Every Black Hole Contains a New Universe

[bombadil.360]

Anti, the issue is what is evidence really?

example: scientists puts monkeys in sealed room, saturares the room with cannabis-smoke, monkeys die because of lack of oxygen.

conclusion: cannabis smoke is deadly.

evidence that smoking cannabis is lethal.

"evidence" in science is a very tricky thing, specially when the conclusions drawn from such overlap into the political, philosophical and religous aspects of life.

when "scientists" do this, they just become snake-oil pushers.

example: bing bang is a fact; evidence that God does not exist.

again, this is Scientism, not Science.

peace

 

[Anti]

Anti, the issue is what is evidence really?

example: scientists puts monkeys in sealed room, saturares the room with cannabis-smoke, monkeys die because of lack of oxygen.

conclusion: cannabis smoke is deadly.

evidence that smoking cannabis is lethal.

"evidence" in science is a very tricky thing, specially when the conclusions drawn from such overlap into the political, philosophical and religous aspects of life.

when "scientists" do this, they just become snake-oil pushers.

example: bing bang is a fact; evidence that God does not exist.

again, this is Scientism, not Science.

peace

Dude... you're describing bad science. That shit has been debunked for at least 10 years now.

I'll say it again, EVIDENCE is what determines whether a given hypothesis is upgraded to THEORY. Evidence must be repeatable and falsifiable. Anything else is NOT science.... even if they put on a lab coat.

No credible scientists claim big bang is a "fact" that denies the existence of God. Rather, they claim that the big bang is a true scientific theory, supported by evidence that discounts the NEED for a god.

No evidence exists for a god, so science merely takes god out of the equation. This does not mean that science says there is no god.

It merely means there is no EVIDENCE for god.

In over 200+ pages of the now binned "Does God Exist?" thread (which bomb and I both avidly participated in) nobody was even able to agree on a definition of god, much less provide any independently verifiable, falsifiable evidence of God's existence.

 

[bombadil.360]

Dude... you're describing bad science. That shit has been debunked for at least 10 years now.

I'll say it again, EVIDENCE is what determines whether a given hypothesis is upgraded to THEORY. Evidence must be repeatable and falsifiable. Anything else is NOT science.... even if they put on a lab coat.

No credible scientists claim big bang is a "fact" that denies the existence of God. Rather, they claim that the big bang is a true scientific theory, supported by evidence that discounts the NEED for a god.

No evidence exists for a god, so science merely takes god out of the equation. This does not mean that science says there is no god.

It merely means there is no EVIDENCE for god.

In over 200+ pages of the now binned "Does God Exist?" thread (which bomb and I both avidly participated in) nobody was even able to agree on a definition of god, much less provide any independently verifiable, falsifiable evidence of God's existence.

Anti, I've bolded the parts in your post where you actively participate in Scientism.

why would science need to exclude or include God in any 'equation' to begin with?

or why would science even look for evidence of God?

to put it simply:

Real Science deals with How nature works.

Scientism tries to use scientific methodology to either disprove or prove God.

in Real Science, there's not a need to consider whether or not God exists, because its goal has nothing to do with it.

the goal is to reveal how things work in order to produce techniques that in theory are supposed to elevate our quality of life.

for example: we study how plants most efficiently take up nutrients; through trial and error, and we reach a conclusion basing ourselves on the evidence that was unvealed in the trial and error process. the achieved goal would be better fed plants.

no need to consider Why do plants need to feed? or Why are there plants? that would fall outside the interest of scientific study, and it is exactly where peeps loose themselves in scientism.

peace

 

[Anti]

Anti, I've bolded the parts in your post where you actively participate in Scientism.

why would science need to exclude or include God in any 'equation' to begin with?

So if we make theories that don't take god into account, we are excluding god. But if we make theories that DO take god into account, we are including god, right? So there's no way for science to be right because including or excluding god are both wrong?

or why would science even look for evidence of God?

Because science is the attempt to determine where we are and where we came from?

to put it simply:

Real Science deals with How nature works.

Scientism tries to use scientific methodology to either disprove or prove God.

I didn't say anything about science disproving God. I said that there is no evidence for God, so science doesn't include God in theories (such as the big bang theory).

in Real Science, there's not a need to consider whether or not God exists, because its goal has nothing to do with it.

I didn't say that science considers whether or not God exists. I said that there is no evidence that God exists, so science does not consider God as a theory.

the goal is to reveal how things work in order to produce techniques that in theory are supposed to elevate our quality of life.

The goal is to construct models of our world that can be verified, so that we can better understand the world we live in. As new evidence arrives, old models are modified or discarded in order to better understand the world we live in.

When there is a new discovery, the UNIVERSE hasn't changed... our MODELS of the universe have changed.

peace

Peace!

 

[bombadil.360]

So if we make theories that don't take god into account, we are excluding god. But if we make theories that DO take god into account, we are including god, right? So there's no way for science to be right because including or excluding god are both wrong?



Because science is the attempt to determine where we are and where we came from?



I didn't say anything about science disproving God. I said that there is no evidence for God, so science doesn't include God in theories (such as the big bang theory).



I didn't say that science considers whether or not God exists. I said that there is no evidence that God exists, so science does not consider God as a theory.



The goal is to construct models of our world that can be verified, so that we can better understand the world we live in. As new evidence arrives, old models are modified or discarded in order to better understand the world we live in.



Peace!

Science, by academic definitions, does not relate to an "attempt to determine where we are and where we came from", as you put it.

that's called Philosophy btw. philosophy 101: where do we come from? where are we? where are we going?

you go on to say that: "I said that there is no evidence that God exists, so science does not consider God as a theory"

again, it's irrelevant to true science whether or not God exists, so if there is or if there is not any evidence of God, real science has no use for it.

and yet again, you say: "The goal is to construct models of our world that can be verified, so that we can better understand the world we live in"

that's also called Philosophy, not Science.

Science makes hypotheses and theses, in order to eventually be able to manufacture Techniques a.k.a Technology, out of the understanding of How nature works.

anything else is pure Scientism or simply termed as bullshit

time to go eat dinner now.

peace!

 

[Anti]

. OOPS. Double post.

 

[Anti]

What is science?

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1] In an older and closely related meaning (found, for example, in Aristotle), "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained (see History and philosophy below).[2] Since classical antiquity science as a type of knowledge was closely linked to philosophy. In the early modern era the words "science" and "philosophy" were sometimes used interchangeably in the English language. By the 17th century, natural philosophy (which is today called "natural science") was considered a separate branch of philosophy.[3] However, "science" continued to be used in a broad sense denoting reliable knowledge about a topic, in the same way it is still used in modern terms such as library science or political science.

In modern use, "science" more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is "often treated as synonymous with ‘natural and physical science’, and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use."[4] This narrower sense of "science" developed as scientists such as Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton began formulating laws of nature such as Newton's laws of motion. In this period it became more common to refer to natural philosophy as "natural science". Over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated with scientific method, a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology. It is in the 19th century also that the term scientist was created by the naturalist-theologian William Whewell to distinguish those who sought knowledge on nature from those who sought knowledge on other disciplines. The Oxford English Dictionary dates the origin of the word "scientist" to 1834. This sometimes left the study of human thought and society in a linguistic limbo, which was resolved by classifying these areas of academic study as social science. Similarly, several other major areas of disciplined study and knowledge exist today under the general rubric of "science", such as formal science and applied science.

Have a nice dinner!

 

[Snoopster]

I knew this was going to devolve into a God discussion, sigh.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

Anti, the issue is what is evidence really?

example: scientists puts monkeys in sealed room, saturares the room with cannabis-smoke, monkeys die because of lack of oxygen.

conclusion: cannabis smoke is deadly.

evidence that smoking cannabis is lethal.

"evidence" in science is a very tricky thing, specially when the conclusions drawn from such overlap into the political, philosophical and religous aspects of life.

when "scientists" do this, they just become snake-oil pushers.

example: bing bang is a fact; evidence that God does not exist.

again, this is Scientism, not Science.

peace

ya, but I don't post that crap from bad scientists. If they work for a corporation like nutri-sweet or phillip-morris then they really have no credibility.

 

[Mia]

Science, by academic definitions, does not relate to an "attempt to determine where we are and where we came from", as you put it.

that's called Philosophy btw. philosophy 101: where do we come from? where are we? where are we going?

you go on to say that: "I said that there is no evidence that God exists, so science does not consider God as a theory"

again, it's irrelevant to true science whether or not God exists, so if there is or if there is not any evidence of God, real science has no use for it.

and yet again, you say: "The goal is to construct models of our world that can be verified, so that we can better understand the world we live in"

that's also called Philosophy, not Science.

Science makes hypotheses and theses, in order to eventually be able to manufacture Techniques a.k.a Technology, out of the understanding of How nature works.

anything else is pure Scientism or simply termed as bullshit

time to go eat dinner now.

peace!

You have a poor grasp of the scientific method if you don't think that hypotheses and theories are our models of reality.

 

[bombadil.360]

Anti, for what purpose do scientists gather information on how nature works? to apply it. this application of knowledge of how nature works is called technology. this systematic accumulation of testable knowledge is how we make technology, that is science, period.

snoop, on the contrary, the idea is to take the discussion into pure science, rather than scientism, where the subject of whether or not there is God has "pertinence".

Mia, in real science, hyptheses and theses are just that, hypotheses and theses. what really counts is knowledge that can be applied pragmatically and empirically i.e: technology.

 

[Mia]

No.
There are a myriad of reasons why scientists do what they do.
Some do what they do for "technological" purposes, as you put it, but on the deepest level we do science because it seems to be the best method available for understanding the physical world we reside in.
We do science because we want to understand how the world works. That is the real motivation.
And so do philosophers, but their methodologies are different.
Theirs are purely intellectual.
Einstein did not develop General Relativity so that he could make you a GPS system to drive down the road. He did it because he wanted to understand how light, gravity, and the universe worked. There was nothing material about his motivations.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

^I do science to grow the dankest shit available.

 

[Fluffy Clouds]

to black holes, new universes and holes generally i read such short novel, where main hero was just young guy, who is fucking neighbor´s wife.. she was his sexual teacher, and once husband came from work earlier than usual... and guy has no chance to escape except to pussy.. and indeed he did it... he was in wet wet cave.. but he ran and suddenly he saw grafiti on sides of cave.. he met some other guys and they discovered whole big town there... he had success there, career, wife and children. but he was fucking his chiefs wife and then chief was coming in... and he had no other chance than escape to.. and he did

so you can see whole new universes every day in our ordinary lives... not only in distant space..

p.s. yes i really read it.. and no, im not horny or perverse

 

[dagnabit]

Anti, for what purpose do scientists gather information on how nature works? to apply it. this application of knowledge of how nature works is called technology. this systematic accumulation of testable knowledge is how we make technology, that is science, period.
.

no sometimes it is just to know.
to understand.

to "grok"

science for the sake thereof. not for any practical application. just to learn for the sake of learning.
to explore for exploration's sake.

ever take a radio apart just to see whats inside?

 

[Snoopster]

scientia gratia scientiae

 

[Anti]

to "grok"

One of my favorite novels of all time.

 

[ShroomDr]

the only 'science' to 'god' is that there is any organization at all.

This doesnt mean 'god' knocked up Jebus's mother, only that their are a bunch of 'rules' that 'science' attempts to quantify.

Gravity, strong force, weak force, electromagnetism, they all seem to follow certain 'rules'. 'Science' is the (attempted) explanation of these rules, and often leads to our exploitation of our understandings. (ie We understand the difference between graphite and diamond is only their atomic structure. The softest and hardest things are both made from the same element.)

The one and ONLY scientific argument FOR god, is 'something' was the 'rule maker'.

But this does not give 'carte blanche' to say "intelligent design" has an active hand in anyones life, human creation, etc.

Science is pretty fucking good; SCIENCE considers gravity a THEORY. It is NOT called the FACT of GRAVITY, yet i wont be doubting its effects on me.


-

 

[texsativa]

Well, science does attempt to describe and unlock the mysteries of our universe. In essence, science is our attempt to understand how God created us and the universe. Truth is truth. Science doesn't prove or disprove God.

 

[Anti]

Well, science does attempt to describe and unlock the mysteries of our universe. In essence, science is our attempt to understand the universe. Truth is truth. Science doesn't prove or disprove God.

I deleted a few words from the sentence bolded to reflect the ways in which I agree with your statement.