science fiction and it's rightful place

[mescalito4]

"Why does everyone put such stock in carbon dating? What if it's inaccurate? What if dinosaurs didn't exist billions of years ago? What if they co-existed with man? Sacrilege!"Quote

What if it's not even about the technologies accuracy as much as it is about the basic way we view reality (the assumptions that are in play). Amitt Goswami (Quantum Consciousness founding scientist) has introduced to the world of physics ideas that put into question our most basic assumptions i.e. retroactive causation- if true would prove that time does not have a linear flow(the chicken before the egg),
I'm surprised so many of you are pro god anti science- not what I expected

[magictrick]

You say your spiritual, but you indicate that you don't believe in God. You call him a "giant sky man." God isn't a giant sky man, he is someone whom the human mind is simply incapable of fully understanding. Try to understand everything in the both known and unknown universe, and that will pale in comparison to God. I believe that science cannot explain everything, but it can explain a lot. The problem is, people have to accept that science can and will be flawed. Why does everyone put such stock in carbon dating? What if it's inaccurate? What if dinosaurs didn't exist billions of years ago? What if they co-existed with man? Sacrilege! People will think you're an idiot. They will not listen to the argument. Why? Science is their religion. As for God telling people, God doesn't tell people what to think. Rather, he simply has rules for how to live happily. All he really asks of us is that we don't indulge in sin, AKA rebel against God.

Through this line of reasoning you could put into question everything that has been discovered due to science. Why is it called gravity? What if it doesn't work that way? What if E=mc^2 isn't accurate? What if Newton's 3 laws aren't true?

People won't think you're an idiot if you have proof to contradict any of the above. They might however label you one if you just disagree with them for the sake of disagreement.

The most interesting aspect about science is the fact that its constantly evolving and new things are being discovered. What we think is true now might not be so two centuries from now. The fact that we could be wrong shouldn't dissuade us from continuing to expand our knowledge. Hey, remember when everyone thought the Earth was flat and thinking otherwise made you an idiot?

[mescalito4]

it made you a heretic. I don't think it's enough to just believe in god either it seems to me to be a far more active process fraught with far more peril and doubt than most "religious" people would like to acknowledge (more than most religions would acknowledge). Science is purifying in that sense it freed western civilization up to find out for itself what reality is all about. Maybe its God maybe its not science opened the door for me to make that statement.

[Snowman37]

I'm surprised so many of you are pro god anti science- not what I expected

I'm not anti-science. Man is flawed, man created the scientific method, so naturally... science will be flawed. I am not against science, I just ask that people recognize that it can be inherently flawed from time to time.

Through this line of reasoning you could put into question everything that has been discovered due to science. Why is it called gravity? What if it doesn't work that way? What if E=mc^2 isn't accurate? What if Newton's 3 laws aren't true?

Why not put into question everything that has been discovered via science? I'm not saying it's wrong, but rather... there is no harm re-evaluating man's discoveries. Aren't scientific discoveries often proven wrong? I don't care what gravity is called; but to my knowledge, the greater the mass, the greater gravity is. Well, what if there were other methods to generate gravity? Oh wait, centrifugal force! Anyway, I think you get my point. Science isn't bad, it just needs to be re-evaluated from time to time.

People won't think you're an idiot if you have proof to contradict any of the above. They might however label you one if you just disagree with them for the sake of disagreement.

What if you could disprove carbon dating accuracy beyond a few thousand years into the past, mathematically adjust the carbon dating numbers, and consequently fit prehistorical dates into a Biblical timeline by reusing the same mathematical formula over and over. I wonder, what would that mean to people? Presuming it could be proven.

The most interesting aspect about science is the fact that its constantly evolving and new things are being discovered. What we think is true now might not be so two centuries from now.

Bingo, the entire point of my argument.

The fact that we could be wrong shouldn't dissuade us from continuing to expand our knowledge. Hey, remember when everyone thought the Earth was flat and thinking otherwise made you an idiot?

Well said. The pursuit of scientific understanding in and of itself is not flawed, people just have to accept that our current understanding may be. 8)

[LT. COL. John Sheppard]

What, that science is bad?

in the way of saying that science is 'the grand creator' then it's as Ukko said, The Devil

[The Urban Spaceman]

Irrelevant, something can be revered as godlike regardless of whether one believes in God. It's called idolizing.

I meant "not really, no" about it being "a little creepy" that people idolise science. You find it creepy because you see people worshipping science as you worship god. I don't find it creepy because I don't see people worshipping science and I don't worship god.

Also, you don't seem to know much about spirituality.

Excuse me? You know absolutely nothing about me, and yet you judge me on a single post? I find that incredibly offensive. I may not know much about the Christian god, but that doesn't mean I'm not a spiritual person. Please keep in mind that your deity is not the only one, and Christianity is not the only single valid religion or spiritual following in this world.

Believing in and worshiping God is not about spiritual satisfaction.

And you speak for all Christians on this?

I personally can't tell you why all buddhists or taoists follow the path, but I do know that my own reasons are probably quite different from the next guy. Some look to better themselves in this life, some in the next. Some seek to make others happy, some to walk the path of neutrality. Some are looking for atonement or enlightenment or simply to find something that speaks to them and gives them answers without asking them to conform to a set of restrictive rules.

Does this make me and my spirituality more accepting and open-minded than you and your religion? I don't know. All I know is that I'm not the one in this thread judging people and speaking for entire groups.

There are stories of people having been cured from disease, injury, and disability through divine intervention.

Here, there are stories of princesses being cursed with unending sleep and woken by handsome princes. There are stories of brave knights doing battles with fearsome dragons. I like to think that such stories and parables are designed to guide us, open our minds, and entertain us.

People have had scientific epiphanies which can come from God.

Which they perceive to have come from god. If they believe that, then good for them. I'm not going to try and change their minds.

What you call deistic worship and obedience to a higher power, I call having a relationship with God.

Call it as you wish.

How could I know put the creator of the universe above all else? Why wouldn't I obey or try to obey the one who created everything?! I mean, what more is there than God himself? He's it! Granted, this comes from a believer and not a skeptic

Amusing that you entertain the notion that perhaps science and carbon-dating can be wrong, that there is absolutely definitely something "beyond" science, and yet you're entirely blind to the possibility that maybe you are wrong, that perhaps there is something more than what you perceive as god. Isn't that hypocrisy? Can't you even open your mind to the slight chance that perhaps god is not the be-all end-all? That there is something more?

but isn't that what a message board is for? An exchange of ideas?

Actually I mostly come here for pics of sexy ships.

You say your spiritual, but you indicate that you don't believe in God.

Yes, this concept seems to be flummoxing you. You see, as I explained before, there are many religions or spiritualities that do not hold belief in a deity. So unlike Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, there is no worship of a deity. That is to say, we don't believe in your god. Or any god, actually. I'd be happy to explain this further to you if you require any more detailed clarification.

You call him a "giant sky man."

I'm sorry if you found this offensive. It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Just as how referring to science as "a measuring system" was supposed to be tongue in cheek.

God isn't a giant sky man, he is someone whom the human mind is simply incapable of fully understanding. Try to understand everything in the both known and unknown universe, and that will pale in comparison to God.

Wonderful.

I believe that science cannot explain everything, but it can explain a lot. The problem is, people have to accept that science can and will be flawed.

I accept that science can and will be flawed. A hundred years ago, scientists laughed at Alfred Wegener and his controvercial theory of continental drift. Then during the second world war, detailed mapping of the sea floor and advances in paleomagnetism vindicated Wegener and proved that sea-floor spreading is real.

But I find the Christian insistence that science can be wrong yet a book written by men, printed by men and read by men, to explain a concept they perceive to be God, cannot possibly flawed, to be both offensive and egotistical. On many forums I've frequented over the years, you always find Christians loudly proclaiming about god and debasing science and trying to insist that They Are Right and Everybody Else Is Wrong. That is why I enjoy spiritual religions, as opposed to deistic religions. Most spiritual religions are a journey self-discovery and self-improvement and spiritual acceptance, and as a result adherents tend to be mroe accommodating to people of other religions, or no religions at all. It's quite safe to say that I have nothing against Christianity or the concept of god -- the only thing I do not like is Christians who feel the need to remind everybody of god every 5 minutes. If I wanted to be force-fed ideas, I'd go back to primary school.

Why does everyone put such stock in carbon dating?

Because it's proved quite accurate so far. As in, scientists have carbon-dated objects of known age and had results that concur with fact.

What if it's inaccurate?

What if it's accurate?

What if dinosaurs didn't exist billions of years ago?

What if they did?

What if they co-existed with man?

They did not. Cave paintings drawn during the stone age depict the lives of our ancestors. They show people hunting bison and megaceros and aurochs and woolly mammoths, and living beside cave lions and sabre tooth tigers and cave bears. I rather think that if hundred-metre-high repitiles had been around at the time, there would have been a single painting to show this. Furthermore, much of the stone age took place during the last glacial period. That is to say, the last ice-age. What parts of the northern hemisphere weren't covered in ice were periglacial tundra consisting of standing hay in summer and permafrost ground in winter. Dinosaurs, being reptile or early avian, were predominantly cold blooded creatures. Common sense alone should tell you that if they weren't dead before this period, they were certainly extinct by the end of it.

Sacrilege! People will think you're an idiot. They will not listen to the argument. Why? Science is their religion.

It is a fine loop-hole that Christians have. They can mock scientists when a piece of science is proven incorrect, but they can never be proven incorrect themselves because there is no proof that god exists. If there was proof, there would be no requirement for belief, and the whole religion would be obsolete. It is akin to me claiming that a giant pink invisible ethereal elephant is standing right behind me. How can you prove it doesn't exist? It's invisible, so it can't be seen. It's ethereal, so it can't be felt or measured. The only difference is, god is backed by powerful men, and the pink elephant has only me.

As for God telling people, God doesn't tell people what to think. Rather, he simply has rules for how to live happily. All he really asks of us is that we don't indulge in sin, AKA rebel against God.

I'm glad you see it that way.

Fair enough. You could argue that being spiritual does not necessarily necessitate believing in God.

I don't have to 'argue' it. It is reality. And the fact that you can so casually dismiss the millions of buddhists, taoists, confuscianists.... oh, why am I repeating myself? See first post. Spirituality DOES NOT require god.

Would you call me spiritual? Just curious.

No, I would call you religious.

Though I really like Stargate and the whole ascension thing, I didn't like how pagan the show got at times. It never acknowledged God and Christ, even through one character simply believing. It would have been nice of at least one random guy in the background on SG-whatever had been a Christian. Then there was the whole Ori saga, a little bit offensive. Personally, I saw it as an attack on Catholicism and Islam than anything else.

How you interpret what you see is up to you.

[Goose]

It is akin to me claiming that a giant pink invisible ethereal elephant is standing right behind me. How can you prove it doesn't exist? It's invisible, so it can't be seen. It's ethereal, so it can't be felt or measured. The only difference is, god is backed by powerful men, and the pink elephant has only me.

Dude, there's a giant red invisible ethereal elephant standing right behind me, I wonder if it's related to your giant pink invisible ethereal elephant?

[The Urban Spaceman]

Bigods, they're multiplying!

[Goose]

Bigods, they're multiplying!

And magically changing colours in the process!

[Ukko]

And magically changing colours in the process!

I'll saddle up my unicorn and hunt them.

[Goose]

I'll saddle up my unicorn and hunt them.

How will you find them if they're invisible?

[Ukko]

How will you find them if they're invisible?

Hmmmm. I guess i'll have to fire around wildly and hope for the best.

[Goose]

Hmmmm. I guess i'll have to fire around wildly and hope for the best.

*ducks*

[Ukko]

*ducks*

*Geese*

[The Urban Spaceman]

It's okay. Unicorns, being magical creatures themselves, have the innate ability to detect invisibility.

It explains a lot.