Originally posted by ScreamPaste
For the record, while I support Hawking, I am a Christian. 😐 I'm in favour of God, I believe the fundamental constants of our universe are simply too perfect for random chance to have spawned them.
I have similar [faith based] views in the aspect that I do believe in a greater force/God/entity as some things just fit too perfectly to be just coincidence. eg while I do believe in evolution, the mechanics that make it possible to begin with seem deliberate. Though I am certainly no Christian and I find the religious works of man that try and put God into a box to be asinine.
Originally posted by menokokoro
the problem with science, it is arrogant
you post a couple of sentences from a story written over a thousand years ago as a counter to mathematical models you don't understand, then have the audacity to call science arrogant?
Originally posted by menokokoro
they think because they have a theory they are right and there couldn't possibly be another answer (at least the bad scientists 😛 ).
could you explain, in your own words, what the process of hypothesis testing is? if you can add some of the constraints and problems with the method, that would be awesome too.
or, who are these bad scientists you are speaking of?
Originally posted by RobtardI'm similar, I suppose, in that I don't identify with a denomination or specific church, organised religion is not my thing.
I have similar views in the aspect that I do believe in a greater force/God/entity as some things just fit too perfectly to be just coincidence. eg while I do believe in evolution, the mechanics that make it possible to begin with seem deliberate. Though I am certainly no Christian and I find the religious works of man that try and put God into a box to be asinine.
Originally posted by inimalistThe point of the scripture was to simply say that we as a species are not all knowing, and that I believe that God is, and that we can't comprehend him or his plan. I believe in science....I even say that in the post you are quoting.
you post a couple of sentences from a story written over a thousand years ago as a counter to mathematical models you don't understand, then have the audacity to call science arrogant?could you explain, in your own words, what the process of hypothesis testing is? if you can add some of the constraints and problems with the method, that would be awesome too.
or, who are these bad scientists you are speaking of?
The bad scientists are the ones that are not open to new possibilities, they have their theory, and refuse to accept that they are wrong. So, the ARROGANCE of science corrupts the product of their work. It doesn't matter how smart they are, if they are like this, they will only succeed in coming up with theories, unless they are really lucky.
Originally posted by marwash22That is great, I'm glad you shared your opinion. I should let you know, I am LDS (mormon), I believe that the bible is really flawed, changed, revised, and edited for certain peoples goals (which is a fact). So I don't take much from it in it's raw form.
science directly contradicts the bible.
Originally posted by menokokoro
The bad scientists are the ones that are not open to new possibilities, they have their theory, and refuse to accept that they are wrong. So, the ARROGANCE of science corrupts the product of their work. It doesn't matter how smart they are, if they are like this, they will only succeed in coming up with theories, unless they are really lucky.
who?
you speak so authoritatively about science, yet you seem like you have very little understanding of it. Which scientists are the ones corrupting your views like this?
Originally posted by inimalistI never said that I am a scientist or anything of the sort, I am simply using what I KNOW, and discussions with friends who are in different science fields. Again, not saying that that proves anything I am saying right, just letting you know where I am coming from.
who?you speak so authoritatively about science, yet you seem like you have very little understanding of it. Which scientists are the ones corrupting your views like this?
Originally posted by menokokoro
I never said that I am a scientist or anything of the sort, I am simply using what I KNOW, and discussions with friends who are in different science fields. Again, not saying that that proves anything I am saying right, just letting you know where I am coming from.
that is a gigantic backpedal from what you were saying before...
should I assume you are unfamiliar with individual scientists then? if this is the case, why are you letting non-scientists produce your understanding of how science works?
Originally posted by Deadline
Apparently hes overated. No offense but I suspect he gets hype because of his condition.
You mean he might have won all those awards because of his condition? I think you are using his condition to downplay his theories, by theorizing on blaming it for his success 😛 You do realize he has the education to fund his research with credibility, right? To whatever degree of credibility diplomas and education bring you.
I for one believe that he is celebrated for his contributions, knowledge and theories and not for the fact that he has MND.
Originally posted by ScreamPaste
Except that they're not completely different, and I do.
Originally posted by ScreamPasteScience would be how? and Religion, the why?
Why can one not be why and the other how?
That sounds nice, except, the why contradicts the how.
Except that it doesn't. 😐
Science is a large part of what reinforces my faith. If the constants weren't the way they are, things could be ... Horribly incompatible with life. For example; molecules unable to hold themselves together and fall apart.
Things just seem too deliberate and perfect for there to be nothing.
Originally posted by ScreamPaste
Except that it doesn't. 😐Science is a large part of what reinforces my faith. If the constants weren't the way they are, things could be ... Horribly incompatible with life. For example; molecules unable to hold themselves together and fall apart.
Things just seem too deliberate and perfect for there to be nothing.
so, in terms of something like the creating of man in the bible versus evolutionary theory, you would go with science over scripture?
are there instances where you would take scripture over science?