batmanmg wrote:yeah but a scientist denying a claim that god could have been the one to start time and the big bang from nothingness is just as bad as a faithful person denying a claim that the big bang ever happened...
irockyou wrote:batmanmg wrote:yeah but a scientist denying a claim that god could have been the one to start time and the big bang from nothingness is just as bad as a faithful person denying a claim that the big bang ever happened...
How so? One has faith, the other has some scientific evidence. They're not equal; it depends on which you value more.
it isn't the duty of the scientist to prove/disprove the existence of gods as they aren't the ones making the claims. It's the religious person's obligation to offer up the proof as its their theory/belief.
Scientific hypotheses are rated according to their credibility; as more and more data support a scientific hypothesis, the greater our confidence in it. If that hypothesis fits into a common pattern, successfully interlocking with established theories, then it gets another big plus. If that hypothesis has no credible competition, despite much work in the area, then our confidence in it begins to soar. If that hypothesis also supplies us with numerous insights into nature, which are confirmed by further observation and testing, then it might attain the status of a "scientific theory." (Note that a scientific theory ranks very high in credibility, has been tested repeatedly, and serves as a successful framework for integrating and explaining a class of diverse, natural phenomena; it must not be confused with the layman's use of "theory" which refers to half-baked speculation or guesswork. Consequently, the complaint that evolution is merely a (scientific) theory is a little like saying that an athlete is merely a gold-medal winner!)
well then, i beseach you to pose any other theory of how the universe/time began... a hard issue, becuase another thread has already come t the conclusion that something cannot come from nothing on its own.
The true fundamentalists (specifically of Christianity as it's the only religion I have ever studied; I leave the others to someone else) believe in supernatural tales that contradict entirely the rules of science
XVX wrote:On the other hand, having a higher intelligence seems like a requirement for the order we see, but this higher intelligence still would face the problem of knowledge and how they came about.
All particles have knowledge on how to interact with ALL other particles. How did these particles get that knowledge? How do they retain it?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest