₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
Do you perhaps mean, science of the philosophical sort, the speculations of science, "can not be proved"?

Or science as applied, the modifying type that I use to express my undying love for ScienceWatch wherever in the world he is, "can not be proved"?

Do understand that it is the axioms from the speculative sort that on testing and found to be so, as in proven to be as speculated, that form technology. And those that are proven not to work are abandoned?


Then there is a big gap in my understanding. Which I would like you to help me fill.

Science, as I know it, is not built on "unprovable assumptions". If anyone came up with an assumption and claims it has anything to do with science, all the other scientists will by nature all scream, "Prove it", or they would not give you the time of day. They will then check your evidence using methods that scientist have agreed to use check such assumption to see if your assumption is true, possible, or false. They will then discard the outright false, work on the possible, and use the true in advancing technology.


I do not know science to claim it knows everything about nature, or that all human behaviour can be objectified. In fact, science as I know it, would tell you there is a lot we don't know, and a lot more that we might never know, and that one can't completely know another humans subjective.

Sorry. This is not some wiki stuff. We have identified it suffers from subjective bias, and I've already fallen for that recently. Ask Ronpett777.

OkCornel:
Per the bolded...perhaps, the universe is the subset of the multiverse (which is infinite).

The Universe that resulted from the big bang as its starting point...(that's if the big bang theory is still accepted as the origin of the Universe) therefore tells you that the Universe was created...either by accident (which I don't believe) OR by a program (which we cannot fully grasp and understand)

ZirdoRoray:
Lol.. the earth is not 6k years old as your blabble says. The Earth is 4.6 billion years old and the universe is about 13.82 billion years old.

Scientists are on a race to prove the existence of Aliens. I merely quoted history and you called it pseudoscience.

Tohzara:
Lol. Stressing yourself over what an anonymous person says to you on a faceless forum. Oya, sorry, don't let it get to you. I apologize for hurting your feelings. Didn't know you were sensitive to online jabs.

Sorry. I won't insult you again.

Tohzara:
What is the point of this statement and what does it change? Is the one who designed the website a part of the website or inside it?

What the fücking hell is this? On what basis does anyone arrive at the conclusion that he couldn't have been created because he created an extremely complex universe? How does that follow?

Sorry, I don't understand this.

WHAT DID SCIENCE SAY CAUSED THE BIG BANG, butterflyl1on if you are ready to be cautious, i will go ahead with the faith definition with you. based on science context, faith means either being convinced or having confidence. – http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faith. so we can work along that phenomenon.




Incomprehensible and unintelligible.

Science cannot prove the existence of an immaterial, non-physical entity, because it's founded upon materialism and empiricism. If the whole of reality is physical and material, amenable to scientific study, then your God does not exist.



Do you know the definition of faith?

I was throwing up assumptions to show you that I have alternatives to all your unproven and unprovable fantasies.

Where did I make this claim?

Science cannot call it an impossibility if it cannot or has not observed it. "Science doesn't know yet" is different from "science says it is impossible".



1) When the science make the claim to know what is outside our universe?

2) What is "NOTHING"? Define "NOTHING".



Your claims also have no scientific backing, so what rubbish are you saying?
Moreover, science isn't infallible.

The universe is mindless but purpose driven. Just like a human being is mindless but purpose driven. Because mindless things can be teleological. Even butterflies are mindless but purpose driven.

Tohzara:
What is the point of this statement and what does it change? Is the one who designed the website a part of the website or inside it?

What the fücking hell is this? On what basis does anyone arrive at the conclusion that he couldn't have been created because he created an extremely complex universe? How does that follow?

Sorry, I don't understand this.

WHAT DID SCIENCE SAY CAUSED THE BIG BANG, butterflyl1on if you are ready to be a cautious, i will go ahead with the faith definition with you. based on science context, fait means either being convinced or having confidence. – http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faith. so we can work along that phenomenon.




Incomprehensible and unintelligible.

Science cannot prove the existence of an immaterial, non-physical entity, because it's founded upon materialism and empiricism. If the whole of reality is physical and material, amenable to scientific study, then your God does not exist.



Do you know the definition of faith?

I was throwing up assumptions to show you that I have alternatives to all your unproven and unprovable fantasies.

Where did I make this claim?

Science cannot call it an impossibility if it cannot or has not observed it. "Science doesn't know yet" is different from "science says it is impossible".



1) When the science make the claim to know what is outside our universe?

2) What is "NOTHING"? Define "NOTHING".



Your claims also have no scientific backing, so what rubbish are you saying?
Moreover, science isn't infallible.

The universe is mindless but purpose driven. Just like a human being is mindless but purpose driven. Because mindless things can be teleological. Even butterflies are mindless but purpose driven.

ZirdoRoray:
Mankind was created by a Universal Male God who encourages, war, rape, blood sacrifice, violence, injustice, absurdity and contradictions. He used the jews to kill almost everyone in the Bible and won't hesitate to watch the whole world burn in the lake of fire forever because they did not believe in him. He has the power to end suffering but he keeps on watching because it pleases him and will do as he pleases. It really takes a lot of faith to believe that. Isn't God Wonderful?

On a more humane/logical level, there are two main contending school of thoughts for the existence of humanity.
1. That of evolution. Don't forget the earth is 4.6 billion years old. So that's quite a long time for life to form and a specie to evolve.

2. Alot of Texts written by scholars supports the concept of the
creation of humanity by extra-terrestrials through genetic
engineering.
Humanity was created by extra-terrestrials who needed slave
laborers in the mines. By taking the ovum from a Cro-
Magnon primate and using artificial insemination with a
sperm from one of the Nephilim, we were created. We did not
evolve naturally, as opposed to animals who have overall
better health and immunity. Ancient civilizations were more
advanced than we think. Take the pyramids of Giza as an
example, even present day scientists have difficulty in fully
understanding the science behind the buildings. It is points
to highly advanced Extraterrestrials as the originator of such.
Don't forget there are such pyramids all over the world and
weird enough they all points to the constellation of orion in
the sky. The entire world have always been paganistic and
had similar beliefs of been created by advanced
Extraterrestrials they called Gods. They also state these
Gods taught them civilization.
Most of these got lost in endless wars and global
catastrophes.

Tohzara:
Yeah, yeah, yeah........ I can see all my posts on this thread are filled with insults, indeed.

Please, if you're too sensitive, don't type nonsense on a public forum. If you say something stupid and I call it stupid, there's nothing wrong in that.

If I glorify others for making sense, I should vilify you for saying crap.

FeelDeMusic:
I have five words to say about all this.... this thread is fucking pointless.

Live and let live folks, let us be tolerant and let's not start senseless and alarming virtual fights just because one person believes in God and the other doesn't. Let's not insult, let's not defame, let's not scream. In fact, let's just end this entire thread for all I care.

sonofluc1fer:
Faith is the basis of religion, without faith, no one can see God. lol. thinking outside the box doesn't include giving words new meaning.

Tohzara:
Lol.

You people have a very warped and ridiculous concept of enlightenment, civilization and intelligence.

I'm neither polite nor politically correct, and it's neither a vice nor a flaw. I'll tell you the fücking truth. Forget all that emotional shiit.

Politeness isn't analogous to enlightenment.

sonofluc1fer:
It makes sense, spiritually.

Faith is more powerful than logic. Without faith, how else will you believe an Israelite died for sins you never committed. Say one Adam for one garden for the middle east vex im god, so all the human beings wey full dis world come dey sin, God come send im pikin to die for us, so im fit forgive us.

Faith - the power by which bullshit makes sense. And it's an awesome, awesome drug.... cures all spiritual and physical maladies.. all.. if it doesn't cure yours, check your dosage.

Tohzara:
Seriously, are you for real?

Tohzara:
Nigga, I hope you know this is how madness starts? How can you make a statement like this? How does it sound to you?

vaxx:
ok i will....since we all have different perspective , science work with axioms which aid in experimental of data and logical deduction . these axioms can not be proved and without it science will be meaningless...

If you a lover of Scientific procedure and you do not understand how all scientific findings rest on a foundation of unprovable assumptions, the axioms, then there is a big gap in your basic understanding of how Science works. the starting point of science investigation is rested on assumptions.... there is a coined name for it . it is called hypothesis.

This assumptions is rested on two gigantic faith principle... it goes thus

1 Principle of intelligibility (that secrets of nature can be unlocked by human mind).

2 Principle of objectification. (that all of human experience can be objectified).

so whenever uncertain principle are discover , science suffer a major blow..... for example why is big bang not repeatable, why does it happen once. instead of continues time and so on

You can read further from here ......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_This_Thing_Called_Science%3F

budaatum:
No! We already have a start. Let us not confuse ourselves by creating another start!

You said, "what if i say science evidence is rested on faith".

I said, "explain".

budaatum:
Faith knows nothing! Those who have faith have just, assumed knowledge, mostly based on the little they actually know. What they do is take their insignificant amount of unquestioned accepted facts as the truth of things, and nothing but the truth.

Logic is the art of thinking. I don't know about you, but when I'm thinking of something, I am learning. And when I'm learning, I don't have to assume anymore. I know. That's what I think conscious people do; they think, and thereby, learn.

Logic ensures the limits of what is known keeps getting busted. It allows the 'what we knows', to increase. "Do not build you thought on unsound foundations", after, all says the word?!

First you threw the 'definition of nature' thing at me, then, "you don't know what faith means, buda", now you flinging logic too. Are you trying to distract from explaining, vaxx?

ZirdoRoray:
It was a mistake. I wanted to reply another post. Global warming is a thing of the past. As at late last year, continued declines in ozone depleting emissions are expected to result in a near complete recovery of the ozone layer near themiddle of the 21st century. The long time scale for this recovery is due to the slow rate at which ODS are removed from the atmosphere by natural processes. More the ozone repletion project is on.
Read extensively and you will see that scientists donot expect a successfull colonization of mars any time soon instead the idea will birth more advanced technology to raise the standard of living at result of trying to conquer world with harsh environmental onditions.

ZirdoRoray:
Have you bothered doing proper research to see that one of the major reasons science are dominating Space is to mine for scarce or advanced resources that will quickly solve our problems? This has inspired alot of inventions like solar powered electricity (space-ships were the first to mine solar power before it became mainstream) and other inventions currently in the world's most advanced labs we we will be seeing in the future.
What have your Nigerian "space scientists" done so far?

ScienceWatch:
Awesome Vaxx. Absolutely brilliant !!! Because corrupt scientists have started to believe their own fallacies concerning the Big Bang, they have wasted trillions of dollars on space travel to prove that the Big Bang must be repeatable.

While our planet is suffering, scientists spend trillions on fictional fantasy.

budaatum:
I don't stink. Stop assuming you know the poo in my head!

Give me the definition of faith you want me to work with.

budaatum:
I'll say, "explain yourself".

So, explain yourself please.

Vaxx, how is "Science evidence rested on faith"?

budaatum:
Yes, look how faith moves mountains, while that lazy useless science (which is based on rational thought, which underpins logic), just allows me to type words on a device and the entire world gets to read them!

budaatum:
Yes, look how faith moves mountains, while that lazy useless science (which is based on rational thought, which underpins logic), just allows me to type words on a device and the entire world gets to read them!

butterflyl1on:
And the 7th guy walks in and challenges the entire 6 about the concept of the idea of the painting and describes in detail how he conceived the idea and imagined the painting to be and shared this idea and imagination with the other 6 people but since he was not a painter, could not make it real. So whoever copied his intellectual property out of the other 6 is a fraud while he is the original painter based on his shared idea and shared mental imagery of it.

The chain continues

butterflyl1on:
So many here would disagree with you on this. And here they come

GoodMuyis:
And the sixth guy enter seeing the artistry looks straight at the signatory and said "without even looking at the signatory on the art, I knew the artist because of the regular perceptive of his artwork"

Logic has endless lots of endless twist, BUT faith is simple

ReinaFarine:
Who is to say he is not? Assuming that he is or isn't the artist without any proof is stupidity. Be neutral and ask questions not argumentatively but to learn...
What if he can prove he is?
I am a theist but I'm still open to learning from atheist... If they can explain the happenings I attribute to God and Miracle in the simplest of ways then I'll believe them.

purem:
Why is this two Monickers displaying nobody? WTF?

@vaxx should we continue the relationship after all this

ogyunging:
Lol! Really? OP i hope your not one of those who dont practise what they preach. Enuf respek for you if you really do this. Your post is funny but sensible. I will take one or two lessons from this.