Crazy Monday Poll - A serious one

[AceLosesKing]

Just wanted to see that I'm enjoying the back and forth that's going on in this thread

[Swanky]

Nice work Coleman.

[Shannon]

I believe because I want too.

Religion is where it all comes undone.

I also believe in lots of other things mentioned in this thread. There are some very interesting ideas and theories out there..... of which I believe some of it can be true.

[Adrian]

what the? you dont think this is weird?

No, of course it's not weird. If I believe in God, how can I possibly find this weird? I can get my head around it quite easily.

adrian, who tries to answer everything with science? physics it the study of the way the observable universe works. thats all.

Oh, like trying to understand the origin of the universe and life is something other than everything? What is it then if it's not everything?

so if someone screams in the forest, and noone hears it, does he really scream? of course he bloody does.

My point precisely. Whose side are you on, your side, or mine?

I'm the one saying that non-observable things still exist. It seems we agree.

you are confusing "observation" with human senses. observation in this case means measurement. nothing to do with our own eyes and ears.

But it has everything to do with it. We observed the existence of light. We observed that it exists in certain wavelengths. And that different wavelengths of light will result in different colours being seen. We then discovered that certain wavelengths exist beyond what is visible, and we constructed apparatus to measure and observe these other wavelengths. The only reason we managed to "discover" these other forms of electromagnetic radiation is because they exist on the same scale as visible light, just with differing wavelengths. So we then constructed something which could measure different wavelengths, and found these other light forms which we never previously knew existed.

So it all comes back to the initial observation, and extrapolation from there. Nothing can just be imagined out of nowhere, it's always based on our initial observation with the senses that we have.

The problem with this approach (and it is, of course, the only approach at our disposal) is that other things which exist outside the "normal" properties will probably never be "discovered". Because we aren't even able to imagine the nature of them.

So I'm not really confusing anything. It's all part of the same thing.

what are you arguing here? of course there are things that we cannot see. this can be for 2 reasons. firstly, is we dont have instruments capable enough to see these things.

secondly, these things lie outside the realm of science.

Ah, I don't think it does lie outside the realm of science.

The role of science is to expand human knowledge about the universe and everything within it. What other role could it have?

im sorry adrian, but do you really believe that everything cannot be proven? that is really quite silly man.

No need to be sorry. Yes, as you just said, everything cannot be proven. Some things can be proven, some things can be reasonably proven with a small element of doubt, and some things will never be proven. Because they will never be able to be observed or measured.

science doesn't pretend to know everything about what is in the room. im not sure who has told you otherwise, but they are completely wrong.

science is all about coming up with a theory. then, using that theory, coming up with some testable predictions. then going and testing them.

But science is all about trying to tell us as much a possible about the room. But it can never tell us everything. Therefore, we as humans can never presume that we know very much at all, irrespective of how much scientific discovery has been made. I think this is happening a bit these days, and we're really getting ahead of ourselves.

These posts are starting to get really long...

[Adrian]

lets use your analogy of a house, with a single locked door, and a keyhole.

scientist walks into the house, and has to decide what type of room is behind the locked door.

scientist walks around the house, gathers evidence, notices that the only room that he didn't go into was a bathroom. so now, he can come up with the theory that the locked room is a bathroom.

so now he has to perform an experiment, and goes and looks at the keyhole. through the keyhole, he can see a sink, some tiles, etc.

now, all the evidence points to a bathroom, so he concludes that the room is a bathroom. he doesn't actually have to see a bath or a shower, because all of the evidence is so strong that its not needed. down the track, he might perform other experiments, i.e drill a hole in the wall, to confirm his suspicions.

of course there is a small chance that the room maybe a laundry instead, and the theory may be wrong. this is what you seem to be arguing, the fact that we can never know for sure.

what has this got to do with god? nothing if you ask me.

Ah, but it has everything to do with God.

Where did the room come from? Why is it there? Who made it? Who made everything in it? Why is everything in it the way that it is? Is there a reason, or did it just randomly become what it is over time?

I'm not sure you completely understood the nature of my analogy.

The room is the universe. The scientist is looking at the universe, but is heavily restricted in what he can observe by the limits of human ability, be it the senses themselves, or human intellgience and it's ability to construct instruments that slightly expand those senses.

And since there is no knowledge in existence which can explain the origin of anything, God exists because he must. It is the origin. Therefore, I believe.

It is the default fall-back position in the absence of anything else. There is no need for me to prove he exists. It's merely a belief.

for some reason, you seem to think that i am arguing that science can explain everything. i am not arguing that at all. not sure how you came to this conclusion, or whether this is just your belief and you are trying to argue your point, even though noone is arguing against you

I dunno. Who mentioned science first? I'll have to go back through the thread and find out. I think it was you.

I'd initially argued that God exists because there's no other logical explanation. Then you said that science can explain the origin of the universe and everything, so you don't need a Creator anymore, because we know where it came from. Then I said science is actually full of crap and explained why. And here we are. I think it was something like that.

[Adrian]

Just wanted to see that I'm enjoying the back and forth that's going on in this thread

Well I hope you're enjoying it as much as me and benny the cunt are enjoying creating it.

(I think I'm enjoying it more than benny the cunt is to be honest)

[Adrian]

Is there a Poker God.

Indeed, there is.

Whenever I win a hand, I always bet on the next one no matter what my cards are. This is to keep the poker Gods happy. It's a donation in their honour.

I attribute all of my success to this religious sacrifice.

[David]

..God exists because there's no other logical explanation

That's illogical!

[Adrian]

Well it's always hard to disprove something that doesn't exist. I could say an invisible elephant sits on my shoulder and tells me what to do. Logic tells me it doesn't exist, because that would absurd. But you'd have a hard time proving I was lying!

Yes, it is always hard to disprove something.

But that is the task of the unbeliever, not the task of the believer.

I would simply state that an elephant would not fit on your shoulder, therefore it's not there.

[David]

A 6 inch elephant would



And no, I beleive it's on the onus of the person stating something to prove it exists!