Topic: Understanding the problem solving process
July 19, 2019 / By Cierra Question:
Like the ones in here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_pr...
And then claim that goddidit, since science doesn't answer everything? How do they know that god did it? Why are they sure it was a particular brand of god (namely, *their* god), and not some other type of god that did it? Why do they assume that such a god, if existing, must necessarily be known and/or knowable and intelligible?
Why do they dismiss currently accepted (yet still problematic) models *completely* and then replace it with whatever hodgepodge theory they got out of a book written by fallible men? I mean, surely, if you solve 2+2 and get 5 one would think you'd try and refine the process so that it's closer to the truth, instead of throwing everything out and writing '2+2=cabbage' because some old book said so.
Also, why do they believe that such a god, if it exists, needs worship? An eternal, omnipotent, omniscient being needing worship or else his ego gets hurt. Absurd?
Seriously, I'd like at least some coherent explanation.
@God is my Salvation
"whats absurd is your belief you know what god would really want"
Precisely. Thanks for making my point for me.
Ok. So science tells us that 2+2=5. And what do you do? You subsequently throw everything out and write 2+2=cabbage.
If science is flawed, why not try to improve it, instead offhandedly dismissing EVERYTHING, (and trust me, dismissing evolution would be pretty close to dismissing everything from paleontology to nuclear physics) and writing something stupid instead?
And even supposing that you just throw everything out because you don't like that 2+2=5 how come you choose to write 2+2=cabbage, and not, say, 2+2=plywood? Why not 2+2 = dirty water? why not 2+2 = baboomzinga?
How do you choose between nonsenses? At least the scientific method is internally coherent. Religion and faith are not even internally coherent.
Ok I see your point, but that still makes short work of all gnostic religions. Which are, pretty much all of them. If god is the mechanic of the Universe, why oppose science then? If god didn't leave us a user's manual for the Universe, then *someone* has to learn how to drive the damned thing.
And if god did leave us an user's manual for the Universe, it is certainly not any of the holy books I know, since they are at the very best vague and with no predictive power, and at worst, demonstrably wrong.
What use is an user's manual that doesn't tell you which is the acceleration pedal, until you actually discover it and then claims that it was in there 'all along', you just didn't understand it. Or an user manual who tells you the the ceiling light is actually made of cheese, and when you try to eat it, it backtracks and claims it was only 'metaphor'?
Or a user manual who claims that your car doesn't even matter, and that when you die, you'll get an entirely different new awesome car? But only if you read the current user manual and believe that you will get an awesome new car.
Point one: Evolution is different from abiogenesis.Careful, your ignorance is showing.
Point two: Evolution relies on two physical models. One is molecular chemistry, and chemistry is only applied physics. Two, is radioactive dating. If you disregard radioactive dating, you dispute nuclear decay. If you dispute nuclear decay, you pretty much dispute all atomic physics since Rutherford since. That is, about 150 years worth of science with NOTHING to put into place.
Point three: Evolution isn't even an unsolved problem in science. I was talking about other, more esoteric properties of our Universe, which aren't as readily understood, or even, possibly even unknowable. (I mentioned evolution in passing, since your original response was so mind-numbingly ignorant that I felt obliged to correct you.)
The fact that you are disputing established science shows how much backwardly ignorant you remained. For f's sake, scientists are now debating what causes the bre
Azura | 2 days ago
No, they also say "God did it" regardless if science gives an explanation because they believe God is the "mechanic" behind the whole mechanism of the physical world. That's why people will even say that the existence of a creator god and evolutionary thought isn't necessarily contradictory, however to go that route would mean a different god than the bible.
Scientists can say all they want about HOW the universe works, but the theists will still insist to tell you WHY the universe even exists in the first place.. "God did it!".
Your mathematical analogy is wrong, saying "God did it" doesn't solve anything, it only tells you who came up with the calculation. If 2 + 2 = 5, it would still be 5, regardless if God did it or not. Saying "God did it" is more like saying: GOD = 5. Actually a better analogy would be that it's like reading a mathematical word problem about someone paying a certain amount of money and then saying "don't worry about it, he payed the money, that's what's important". LOL
You're assuming the bible is supposed to be some self-help book when it's not. It's more like a love letter intended to form a relationship between you and God.
I sometimes compare impaired faith to "spiritual autism", you figured out how the physical world works and you follow rules to the letter, but without understanding how spiritual influences on the mind work. If the mental states of others seem imaginary, then spiritual influences seem even much more so. Although even the "spiritually autistic" pantheists understand volitional states and "cause and effect". The purpose of the bible is to show us the "theory of mind" of God. Spirituality concerns itself with belief-based thoughts and faith in God is the ultimate understanding of how our beliefs predetermine our own actions and our destiny.
What you believe about God, your picture or "image of God", will ultimately be reflected in how we live our lives. The problem of course is everyone wants to make their own image of god and thus everyone seems to follow different rules.
Coherent explanation? You mean like man came from apes with out any help? Is that not the same as a frog into a prince? They say those things because in reality it takes a person to make things happen. Why are people trying to believe nothing; can and did everything? Is that not what magic truly is? Something out of nothing? Why do you find it so hard to believe that you need a baker to make a cake? Why and how is it logical to believe cake appears without a baker? In order for life to exist you need parents. Why is it that people believe that because a scientist creates life in a lab disproves a creator? Did it not take a scientist to create the life? Does that not make him a creator?
The theory of zero is a big joke. An event occurs with out a cause is belief in magic. That is not science. Everything has a cause. We just can not always explain why. Stephen Hawking's gave an example of this theory by equating it to a hole being dug. The hole being dug creates a mountain equivalent to the amount of dirt removed to create the hole. This he said is proof you can have an effect with out a cause. Tell me who dug the hole? If anything this theory proves one had to do it. You can't have a hole create a mountain with out looking for a cause.
Real science is seeking cause after an effect or causing an effect that is desired to either duplicate or create something new. Magic is something from nothing. That is an effect with out a cause. How is evolution an answer to anything scientific if it's only answer is something came from nothing? How is that a scientific answer?
Never said 2+2 = 5 or cabbage. You are an ignorant fool. I think outside the box and would realize that 2.5 + 2.5=5 I would correct the question. The answer does not always have to be the answer, sometimes the question needs to be changed to be the right question. If there is no answer then you need to ask the right question. You have failed. Evolution has nothing to do with physics. Ask any physicist. A computer evolved not on it's own you know. It took knowledge built upon previously learned knowledge. The Abacus was the first computer. Before the abacus what was there but knowledge obtained.
Evolution would have you believe an abacus appeared out of nothing.
Time, a thirst for understanding and clinical study are the solutions for unsolved clinical complications. Bible/religions are extra of a undertaking even if in putting forward that, many spectacular clinical discoveries were made contained in the hunt for the principles of religions and their books.
God of the gaps.
If I had a dollar for every evolution and big bang question that has been asked....
Well I wouldn't be on R&S.
Because people don't like uncertainty. God is simple, easy. That doesn't make him real, but I do see the appeal that religion can have.