Has NASA found (potentially) extraterrestrial life? (1 Viewer)

[ChipperT]

The universe is expanding because everything is attached to those "strings" I keep hearing about and those strings are pulling everything apart. Yeah, that's the ticket. See how easy that was?

 

[the_net_2.0]

The universe is expanding because everything is attached to those "strings" I keep hearing about and those strings are pulling everything apart. Yeah, that's the ticket. See how easy that was?

are those like the strings that are pulled in the office?

 

[ChipperT]

are those like the strings that are pulled in the office?

I don't know. You will have to ask someone well acquainted with String Theory.

 

[ColinEssex]

Chipper,

I don't think scientists can figure out the Universe because it is supposed to be a mystery. It is the heavens, which were created by God.

Or at least that's how the fairy tale goes. There is no proof.

D

 

[the_net_2.0]

Or at least that's how the fairy tale goes. There is no proof.

D

faith is the other side of proof. Belief doesn't require proof.

And I think, as the world gets more and more difficult, we're going to see more and more people use the excuse of "there is no proof" as a reason not to believe in God.

Not saying you do Dave, but your statement reminded me of what I think.

 

[Galaxiom]

faith is the other side of proof. Belief doesn't require proof.

Faith is to proof as the square root of negative one is to the natural numbers. Complex numbers can provide a framework to manipulate mathematical representations of physical phenomenon through an imaginary component.

However an abstract tool does not make the the imaginary component real. The maths of String Theory appear to match the observations but do not constitute a proof. The theory has been repeatedly modified to match the reality because in Science observation trumps theory.

Here the analogy with faith collapses. When confronted with disparity between theory and reality, faith upholds the abstraction and denies the observation.

And I think, as the world gets more and more difficult, we're going to see more and more people use the excuse of "there is no proof" as a reason not to believe in God.

There is no need for an "excuse" not to believe in God. There is no "reason" to believe in God. The God hypothesis does not endure in the face of reason.

 

[Pauldohert]

Faith is to proof as the square root of negative one is to the natural numbers. Complex numbers can provide a framework to manipulate mathematical representations of physical phenomenon through an imaginary component.

However an abstract tool does not make the the imaginary component real. The maths of String Theory appear to match the observations but do not constitute a proof. The theory has been repeatedly modified to match the reality because in Science observation trumps theory.

Here the analogy with faith collapses. When confronted with disparity between theory and reality, faith upholds the abstraction and denies the observation.



There is no need for an "excuse" not to believe in God. There is no "reason" to believe in God. The God hypothesis does not endure in the face of reason.

Faith ^ 4 is to proof - as i ^ 4 is to natural numbers?

 

[Galaxiom]

You are being deliberately difficult there Paul.

The point is that both faith and imaginary numbers are construct that can be used to manipulate our understanding of real phenomenon but in no way does this make either of them real in themselves.

 

[Pauldohert]

You are being deliberately difficult there Paul.

The point is that both faith and imaginary numbers are construct that can be used to manipulate our understanding of real phenomenon but in no way does this make either of them real in themselves.

So faith is like imaginary numbers?

 

[dan-cat]

The point is that both faith and imaginary numbers are construct that can be used to manipulate our understanding of real phenomenon but in no way does this make either of them real in themselves.

/sigh

The modification of string theory to account for new phenomenon illustrates how all that we can currently explain are bound by these rules of "imaginary numbers". Whether you or I relate to them as "real" is neither here nor there to their persistence.

Abstractions are built on constants and can be refactored due to the all-encompassing nature of these constants. These constants and all the buildings, medicine and weaponry that have been designed atop of them don't give a fig whether you believe them to be real or not.

They pervade from the abstract into reality. Your version of reality has no impact on that whatsoever. Your analogy is just absurd.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Do you guys ever feel like you're having the same exact conversation over and over? People who believe in an all-powerful god have shut their minds to other answers. They don't want other answers, for they feel (i.e., they have faith) that they have already found them.

And there is no way to convince them otherwise. You can educate, you can demonstrate, you can question, but an adult mind that has truly accepted that there is an all-powerful god that can see/hear/know everything that they do and will smite them/send them to hell/whatever other terrifying thing if they don't comply is not ready to leave religion behind. They need it, it is their crutch.

Kind of like the Matrix. Most people were content to live in the world of make-believe, they were not ready to be unplugged and pulled into the real world.

Ignorance is bliss and all that.

 

[the_net_2.0]

There is no need for an "excuse" not to believe in God. There is no "reason" to believe in God. The God hypothesis does not endure in the face of reason.

right there is the difference between a scientist and a believer. to each his own. as I said before, we'll see more and more rationalizing about why God doesn't exist as the world goes on.

 

[ChipperT]

Good grief! Did I start this with my mention of the String Theory? I shoulda said "ropes". Yeah, that's what I meant. Ropes! The universe is being pulled apart by ropes. No God needed but if there is one, then I am sure He is helping pull.

 

[the_net_2.0]

that's one LONGGGGGGGGG rope. I wonder what's keeping it taught.

 

[ChipperT]

that's one LONGGGGGGGGG rope. I wonder what's keeping it taught.

It's the Rope Theory. You know the old saying... give a universe (or a deity) enough rope...

 

[the_net_2.0]

give a universe (or a deity) enough rope...

and it'll split into parellel's??????

 

[statsman]

The belief in God (or non belief) is best demonstrated in a scene from the Peter O'Toole film "Creator".

O'Toole is a scientist you has been assigned the task of acquiring grants for the various science dept. of the University where he teaches.
He begins his presentation to the grant givers by saying that the University is on the edge of a major breakthrough in the field of Molecular Biology, and that God is prepared to give them the answers they seek in exchange for $12 Million.

It's much funnier the way he says it but then he's a trained actor.

 

[Mike375]

And there is no way to convince them otherwise. You can educate, you can demonstrate, you can question, but an adult mind that has truly accepted that there is an all-powerful god that can see/hear/know everything that they do and will smite them/send them to hell/whatever other terrifying thing if they don't comply is not ready to leave religion behind. They need it, it is their crutch.

Your inability to "convince" is because you lack good solid ammunition.

I think it is the atheist who needs the crutch or if you like takes a pre determined locked in position. In my experience people who have at least a reasonable education and who believe "something is out there" do so because it is the most logical explanation up to this point.

 

[Galaxiom]

The atheist does not need "the crutch" (virtually an anagram of "the church"). We have real legs. The faithful tore off their legs in order that the crutches become an integral part of their lives.

However do not mistake that an atheist necessarily believes in the absence of spirit and automatically accept the notion that all of reality is mechanistic in the prevailing scientific tradition.

Spirituality is not the foundation of existence but the next step from consciousness.

The Creator hypothesis is superfluous and unsupported by observation. The faithful have it all backwards, got stuck on dogma and are thus incapable of enlightenment. This is what makes them so dangerous.

 

[Pauldohert]

The atheist does not need "the crutch" (virtually an anagram of "the church"). We have real legs. The faithful tore off their legs in order that the crutches become an integral part of their lives.

However do not mistake that an atheist necessarily believes in the absence of spirit and automatically accept the notion that all of reality is mechanistic in the prevailing scientific tradition.

Spirituality is not the foundation of existence but the next step from consciousness.

The Creator hypothesis is superfluous and unsupported by observation. The faithful have it all backwards, got stuck on dogma and are thus incapable of enlightenment. This is what makes them so dangerous.

To be honest in most parts of the world - when you walk down the street its not the god fearing folk, that I would tend to feel may endanger you?

Is it?