are incorrect. Religion per se clearly does all these things, even if any individual religion does not (though this in itself is highly debatable).
For a start, science is the objective study of natural phenomenon - not necessarily the study of nature. Partially because the study of nature involves the study of human nature which can never be a truly impartial phenomenon if it is to enhance understanding. (It always perplexes me why people fixate more on the metaphysics of religion than the existential qualities; if they are being truly neutral should both sides not receive equal treatment?)
Religion does try to answer questions, they are just not the same questions science does and nor are the answered in the same way. The investigation of religion is what it means to be human (and this varies from society to society, ironically making religion productive of the experience it sets out to explain) in this world of ours.
And religion clearly does learn from mistakes, for if it did not it would be static over time, and that is clearly not the case. Indulgences are no longer sold, human sacrifices are no longer made, and the Pope no longer governs as a secular prince... If one were inclined the list could go on and on. I'm more prone to point out that since religions are dynamic and show development then it is incorrect to say there is no process of learning from mistakes because development will eventually eliminate those mistakes which are intolerable to society.
It has been adequately covered by others, but science is not blind belief or a religion. Everything it says -- often hesitantly put forward at first until it gains firmer support from observed facts -- can be proven.
I like to tell the story of a primitive village somewhere in a primitive part of the world (doesn't matter where!) of simple people who nevertheless have horse-sense. If a bunch of travelling mysticists come around and talk about mysterious, invisible spirits, the villagers may fold their arms and say, "Prove it!" The mysticists make a lot of arm-waving statements, but they fail to convince anyone, give up, and leave.
NOW suppose a band of itinerant scientists visit the village and start telling stories of invisible planets (although they might use the native term of "heap-big moving lights in the night sky"). Again the villagers may fold their arms and say, "Prove it!" -- and the scientists will, step-by-step.
First the scientists may teach them basic optics, with those optic diagrams and well-known examples of things such as how objects are distorted when viewed through a raindrop or when a stick is poked at an angle through water. They will get to the diagram of lens arrangements that seem to MAGNIFY the image. Then, they will show the villagers the practical system of grinding your own lenses and arranging them in a tube, and then tell them where to look. Bam! Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto (no longer officially defined as a planet.)
See the difference? One is blind faith, one is step-by-step proofs. It may take an awful lot of study, but no one is barred from understanding science. Science has teachers but no priesthood.
Well, Science is not the new religion. Religion explains death and can cure death or reverse it when god commands. But science may be able to explain death in some way but we have yet to come across a scientist who can cure, remedy or prevent death. Science may offer many answers but it can no as yet do the ultimate and bring a person back to life as the resurrections promises believers. Science is the modern day hero and alternative to religion but science does have limitations. There are many people including myself who belived that science is the ultimate until they are faced with problems that science can not solve.
I am surprised by the numbers of science apostles replying.
A rigid adherence to the scientific method is not religious. At the same time, the neo-scientists who use mathematics as a proxy for reality are aligned much closer with the His Holiness than Madam Curie.
Science used to be about theorizing the cause of natual events. If the theory was disproven, it was abandoned. Prior to that, church dogma was scientific theory, which is why Ptolemy invented epicycles to explain retrograde motion of planets and keep alive the disproven theory (by observation) of a geocentric universe.
Today, the neo-scientists are not inventing retrograde motion, but they are inventing dark matter and dark energy - not to fit observations - but solely because their calculations would be wrong without it.
It is like having a battle of how much milk the cow will produce between older science and neo-science, and the older science would theorize 24 gallons in a day, then discard that theory when the cow only gave 20.
Undaunted, the neo-math-science would also calculate that the animal would yield 24 gallons, but when the beast only produced 20 gallons, neo-science would claim that the cow must have pissed off another 4 gallons of invisible dark milk that couldn't be measured if an observer were watching.
It's a lot like 3-card Monte.... a no-lose proposition.
They're not inventing anything. Dark matter is just a name for ignorance, a term to describe something we don't yet know, and they use different terms to differentiate several phenomena that are also unexplained, like dark energy.
(Dark matter is just a name for ignorance)
We used to call this ignorance god.
Some still do. Difference is, god is used as an explanation for everything unexplained, as in opposed to a label for one particular mystery that needs solving.
It's very different having god in one hand and a natural phenomena (a lightning, a fire, the motion of the planets, the motion of galaxies, the cause of the Universe and its expansion) in the other, and making up a story to connect them; from observing the behaviour of those phenomena, comparing them to our knowledge of natural laws, seeing something doesn't quite match, and naming that mysterious discrepancy 'dark matter' or whatever.
it may not be the new religion, but it IS the authority on which so many lean.
let's see why that might be. Take the recent floods and cyclone in Australia. There were very few deaths because most people received ample warning of when to get out.
Take the earthquakes in New Zealand (sadly resulting in fatalities today). NZ is on an active fault line. One lives with earthquakes in NZ and hopes they don't get the 'big one' which happens occasionally.
The end-time doomsday nutters are out in force leaving comments like on news articles like 'it's the end of the world...let Jesus save you before it's too late..." Others are saying "pray". The latter is less offensive, but I don't see what use it is to pray. What role does religion have in earthquakes, except to scare the wits out of fearful and ignorant people with their superstitious beliefs.
I think it can be considered a religion, on some levels. Laymen who simply take each new theory as gospel, without understanding where science is in the process of proving it are taking the statements on faith. Therefor it would fall into the category of religion.
When science is used as the only argument against theism it is, in my opinion, being presented as religion. Science has not yet found all the answers, so opinions presented are taking a lot on faith.
I doubt those who are actively seeking answers through their research could be described in this way, nor do I believe they put a great deal of thought into the question.
The fact that someone may be entirely ignorant regarding science and how it works and winds up believing it on faith has nothing to do with science and everything to do with that persons ignorance. Try to distinguish this obvious flaw in your argument before making silly assertions about science.
Again, the faith one has in their gods is entirely different from the faith one might have in an intelligent, well-informed hypothesis.
Well, unlike yourself, I will respectfully disagree.
Faith is belief without evidence or reason. Faith in any form is to be condemned as the gap between faith and fanaticism is very narrow!!
You might first consult a dictionary before making such comments.
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
2. a specific system of religious beliefs
1. a complete trust or confidence
2. firm belief, esp. without logical proof
to which category does your faith belongs to?
Good, that is what believers got-in god's plan!!
science is not the only argument against theism. I have many reasons I am no longer a christian. My understanding of how things work because of science is only a small factor.
Oh, I know. I was simply saying that theoretical science is, at times, taken on faith by someone who doesn't understand that it is in the process of being proven. Which is little different from most religious beliefs.
how is that different from religious beliefs? You mean you have proof?
all scientific theory is backed by a huge body of evidence. Look at how useful science is eg do you doubt the theory of electricity?
Not all Bailey bear. There is much we assume, based on what we know in both arenas. I realize those who espouse science as the end all knowledge will come behind this with scathing posts, but this is the truth. I'm sorry to have to be the one to post this.
The difference is that with science the evidence is there. You can seek it out and study it, at least in theory. Even if we can't understand it, we know that in order for a scientific theory to gain widespread acceptance it has to go through a rigorous process.If it hasn't gone through that process then it's not science.
Most people have faith in science because it's been shown to get results, time and time again. We know that every time we turn on a computer, get in a car or go to the hospital and get hooked up to the machines that go ping, that it's down to science.
It's a little bit like knowing that sun has risen every morning of your life so far, so it's reasonable to have faith that it will rise again the next day..even though you can't be 100% airtight certain that it will.
Thus far science has been shown to work, so it's reasonable to have a certain amount of faith in it as a process. It's not the same as a religious faith at all.
But what if one has become used to the words of God being true, and seeing His miracles, small and large each day, meeting with Him and putting your petitions, and seeing them answered.
Is that so impossible for you to believe or try to attain?
Well that hasn't happened to me aquasilver. Perhaps if it had I'd feel differently. I wont be backing that particular horse though, because it just seems like too much of a long shot.
Faith might work for you but what good are your religious experiences to anyone else? Why should anyone else have faith in them? Believe in them? As a way of *knowing* they are pretty much useless to anyone but you. It's the same with all religious belief. The knowing can't be transferred and spread as knowledge in the way that science can. There are no tangible results to weigh up with religion. Only 'feelings', 'experiences' and 'knowings' that mean little to me unless I have them myself.
I can't agree with you that science is a religion. It's just an extremely useful tool with which to discover things about the world...that's all. I don't *worship* it and nor do I think it's the be-all and end-all of existence.
Why, if I have faith in the scientifc process...(in my view a justified faith because as I said, it's been shown to get results)...should that be called a religion?
"Faith might work for you but what good are your religious experiences to anyone else? Why should anyone else have faith in them? Believe in them? As a way of *knowing* they are pretty much useless to anyone but you. It's the same with all religious belief. The knowing can't be transferred and spread as knowledge in the way that science can. There are no tangible results to weigh up with religion. Only 'feelings', 'experiences' and 'knowings' that mean little to me unless I have them myself.
That's the whole point. It IS personal. God IS subjective. Objective = religion
Aquasilver's (or mine, or anyone else's) experience should be a witness to you (& others) of the relationship with God that is possible for you also. To the observer, there is no measurable proof, but to the one experiencing God, it IS proof.
didn't happen to me when I believed I had a 'personal relationship' with Jesus either. Didn't actually offer any benefit, either. I thought many believers were more fearful, anxious & superstitious - eg going on an end-time fear rant when earthquakes etc happen, being judgmental about illness,carrying on about demon possession when there was none.just saying 'pray' when bad things happen (what use will prayer do when people are already dead in the NZ earthquake - the real heroes are those trying to find survivors and comforting those injured or that have lost much) - can't see how prayer will help any
But that is exactly the point, when folk actually start trying to experience what believers experience, using the same 'techniques' that we believers do, they can gain the knowledge that they miss due to their refusal to experiment.
Generally folk who cannot experience God, are spiritually dead already.
What nonsense John. It is not possible to experience something that does not exist. What you are experiencing is simply an inability to separate fantasy from reality based on emotional needs you cannot fulfill.
It is very possible to experience what you experience without needing to fall into the delusion you have fallen into. Generally - people who are extremely needy fall into this trap. They are unable to accept reality for what it is and create an elaborate fantasy that they have some mysterious ability that is missing in others. They convince themselves they are not responsible for what they say and blame it on an Invisible Super Being telling them to say things rather than admit they are just a little speck of nothing like the rest of us. They then wander around pointing at them and accusing them of being anything from "spiritually dead" to "Satan whisperers" in order to cause conflicts. Sad really.
Hi Mark, what would the forums be without you?
Hopefully we will again find out, if I remember correctly they were places where frank and open discussion could take place without frivolous nonsense being spouted.... get personal Mark, it's good for all of us!
Anyhow, none of what you spout actually pertains to me, and as you cannot account for ever being spiritually alive, you seem disqualified to speak on the matter, whereas I have been spiritually dead, then spiritually alive with the wrong spirits, and finally spiritually alive and empowered.....by the Holy Spirit.
My daughter (9 years old) commented what a nice name you have, as she said, both names in the bible.... Mark and Knowles (which she misread as Noel) and started singing the carol that goes with it!
I guess in Hubpages you really are the first Noel!
Anyhow, good to see you spout a few replies.
That was not the question though. He asked about theoretical science. I agree with you that things proven are proven. Theory is different. Organized religion starts with the premise that there is a God, then builds their theories around this. Those that follow simply take these theories as fact. I see little difference in this then taking a scientific theory as gospel, until the research comes to it's logical conclusion.
jc, I don't think too many people do have faith in theories unless they have a weight of evidence behind them. It's more the scientific process they have faith in and if a theory has not been rigourously put through that process, then it's not yet science.
One would hope that would be the case, but it has not been my observation with some people's belief on some of the newer theories.
which theories would be the ones that have 'no evidence'? The ones that contradict the bible?
No. I have no problem with reality. The good Lord gave us a brain to use. Curiousity is not a bad thing. I realize that the word theory, as used in science, refers to the fact that after some verification the hypothesis is considered to be true. I am simply saying that there is much we don't know and to state, unequivocably, that many theories on the formation of the universe are simply that at this point would be counterproductive to the search. We do not know
We were given the ability to figure it all out. I believe it is our right to do this. I do think that when someone draws a line in the sand and says 'There it is. Case closed.' it is little different from dealing with the Inquisition. Science has not claimed to have reached that point. I don't think we will in our lifetime. Open minds are so much more productive than closed ones, in my opinion.
It does indeed appear that you have a problem with reality.
Oh gosh. I thought when I hit that 'see message'button I was being taken to a response by Randy. I thought I would find something funny to reply to. Oh well, I guess the reality of the here and now is my life. See? I accept reality. how dare you question my state of mind.
I consider myself blessed that the modern Inquisition does not have the powers of the one from our past. Sue me, if you think it is wrong to say we haven't found all the answers. You sure as heck can't burn me.
How funny you think taking the absolute position that there is a god is not taking an absolute position.
Even funnier is you keep going on about not taking an absolute position.
Nice to see you in a good mood Mark. I love it when people laugh. Not so much when they laugh at me, but it is still a good thing. Belief in God does not inhibit the search for truth, for me. If you have found it a hindrance in your ability to accept the realities of the world we life in, then it would logically explain your position.
Even funnier that you have managed to convince yourself that this is the case. Sad as well. It is an elaborate delusion. Nothing more. Sorry.
We are all delusional. In one way or another. The first step to enlightenment may be recognizing that. Or that opinion might just be a delusional. I'll have to think about it. You might try thinking too.
No - I am not delusional. Why is it you think I am? I do find it funny that you have taken an absolute position and then keep harping on about not understanding why anyone would do such a thing.
This is delusional, because you do not actually think this - you just want to attack a contrary position. All religious people do it. The same way they think believing in an impossible, Invisible Super Being is being open minded. Unless it is a different Super Being to theirs.In which case - that is insane.
Hey. You posted a reply to me. If you think I am attacking your position, I apologize. I thought we were discussing the topic. Maybe I am delusional. Oh gosh. Do I need a depossession or a psychiatrist? You've got me so confused now.
Give me a break. It's a difference of opinion. Lighten up.
Dear me. I was just pointing out how funny it is that you claim not to understand why anyone would take an absolute position on anything - and then take an absolute position.
This is because you do not actually think that - you are simply trying to rationalize your irrational beliefs and attack anyone who does not believe as you do.
This is why your religion causes so many fights. You do not even know what you are doing and are constantly defending an untenable position by attacking any other position.
This is delusional behavior. And - the scary thing is - you are completely unaware of what you are doing.
Why are you being so difficult this morning? Drink some coffee. Pull up a funny you tube video. Have a laugh. Both positions are untenable when in juxtaposition. I enjoy the banter, but sometimes I wonder if it is healthy for the other side. We all need to attempt to see the other point of view. I am truly trying. Whether you believe it or not.
No - both positions are not untenable. Yours is the only untenable position. Yet still you insist on saying that my position is no more rational or tenable than yours.
It is funny. I am lightened up - this is funny. The fact that you keep on claiming not to understand why on earth anyone would take an absolute position and then insist on taking so many yourself is funny. Don't you think it is?
I do see your point of view - it is completely untenable.
Well, at least we've got that straight now. Feel better?
I take offense at that. I am truly concerned for your inner wa. I worry about you.
Really? Why would you do that? I am fine thanks. Plenty of wa. Why not work on your own internal inconsistencies instead of mine?
I do that too. I've always been a multi tasker.
Good for you. Let me know how you get on with the cognitive dissonance issue that seems to be bothering you.
Actually Mark, that has never been a problem for me. I like having opposing opinions arguing in my head. I can handle three or four at a time. More than that? Might be a problem.
My primary problem at this moment is service interuption. It's hard to swype with the network going in and out. I'll have to do battle again another time. Have a nice day.
Of course you think it has never been a problem. That is why you need to incessantly argue an untenable position.
. It's a miracle. I've got service, and time to reply now. My position is only untenable to you, and apparently Christians. Not to me though, which is all that matters. I spend, on average, about half an hour a day reading the posts. That leaves a lot of time to think. Better to get along with myself, since that's the lion's share of who I argue this point with. I only argue with you because I like more input. What's your excuse?
I would like to make the world a better place by removing ridiculous belief systems that cause constant fights.
Sorry. I understand you are all that matters to you. That is the problem with your religion.
I'm afraid this one has been hi-jacked by scientific dogma already. That is not to say that what has been said about science so far has been untrue, but that by ommitting other important factors the information has been presented as a half truth.
Of course science operates on a different mechanism from religion, however this does not mean that one has not supplanted the other. As Nietzsche pointed out religion held prevalence over humanity for so long as a way of knowing - a knowledge structure which made sense of the universe and shaped our reality. This position has now been adopted by science - which posits itself as the ultimate and one true way of knowing (at the expense of things like existential and aesthetic truth) and structures our understanding and society in exactly the same way religion did for so many years.
So yes, science is the new religion, for it has displaced the old and adopted its mantle.
maybe science is seen more of an authority than religion these days. Doesn't make it a religion. I don't worship science nor lie to defend any science - the very nature of science is that it is open to updating as new information is discovered/understood - I don't see the religious doing that
Scientists are learning new, very interesting things about the Universe. I would say I had no religion up until I started watching space shows. Now that I think about it anything is possible. The religions today do not appeal me. I do however get my "god fix" or "spiritual fix" through those shows.
There is a part in your brain that imakes you spiritual, the bigger that is, the more religious you are. Funny thats all it comes down to.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
[ Who Can Prove The Big Bang Happened? ] This theory is some guy or guys idea not proof.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
People have shown they can believe in anything-Cows, Monkeys,rats, Zeus,Atlas,Uranus, etc.
We look at the stars and see they're moving away from us, therefore the Universe is somehow expanding. We look at the past and wee see the cosmic microwave background:
Which is the oldest picture of the Universe (more on that here).
Simply put, the big bang theory is derived from that. We only get to live around 80 years, over a century if we're lucky. It's complicated to grasp concept such as this or evolution, because they happen over veeeeeeeeeeeeery long periods of time, and the only evidence is the passing of those processes through time.
Once again conjecture, speculation, opinion-no proof whatsoever.
That picture is proof that the Universe went through a long process to be here, and that planets and stars shaped slowly, and didn't appear already formed all of the sudden.
Would you mind explaining what would you consider proof enough of this sort of process that takes billions of years?
That flat image photo doesn't have enough detail to ascertain what it's trying to say.
I would say proof would be what nonbelievers are asking "Proof God Exist" One aspect of proof would be in a void that has no atmosphere what ignited the so-called Big Bang? The concept of some force able to hold the universe seems as unrealistic as a cartoon. We claim that science explains-if the universe is expanding where is expanding to, why is expanding? Is there an end to the universe? These are scientific questions since we put so much faith in science than science should answer these questions.
"That flat image photo doesn't have enough detail to ascertain what it's trying to say."
Watch the documentary about the Big Bang I posted earlier, it explains the picture.
"I would say proof would be what nonbelievers are asking "Proof God Exist" One aspect of proof would be in a void that has no atmosphere what ignited the so-called Big Bang? The concept of some force able to hold the universe seems as unrealistic as a cartoon."
Scientists have been able to replicate just moments after the Big Bang. I think that's a huge step
"We claim that science explains-if the universe is expanding where is expanding to, why is expanding? Is there an end to the universe? These are scientific questions since we put so much faith in science than science should answer these questions."
Stop it, you're making me laugh.
Where is the universe expanding to? How could anyone answer that? Where implies a point of reference. I guess we could say away.
Seriously, your personal overly-high expectations of what something you're not even involved in should do, is in no way a flaw of science. It's like rejecting your first job offer in your life because they don't pay %10000 a day from the start.
Why, instead of looking at the questions science has not answered and complain about it, don't you look at what it has done, for example, made it possible for you to communicate with everyone here; or, if you want to look at the stuff it hasn't answered yet, try to help find the answers?
It has been said in the past that we (people) "Don't Create" "We Change, We Modify" But We Don't Create.
The idea of flying came from watching birds fly. Some say the idea of the wheel came from watching a rock, or stone roll down a hill. Ideas were than taken from nature and built upon.
how are you going to explain the blue shifted galaxies?
say andromeda galaxies is approaching the milky way -then what is expanding?
I think people will continue to grasp at a higher creator out there. People tend to want to believe in something when there is proof other wise. I believe there is a God , but is there only 1 god, I don't know. I think all religions are using the same God , that came down to earth in a way that would make the people in there region more comfortable. It is up to you to choose is science will be another scape goat or will we learn from our prior
Science is not a religion period. It is not something you believe in. This is pure ignorance. Religion and science are entirely two different concepts. People need to pay more attention to all the things that have been accomplished as a result of the knowledge of science. You simply can't compare the two concepts.
I believe you have a point with people casting faith on those things they perceive our justifications reasoning
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
The definition of faith as stated above can be applied to a person or THING. Many of the comments I've seen come past science to religion clearly they're working on the basis that science is an alternative to religion but more so superior to religion that sounds like faith to me.
Jomine, sometimes one has to take something from whence it comes. Your obvious lack of understanding of what you are talking about is so obvious to those that actually do work and understand these concepts that I can only suggest you go back to school and learn what science really is.
It's no more a belief system than driving a car is a belief system.
so you agree these are concepts?
you agree these concepts expand, contract and interact?
i agree- it is long since i have looked into any science books, the last book i read is a brief history of time if it can be called one.
but i have no problem understanding that only objects interact and no concepts ever do any interaction.
if the words you wrote come from a theist i can understand-they are the people who reject everything that is rational. you claim to be rational(judging from your previous posts) then why behave like a theist?
or were you just proving that new science is another religion?
Jomine, I don't know what you are trying to prove by your lack of grammar. You are extremely difficult to read because your sentences are ambiguous. Next, your lack of conventional word order makes everything you say dubious. It's obviously contrived because I've read things you've written that are perfectly grammatical.
I didn't even bother to comment on what you wrote. And I'm not going to. I honestly think you have the characteristics of a troll. And I won't click on anything you write in the future. I prefer people to write correctly, with adequate punctuation and word order so that it can be understood.
i assure you any grammatical errors there are, are not intentional
let me try just once more
1st you asked me to go back to school- i am not offended and even agreed with you. i was stating a fact when i said the last book i read was Stephen hawking's brief history of time. even while i was studying i was more interested in electronics than the rest.
2nd as i explained above i am not against everything that comes under science. i myself is a medical man and practices medical science. i was stating some irrationality in relativity, quantum and big bang.
3rd i started the forum to get an idea about these and correct myself if i am wrong but i can't prevent believers from coming here and spewing nonsense. i was hoping somebody will rationally explain all these.
4th your appeared angry. that is what i usually get from theists(not all, though). they reject your arguments without stating why they do it, and even call you names.
5th i was stating time and space are concepts
time- a concept based on the two locations of an object
space-a conceptualization of nothing
so when rejecting me outright without any explanations, i obviously thought you believe concepts interact.
as far as i know only objects interact and concepts don't.
by the way sorry for the delay in answering- reasons are technical only.
now it is your choice whether to answer or not. i have seen so many theists running away when confronted with questions they cannot explain. i have read some of your posts and think you as a rational person and i was looking forward for a rational discussion but i may be wrong.
First of all, Jomine, it is rediculous to expect anyone but a scientist to answer your questions. Most people don't have the knowledge to answer your questions. Next, if you truly want to know the answers, there are a stack of sites on the Internet that deal specifically with these questions.
honestly think you have the characteristics of a troll
i don't think i can stoop so low to call anybody names!!
Science has been made into a religion.
It's the Official Church of Scientology: L. Ron Hubbard. Scientology religion, its beliefs & practices.
There is no God they worship. yet still, I could be sadly mistaken, since it was written by a science fiction writer.
Scientology is a joke and is not science at all.
Even if people worshipped science that would not make science a religion.
.They do seriously study science, yet of course, mixed with a lot of BS too.
@Catlepaloma. Ron Hubbard converted Scientology into a religion in the 50s in order not to be able to pay taxes.
His followers teach that he is the reincarnation of Jesus Christ.
science is the study or explanation of interaction and relation between objects.
i am here dealing only with three concepts- big bang, relativity and quantum physics. they are considered science, but are actually pseudoscience just like religion-irrational
when i say "is this the new religion?" i am referring only to the above three.
big bang- is actually creation in disguise-creation ex nihilo.
if rationally nothing can be created by god, nothing can be created by singularity either.
relativity and quantum are two other forms that reify.they think of concepts and treat it like objects. hence there is these space contraction, time dilation, virtual particles and so on..
Anybody of normal intelligence should be able to understand science and we should be able to illustrate science with diagrams. when we reify it is not possible and is the reason masses don't understand the above. religion used to do it. the liturgy and holy books were all in Latin so that the common folks will never understand and will not question. now science is doing the same, instead of Latin they use reified concepts and mathematical equations to make others believe that they are discussing something profound. science does not need equations to explain. why anybody need an equation to show a tree exists?
yes after being unquestionable for a decade now people are questioning big bang, but is not the case with the other two and hence this forum!!
What's your evidence that those concepts are being questioned? I've heard nobody in physics attack these theories in total. There obviously is revision needed I suspect, but the theories at preset appear to be fudamentally right.
Big Bang theory is as close to a scientific fact as you can have - it certainly isn't pseudoscience! Relatiity has been an established scientific fact since Galelieo and quantum is essential to modern electronics as well as a lot of other things.
I think you're misunderstanding the basics of science and physics in particular. Theoretical particles are only theoretical until they are observed. Just because the big bang appears to mimic religious dogma does not mean that you should dismiss it out of hand; there are thousands of evidencial observations supporting it, very few which don't fit the model.
here are thousands of evidencial observations
Give me one
The above link was given by spookyfox in this very same forum.
nothing can come out of nothing.
there are blue shifted galaxies which means some galaxies are moving towards us.
space is our conceptualization of nothing and there can never be a time where space is absent and space can never bend either. time, similarly, is another concept which can never bend. and there can never be anything called space time, as concepts never interact-only objects interact.
Only objects bend, no concepts bend either!!
I saw this documentary when it went out. The documentary does not question whether big bang happened, just what may have occured before it and what this would mean to the theory. AT NO POINT DOES IT QUESTION THE FUNDAMENTAL THEORY OF THE BIG BANG. Have you watched it?! We're not saying it came out of nothing, only out of a very very small space. There may have been something before, but we don't know. However, we KNOW the big bang happened 13.7 billion years ago and we have recreated the conditions that existed less than 1/1000000th of a second after it happened!
I'll give you a few; redshift (in all but one or two cases), CMB radiation and its patternation,the distribution of quasars, the relative abundance of certain elements over others....
Time only "bends" in a physical sense (perhaps you are just misunderstanding the term?), it can speed up or slow down too. We use this information everyday, our Sky Tv and SatNav relies on it being true!
You should look up "holographic principle" to explain black hole event horizons and the associated thermodynamics that you wer questioning earlier in this forum.
You've said nothing here that could even lead me to think there are problems with any of these theories... Just because something is counter-intuitive and appears illogical to us is no evidence against a physical process. And if you don't understand it, it doesn't mean it's wrong either!
before going any further please tell me what is time.
is it an object or concept?
if it is an object, does it "exist"?
if it is a concept, how it can peed up or slow down?
Time is a system of scalar measurement. Surely to god you know this?
I'm not sure I have time for this, i think you're just going to ask me to fill in obvious points for you ad nauseum until I get fed up and you claim a hollow victory. I've been through this process before.
If you have any doubt that time can slow down, then get an incredibly accurate atomic clock (as well as a cloned clock that will remain static), spend your savings, climb on a plane and do a few laps of the globe. The time will be out when you get off the plane after a few times round. This is because time will move relatively slower for you in the fast plane, than on the stationary ground. This is relativity and also a very expensive way of proving to yourself something which has been known for over a century.
I reitterate my earlier point; if you don't understand fundamental physics, then it doesn't mean it's wrong. you certainly shouldn't embarass yourself by mouthing off about it too!
We could make it even easier than that, purchase a GPS and you're done. A GPS will NEVER work correctly unless it has been programmed to take both gravitational and velocity time dilation into account.
It baffles me that people can just spout crap and be utterly and wilfiully ignorant of the world around them. I mean, I'm not a theoretical physicist, but at least I try!
The pretext that, "oh that's pretty difficult to understand, it must be BS", just really doesn't hold water.
Yeah, how do these people thing GPS systems work? Do they think it's just by utter chance?! A fluke?!
"Time is a system of scalar measurement."
measurement of what?
time is a concept to describe the two location of an object.
it is a CONCEPT. concepts never dilate or contract.(have you heard of dilating love and expanding justice?!!)
A vibration of cesium atom is not time, it is something we use to standardize our measurement. just because velocity affect a Cs atom does not mean it affect time.
Suppose, you take 2 sec to run ten meter. Just because you are in a space ship that travels at light speed, will you be able to run the same in 1sec?
I reiterate, only objects can bend, or expand or dilate. time is not like a railway track for you to travel through it, nor can it have properties like that of an object!
"If you have any doubt that time can slow down, then get an incredibly accurate atomic clock......"
Super You are saying something in the following lines...
I got into a super fast train and my watched slowed down, hence time slowed down, and when i get down, you see, i would not have aged as much as you(as my watched slowed, of course). You know time depends on My clock!!
Time is not the clock Superwags, nor is it, the ticking of the clock!!
If it is, beware it may break down as well or may go backwards!!! who knows you may even reach your childhood then!! And if you are able to make it move backwards a little faster you may be able to verify evolution too!!!
Conversations with fundamentalist christians are dull. Ok, buy GPS or SatNav, then explain how it can stay in sync with the satelites it needs to work. I bet you can't.
If you don't accept evolution - and it was only a matter of time before you brought this up - then you really can't be helped.
who told i don't accept evolution-evolution is rational. Your reification of time is not!!
Again, who told you I am a christian, let alone fundamental?
I am no believer- neither christian nor your god Einstein/Hawkins!!
I saw your arguments in fatfist's hubs.
Fundamentalists Christians, fare better than fundamentalist relativists!!
Yes, we often see relativity come under fire by those who don't understand it. Please feel free to explain why relativity is wrong, if you can?
You mean apart from spacetime, length contraction, mass increase and time "dilation"?
(And if you don't understand it, it doesn't mean it's wrong either!)
I guess that means that the argument that no human mind can comprehend god is valid, too?
We can never understand God. So God is NOT the wrong answer, either!
Finally, we have a RATIONAL ATHEIST and Ph.D, like superwags, who contradicts himself by discounting God,... but like a "True Theist", he turns the other cheek and accepts Self-Creation
BTW, superwags....I'm still waiting for you to give us the definition of "Universe", which you claimed not to understand,.... but authoritatively/conveniently used it to form an irrational argument about Self-Creation. I expect it on my desk by 9 AM sharp!
Yes....your religion gets funnier with every new post.
Galaxies move towards each other, and often in spectacular collisions:
They attract each other by the very same force that's holding you to the ground.
Sorry that you've not taken the time to understand very much about the world around you and the fact that you appear upset that scientific theories can't be spoon fed to those who are too lazy to make an effort to understand but instead will write it all off as nonsense.
Funny how you don't even understand something, yet will dismiss it out of hand, just like a religious believer.
I find this conversation really depressing. jomine has posted this forum without bothering to do a single bit of research on the subject of physics or even attempting to understand the world around them. Other ignorants have joined in.
It's kind of embarassing - I wouldn't post a forum topic and then mouth off about things I'd never taken the time out to even try to understand!
I honestly reckon stardom is the new religion, and all the celebrities are all the Lovely Gods that we see and Holly wood is their hang out
think about it this way, we have millions/billions books and magazines printed every week in their honour, depicting their deeds and their noughty behaviour,
people are absolutely crazy about them, follow them, worship them, want to know everything about them,
and with their fame they have money, which we all know is power, with enough money to can get anything you want, and if it doesn't exist yet you can always invest money into the creation of it
Stardom is the new religion people, most of you are already believers, as for the rest of you, it's just a matter of time
I was actually going to write a hub named exactly like that.
money is already a religion
but saying that, celebrities have been around for ages aswell
you have a vaild point LeanMan
these two religions shall either apose or should join to make one mega religion
It is the religion of the west.... few go to "church" in a rich country... it is only in the poorer countries that religion has a real hold on the population!!
IT IS MONEY!!!
You don't understand quantum physics, so therefore, it must be mere dogma to be accepted on faith?
The problem with that is that quantum physics are used every day to achieve predictable results.
That's the difference between science and faith: science works every time.
When people say "It works like magic," what they really mean is, "It works like science."
ok you understand it well. please explain what is this quantum of light?
or duality of light?
that light is a particle and wave at the same time?
in the process also illuminate me what a wave is!!
All of this and more is readily available for you to understand any time you feel the need to make the effort.
Will you make that effort?
Is there some reason you felt the need to insult me personally? Why do you believers do that all the time rather than dealing with the subject matter? Does it make you feel good? Is is a Christian thingy? Do tell?
From when on you are a theist?
you may not "believe" in god but you "believe" in your new god-Einstein and Hawkins!!
just try to see how a relativist define
spacetime and 4th dimension are nonsense and only a relativist say such things.
Space is our conceptualization of NOTHING. so how can nothing not there before bang?
There is a photo of universe by spooky fox above, what is that black thing around the universe?
"that light is a particle and wave at the same time?"
Yeah, that's a hard one to wrap one's brain around. Do I know why or how it can be both? Nope. But I have seen and duplicated half of an experiment that shows that it's both. I couldn't demonstrate the other half because it relies on being able to fire one photon (particle) at a time, and I've never had access to such finely tunable equipment. But you can read about how it works here.
"in the process also illuminate me what a wave is!!"
One of these:
Loosely speaking, you can look at this duality from a frame of reference perspective. Light can act as a wave while it's traveling and act like a particle when it stops traveling. This should help to visualize the end results of the two-slit experiment.
Wave is vibration that is transferred through a medium. sound is a vibration that is transferred through a medium of air(water or solid) which when strikes our eardrum which vibrate, is transferred to our nerve and we appreciate as sound.
what is medium through which the light "wave" is transferred?
Your picture of the wave is very nice, but i see only a water column.
the "vibration" of the water surface is called a wave. The water molecules move up and down. In case of light what is the medium?
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
Science would count as a religion based off of only the definition of the word.
"Science would count as a religion based off of only the definition of the word."
Um, what? I gotta admit, I'm intrigued. Please walk me through the logic behind that conclusion. Treat me as though I'm an intelligent fifth-grader.
Because science doesn't just happen in laborotories. It is not an obscure academic practice but a something which is actually involved in creating and reinforcing social norms.
There are certain belief systems that are encouraged by science in it's capacity as a social phenomenon, for example the concepts of relativistic morality and absolute truth. We see science getting used as a moral justification for certain things. The pathologisation of homosexuality is a prime example - it is interesting how the attempt to justify homosexuality as "natural" has become the primary defence of the moral quality of a homosexual relationship. Personally I would have thought the moral quality of any relationship lies in the exchange of love between the partners, not in the "naturalness" or otherwise of the union.
Can you read the definition of the word "Religion" are you sure I should use a Fifth Grade level to approach this? Read what I wrote...By the DEFINITION of the WORD ONLY!!!!...
In the words of my new favorite poet/singer/comedian/philosopher, Tim Minchin...
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed, faith is the denial of observation so that faith may be preserved".
(of course I wrote a hub about him and this little gem is found in his "Storm" video on YouTube).
oops, slightly misquoted, but same meaning (faith=belief in 2nd part of sentence).
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed, faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved".
I have a question along the lines of the OP question.
Do you think that technology will ever get to the level of transcending physical apparatus?
Would that not be an incredible Parallel to religion?
My understanding of scientific fact is: any experiment that can be repeated in the laboratory by multiple scientists and achieve the same results.
Well, since much of science appears to be based on circumstantial evidence leading to a hypothetical theory, then I would conclude that in many instances it is based on faith and not provable fact.
Therefore I would say it is a type of religion. However, there is nothing new about it, its been that way for many years.
If science is the new religion, it's just another new cult. I guess people need to band together for security and self assurance. It will attract the same personalities as any religion, if that's the case. Nothing new under the sun, methinks.
Just to but in on the GPS/Satnav thing, the GPS Satalites have to have their time adjusted several times daily because their time goes more 'slowly' than down here.
I personally don't know enough to explain why this happens, they are further up, but they travel faster (GEO stationary) So it does not make much sense to me, however in a real day to day world it needs to be done to stop them from failing completely.
If I ever get a few free years on my hands I may look in to this a little further, it does interest me, but I would need to study this intensively to be able to explain time, rather than just give an example of how it is weirder than people think.
No, the GPS sets aren't adjusted, the atomic clocks on board the satelites are designed to "tick" slower than a second. If you get my meaning.
They actually experience time moving faster in space because of less gravity.
A good starting point is this horizon documentary (it's only an hour long, rather than a few free years!), although it is by a Manc which might put you off!
Watch a Horizon documentary entitled "What on Earth is Wrong with Gravity" they actually visit the US military command center which controls the GPS satellites. They talk about it on there, and you see the time sync happen.
Perhaps some tv documentary provides answers, but I usually don't get my information from tv.
A GPS satellite has an onboard clock that is accurate to 1 billionth of a second (nanosecond).
With Special Relativity, the satellite is moving much faster than our clocks on earth, hence there is a difference of about 7 microseconds in which we see the satellite clock ticking slower. With General Relativity, and the affects of gravity, the satellite clock is ticking about 45 microseconds faster.
So, 45-7=38. Hence, the onboard satellite clock will constantly tick 38 microseconds (38,000 nanoseconds) slower than the clocks on earth, thus syncing the satellite and earthbound clocks.
Hope that helps.
Horizon is usually pretty good, hence going to the trouble of sending someone to the GPS Satellite control center to ask the questions. You seem to know the facts though so I will bow out of this, as I mentioned earlier, the subject interest me, but until i have some free time it will have to remain a passing interest.
I agree that Horizon is excellent. Think of it less of a TV programme and more of Prof Brian Cox lecturing you in a casual style for an hour!
I'd go and sit theoretical physics at Manchester if I thought I could have that privilege a couple of times a week!
Here is a very good description of the GPS system and some explanations as to how they overcame several interesting relativistic problems.
it was actually a different documentary by the same guy. I guess they explained it differently in different documentaries, will watch this one as well and see what they say!
by Retrohawaii5 years ago
I believe in a God not necessarily in what the bible discusses
by Hooksey8 years ago
It pains me to see so many highly religious people spew hate towards other religions and viewpoints. Isn't a main aspect of every religion having goodwill towards others. Most major religions do not condon hatred, but...
by AMAZING THINKER2 years ago
Who are right, believers or atheists?We don't know how the universe works, and science does not yet have all the answers, so all we can do is assume what we believe in is true.Some things can't be explained, but does...
by uncorrectedvision5 years ago
As I understand it, everything did not exist at all a nano-second before the "Big Bang" and everything, absolutely all the energy in the Universe was in existence a nano-second after the "Big...
by qwark5 years ago
In "WHAT" did the "big bang" bang!Qwark
by MrMaranatha4 years ago
I'm sick to death of listening to people bash religion with this line of thinking... "Where is my freedom from your religion?" Well... Where is MY freedom from YOURS? Yours is being taught in...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.