ChatterBank2 mins ago
Horizon - What is Reality?
108 Answers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...2011_What_Is_Reality/
If those who claim the so called 'paranormal' doesn't exist want food for thought, do please watch it - that is if you can bear to think outside your comfort zone.
If those who claim the so called 'paranormal' doesn't exist want food for thought, do please watch it - that is if you can bear to think outside your comfort zone.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There's lots of speculation in science Theland, but there are crucial differences.
Science always seeks demonstrable proofs for its theories and propositions.
It never demands that you should just have faith in them. That's one of the key things about religion, that there is no proof. If god appeared in the sky and said 'hello', it would rather give the game away, and spoil this strange testing process he's putting us all through which results in heaven for the believers, and hell for the unbelievers.
Science says 'These are the currently established facts - but if anyone wants to question them they're welcome to do so. If you can demonstrate that we need to alter them or add to them in any way, that's great - as long as you can get together enough evidence to convince enough people of what you're saying, we'll gladly rewrite the list of known facts'.
Religion neither invites nor accepts any such questioning. In most cases it has a book of rules which doesn't change. (I'll leave aside the problem that the book can usually be interpreted in a hundred different ways depending on the reader).
That's kind of sidetracking from the original question though.
Science always seeks demonstrable proofs for its theories and propositions.
It never demands that you should just have faith in them. That's one of the key things about religion, that there is no proof. If god appeared in the sky and said 'hello', it would rather give the game away, and spoil this strange testing process he's putting us all through which results in heaven for the believers, and hell for the unbelievers.
Science says 'These are the currently established facts - but if anyone wants to question them they're welcome to do so. If you can demonstrate that we need to alter them or add to them in any way, that's great - as long as you can get together enough evidence to convince enough people of what you're saying, we'll gladly rewrite the list of known facts'.
Religion neither invites nor accepts any such questioning. In most cases it has a book of rules which doesn't change. (I'll leave aside the problem that the book can usually be interpreted in a hundred different ways depending on the reader).
That's kind of sidetracking from the original question though.
Pet bugbear coming up: Lots of use of the word "theory" when it should be "hypothesis"!
My particular issue is because creationists are forever abusing the day-to-day use of the word "theory" as "something that may or may not be true" rather than the scientific use of it as "the principles that explain an observable phenomena backed up by empirical evidence" in order to claim that "evolution by natural selection is just a theory" and therefore somehow suspect.
Evolution by natural selection is an established scientific theory along with the theory of gravity. It is not a hypothesis.
I appreciate that this is not a dicussion about evolution - just explaining my antipathy.
Oh, and mathematical theories can be proved, but others, such as gravity, evolution etc, are validated.
Theland, I note that you feel that QM leaves room for God (I was very impressed with your comment about de Sitter space, by the way; could you expand?), yet you seem to assume that this deity must be your god rather than anyone elses. On what basis do you do so?
My particular issue is because creationists are forever abusing the day-to-day use of the word "theory" as "something that may or may not be true" rather than the scientific use of it as "the principles that explain an observable phenomena backed up by empirical evidence" in order to claim that "evolution by natural selection is just a theory" and therefore somehow suspect.
Evolution by natural selection is an established scientific theory along with the theory of gravity. It is not a hypothesis.
I appreciate that this is not a dicussion about evolution - just explaining my antipathy.
Oh, and mathematical theories can be proved, but others, such as gravity, evolution etc, are validated.
Theland, I note that you feel that QM leaves room for God (I was very impressed with your comment about de Sitter space, by the way; could you expand?), yet you seem to assume that this deity must be your god rather than anyone elses. On what basis do you do so?
Waldo, de Sitter space was something I read about in a book about the possibility of the existence of the Multiverse, evidence for which is found mathematically through QM.
De Sitter space is apparently the ultimate end of the universe, inhabited by nothing but vacuum and gamma rays ..... in which the conditions are then possible for a scalar field in which quantum vacuum fluctuations can occur to produce virtual particles, some of which, rather than disappear, could inflate and expand into a new universe, i.e, a Big Bang.
However, all of this speculation is dependent on some kind of precondition rather than a first cause, so there is room still for the assumption of a First Cause, God if you will, to explain the beginning of all things.
But why my God. Well that is revelatory and prophetic in its reasoning for me at least. Something we have discussed in the past.
De Sitter space is apparently the ultimate end of the universe, inhabited by nothing but vacuum and gamma rays ..... in which the conditions are then possible for a scalar field in which quantum vacuum fluctuations can occur to produce virtual particles, some of which, rather than disappear, could inflate and expand into a new universe, i.e, a Big Bang.
However, all of this speculation is dependent on some kind of precondition rather than a first cause, so there is room still for the assumption of a First Cause, God if you will, to explain the beginning of all things.
But why my God. Well that is revelatory and prophetic in its reasoning for me at least. Something we have discussed in the past.
yes I watched it naomi I thought it was presented very well.. but its all theory very wierd theories from very intelligent people and they get grants of hundreds of millions of dollars to try to prove these theories..how much did it cost to prove there was a top quark ..billions i suspect.. i wonder why the government pay out all this when people are starving..
-- answer removed --
Birdie,
I know you addressed that to Naomi, but I'll answer it too because it touches on what I've said.
If I'm reading it correctly, the god of the gaps says that the things that lie in the gaps between the things that science can explain must have a religious/spritual/supernatural explanation. ie god/the supernatural lives in those gaps. I can see why theologians would argue that, because it allows room for god to exist alonsgide science.
What I'm saying is that the things in those gaps aren't religious/supernatural at all.
They're just things that currently lie in the gaps, because science hasn't finished expanding into the gaps yet.
It's not the same thing. The relevance of the program to me is not that it 'validates a belief in the supernatural' but simply that it demonstrates that continuous process of scientific expansion, and also that there are still very many strange and wondrous things lying in those gaps that are yet to be uncovered.
Love the Dara O'birain by the way.
I know you addressed that to Naomi, but I'll answer it too because it touches on what I've said.
If I'm reading it correctly, the god of the gaps says that the things that lie in the gaps between the things that science can explain must have a religious/spritual/supernatural explanation. ie god/the supernatural lives in those gaps. I can see why theologians would argue that, because it allows room for god to exist alonsgide science.
What I'm saying is that the things in those gaps aren't religious/supernatural at all.
They're just things that currently lie in the gaps, because science hasn't finished expanding into the gaps yet.
It's not the same thing. The relevance of the program to me is not that it 'validates a belief in the supernatural' but simply that it demonstrates that continuous process of scientific expansion, and also that there are still very many strange and wondrous things lying in those gaps that are yet to be uncovered.
Love the Dara O'birain by the way.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.