Take more drugs.
See if you can figure out how to get to the Refrigerator.
Anyone who says something as asinine as "religion and science are the same thing" clearly has absolutely no understanding of even the basic fundamentals of either subject.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16135487]Anyone who says something as asinine as "religion and science are the same thing" clearly has absolutely no understanding of even the basic fundamentals of either subject.[/QUOTE]
excuse me while I perform the rebuttal so that he doesn't have to: NUH UH ONLY PSILOPHICALY!
I guess you missed the whole philosophical part of it.
All I said is that both science and religion are just concepts. There is absolutely no way you can say that either one is right or wrong, because it's just made up in our minds.
[quote]haha [/quote]
Great argument.
[QUOTE=Turrngait;16135495]excuse me while I perform the rebuttal so that he doesn't have to: NUH UH ONLY PSILOPHICALY![/QUOTE]
Mind you in complete contradiction to the fact that science has absolutely no hand in any form of philosophical thought. Philosophy being subjective and science being objective.
[editline]08:16AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Doriol;16135501]I guess you missed the whole philosophical part of it.[/QUOTE]
haha
you're wrong
[QUOTE=Doriol;16135439]It doesn't take a college degree to see that religion and science are both one and the same, philosophically.[/QUOTE]
I see what you mean. Science is the same to religion because it does state a few facts of the world but with the rest it is unclear of it's truth. With Religion this is the same thing with the ratio of truths and unclear facts except on a smaller scale.
[QUOTE=jusmumbo;16133867]Here is what I think. The universe is part of a system of other universes all which are the same except for one difference, they all have different probability that is that what happens in one doesn't happen in another. Now these are the universes which are basically doppelgangers only differing in their probability which are contained within one great dimension known as a 'Multiverse'.
There are more of these Multiverses with their own natural laws, so what I am saying is that in our Multiverse there is the doppelganger thing with the universes but in other Multiverses things might be abit different (i.e. they are very different, they don't expand, some expand but some implode etc.) or if they don't have the natural law allowing for the containment of universes then they are just dimensions. This could be due to different energies, the differing 'behaviour' of atomic particles in these dimensions (i.e. they are different to protons, neutrons and others etc.) or something else possibly.
These great dimensions are all part of one Grand Reality known as an Omniverse. This translates to 'All Reality'. This is probably a mass reality constantly expanding because of the rapid multiplication and destruction of dimensions within it.
Now I am studying cosmology and abit of quantum physics so honestly my understanding of this whole subject is moderate so please be nice about your criticisms. What do you think of my theory? Does it sound logical?[/QUOTE]
You suck, and you don't know shit about the Universe.
[QUOTE=Lukus-NAESA(R);16136222]You suck, and you don't know shit about the Universe.[/QUOTE]
Very, very little is known about the universe as it is. All we have is theories. His aren't as outlandish as you think.
[QUOTE=aVoN;16135427]Proof the difference.
Actually, the fact our Universe is so damn finetuned to allow us living in it implicates the multiverse hypothesis. This is called anthropic principle.[/QUOTE]
Isn't the anthropic principle more, "the only reason we can question our existence and why the universe is so perfect is because it is. If it wasn't; we couldn't?" than, "the many-worlds interpretation must be correct because the way our universe is is a statistical improbability"?
[QUOTE=Doriol;16136433]Very, very little is known about the universe as it is. All we have is theories. His aren't as outlandish as you think.[/QUOTE]
And his theories are very messed up.
[QUOTE=Doriol;16135439]It doesn't take a college degree to see that religion and science are both one and the same, philosophically.[/QUOTE]
pfsitsbnbnahbahaha
[QUOTE=Doriol;16136433]I know very little about the universe as it is, not to mention modern science and current theories[/QUOTE]
fixed
"Multiverse" is really stupid fucking word.
Universe means everything that exists, had existed, and will exist. You can't have more than one, because it's EVERYTHING.
[QUOTE=sltungle;16136517]Isn't the anthropic principle more, "the only reason we can question our existence and why the universe is so perfect is because it is. If it wasn't; we couldn't?" than, "the many-worlds interpretation must be correct because the way our universe is is a statistical improbability"?[/QUOTE]
You are right. Had the wrong word in my head.
[editline]05:23PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=tomahawk2;16138074]"Multiverse" is really stupid fucking word.
Universe means everything that exists, had existed, and will exist. You can't have more than one, because it's EVERYTHING.[/QUOTE]
That definition is outdated. The correct word you describe now is Omniverse where there can be per definition only one.
Our universe is one possible configuration under many. And this configuration is so damn less probable that it would be foolish not to take many other universe into account.
Either you say a "god" (in metaphorical sense) created our universe (which then brings the question, "why is there a god" - It only shifts the problem. It does not solve it) or you take into account that our universe is one under many which do exist.
The set of these Universes is called the Multiverse. The different universes can overlap or be "separated".
There can even be multiple Multiverse.
Anyway, the last instance of all (if there any further after Multiverse) is the Ominiverse.
[QUOTE=Doriol;16135387]I'm pretty sure most atheists are anti-religious.
And people do blindly believe in science. Religious people say "we're right, you're wrong." Scientists say the same thing. Neither side is right or wrong.
Science is just as much as a man-made concept used to attempt to comprehend the world as religion is.[/QUOTE]
But unlike religion, science is constantly changing. Scientists do not uniformly say "we're right, you're wrong", they doubt their own theories, and constantly try to put them to the test. Science is evolving, and approaching a more accurate model of the universe everyday. This is something religion is not doing.
Religion is a static view of the universe with an uncertain accuracy. Science is a constantly changing model of the universe with constant challenges to the accepted views by scientists.
Science is dynamic and the pursuit of truth, while religion is static and uncertain.
[QUOTE=Uberkat;16145045]But unlike religion, science is constantly changing. Scientists do not uniformly say "we're right, you're wrong", they doubt their own theories, and constantly try to put them to the test. Science is evolving, and approaching a more accurate model of the universe everyday. This is something religion is not doing.
Religion is a static view of the universe with an uncertain accuracy. Science is a constantly changing model of the universe with constant challenges to the accepted views by scientists.
Science is dynamic and the pursuit of truth, while religion is static and uncertain.[/QUOTE]
Why did someone give this person a dumb rating? This is quite logical and makes alot of sense to me. Whoever gave the dumb rating clearly is just too stupid and/or ignorant to even understand the main topic and discussions in this thread.
This is not a theory, it's hardly even a bad hypothesis.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16135405]Because even the greatest philosophers got their inspiration by tripping balls.[/QUOTE]
Where is the evidence for this? They could have just be really smart.
Explaining how it all began is difficult so we create infinite levels of universe just to delay the explanation.
Stupid.
Everything, call it multiverse, omniverse, space, whatever was created when time was created.
Obviosly. So time has the answer to how it was all created.
Or not... who knows?
'multiverses' wouldn't exist, the universe is [b]EVERYTHING[/b]
[QUOTE=Doriol;16136433]Very, very little is known about the universe as it is. All we have is theories. His aren't as outlandish as you think.[/QUOTE]
Science and Religion are nothing alike besides the fact they are methods for explaining things.. Science looks at evidence to deduce what is going on from what is detectable and what we already know. Religion is 2000 year old science with no evidence. "Hurp durp something must have made us" - religious people.
This is not theory, this is just guessing.
My theory is that the big bang was actually the creation of a singularity inside a black hole, which would mean that back holes themselves could be a "gateway" to another universe.
there is another way: there is no need for everything to have a definite beginning
can you name at least one thing that without doubt has a distinct start or end?
even protons when they decay fall apart into pions and positrons. they just change their form.
as for the universe - perhaps there was a huge universe, just like ours before the big bang that finally collapsed, formed the supermassive singularity that subsequently exploded. there're some hypothesis, however by the process of elimination we can rule the ridiculous ones out.
Edit: to the post above - black holes are just super dense balls of matter, nothing more. it's not like they are holes or wormholes of any kind
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;16134690]:wtc:[/QUOTE]
.
[QUOTE=kirderf;16158549]This is not theory, this is just guessing.[/QUOTE]
All theories start with guessing.
[QUOTE=Doriol;16160275]All theories start with guessing.[/QUOTE]
First of all, it isn't a theory at that point. Second of all, it's not guessing. They try to find out the best explanation based on the information they already have. Then they try to find out if it's possible by experiments.
It's still guessing either way.
K so in another universe you wont have this idea and you will shut up
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.