IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Hey Pete!
Herein lies the rub. When you say, "Observation, hypothesis, experiment, theory" are the basis for scientific method, I absolutely agree and feel far too few people understand the importance of this body of knowledge and the idea that is open to constant revision - the best body of knowledge available at any given time. So, let's put the Big Bang Theory under this scrutiny. Any observers out there? Reproduceable? Etc... I think this is at the crux of the entire debate and the point that Andrew is trying to make. We (humans) can only observe "infinity" from our piss-ant crippled reference point (an electron spinning around the sun in an infinite universe) and our hubris won't allow many of us, even an atheist, to admit how unimportant we are in the grand scheme of things (or one of the grand schemes of things, ad nauseum, ad infinitum).

Apparently, human beings have an innate need to try and understand. On this here planet, things are born and then die. They can only occupy so much space. And we limit our dimensions to what is observable. To pose a question such as "who created God" or where did the materials come from to make up "the Big Bang"? And how many Big Bangs have there been in infinite time (time without beginning and end, how could there be a "supreme" being in an infinite universe, etc. etc. etc.). It torks the brain. So we seek to find purpose through Philosophy, mythology/religion. To me, it is not about being "right" so much as it about feeling a universal connectedness. Some achieve it through notions of God or through logic, but at the end of the day, we're all full of shit and most of us feel that need. ;-)

I, for one, am equally offended by those who try to "sell me" their version of shit (with absolute conviction) than any other version. I am all for trying to find the connectedness we need (however) and try to be a bit empathetic towards those who are searching, be they religious pilgrims or physicists. YMMV. To answer your last question, is it up the scientist to prove the non-existence of God? Only if he is trying to "sell me" his or her distorted notion about Truth or Purpose, thank you very much. But, since I do like you, and I like Bertrand, here is his answer to your last question at [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot|http://en.wikipedia..../Russell's_teapot] .

YMMV
Just a few thoughts,

Danno - proving the fallacy of intelligent design daily...
Collapse Edited by danreck Aug. 28, 2007, 10:52:37 AM EDT
Hey Pete!
Herein lies the rub. When you say, "Observation, hypothesis, experiment, theory" are the basis for scientific method, I absolutely agree and feel far to few people understand the importance of this body of knowledge and the idea that is open to constant revision - the best body of knowledge available at any given time. So, let's put the Big Bang Theory under this scrutiny. Any observers out there? Reproduceable? Etc... I think this is at the crux of the entire debate and the point that Andrew is trying to make. We (humans) can only observe "infinity" from our piss-ant crippled reference point (an electron spinning around the sun in an infinite universe) and our hubris won't allow many of us, even an atheist, to admit how unimportant we are in the grand scheme of things (or one of the grand schemes of things, ad nauseum, ad infinitum).

Apparently, human beings have an innate need to try and understand. On this here planet, things are born and then die. They can only occupy so much space. And we limit our dimensions to what is observable. To pose a question such as "who created God" or where did the materials come from to make up "the Big Bang"? And how many Big Bangs have there been in infinite time (time without beginning and end, how could there be a "supreme" being in an infinite universe, etc. etc. etc.). It torks the brain. So we seek to find purpose through Philosophy, mythology/religion. To me, it is not about being "right" so much as it about feeling a universal connectedness. Some achieve it through notions of God or through logic, but at the end of the day, we're all full of shit and most of us feel that need. ;-)

I, for one, am equally offended by those who try to "sell me" their version of shit (with absolute conviction) than any other version. I am all for trying to find the connectedness we need (however) and try to be a bit empathetic towards those who are searching, be they religious pilgrims or physicists. YMMV. To answer your last question, is it up the scientist to prove the non-existence of God? Only if he is trying to "sell me" his or her distorted notion about Truth or Purpose, thank you very much.

YMMV
Just a few thoughts,

Danno - proving the fallacy of intelligent design...
Collapse Edited by danreck Aug. 28, 2007, 11:12:00 AM EDT
Hey Pete!
Herein lies the rub. When you say, "Observation, hypothesis, experiment, theory" are the basis for scientific method, I absolutely agree and feel far too few people understand the importance of this body of knowledge and the idea that is open to constant revision - the best body of knowledge available at any given time. So, let's put the Big Bang Theory under this scrutiny. Any observers out there? Reproduceable? Etc... I think this is at the crux of the entire debate and the point that Andrew is trying to make. We (humans) can only observe "infinity" from our piss-ant crippled reference point (an electron spinning around the sun in an infinite universe) and our hubris won't allow many of us, even an atheist, to admit how unimportant we are in the grand scheme of things (or one of the grand schemes of things, ad nauseum, ad infinitum).

Apparently, human beings have an innate need to try and understand. On this here planet, things are born and then die. They can only occupy so much space. And we limit our dimensions to what is observable. To pose a question such as "who created God" or where did the materials come from to make up "the Big Bang"? And how many Big Bangs have there been in infinite time (time without beginning and end, how could there be a "supreme" being in an infinite universe, etc. etc. etc.). It torks the brain. So we seek to find purpose through Philosophy, mythology/religion. To me, it is not about being "right" so much as it about feeling a universal connectedness. Some achieve it through notions of God or through logic, but at the end of the day, we're all full of shit and most of us feel that need. ;-)

I, for one, am equally offended by those who try to "sell me" their version of shit (with absolute conviction) than any other version. I am all for trying to find the connectedness we need (however) and try to be a bit empathetic towards those who are searching, be they religious pilgrims or physicists. YMMV. To answer your last question, is it up the scientist to prove the non-existence of God? Only if he is trying to "sell me" his or her distorted notion about Truth or Purpose, thank you very much.

YMMV
Just a few thoughts,

Danno - proving the fallacy of intelligent design daily...
     Just saying it isn't doesn't make it not. - (Andrew Grygus) - (22)
         I think you're using too broad a brush. - (Another Scott) - (6)
             'There is no evidence for such a deity' - (Andrew Grygus) - (5)
                 You keep saying "it must be a religion" - (pwhysall) - (4)
                     And you keep say'n my concept of God . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
                         Re: And you keep say'n my concept of God . . . - (pwhysall) - (1)
                             herding drunks down the hiway is scientific? - (boxley)
                     Hey Pete! - (danreck)
         There is a shocking under-use of the correct label, - (Ashton) - (9)
             One more quote for Scott... - (danreck) - (6)
                 Russell wrote a *lot* about religion. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                     Understood - (danreck) - (2)
                         Thanks. :-) Don't let months pass between posts, ya hear? - (Another Scott)
                         On religious surveys... - (Another Scott)
                 Just a thought about labels - (imqwerky) - (1)
                     I happen to agree - (danreck)
             Agnostic is often a copout and/or as irrational as Atheism - (JayMehaffey)
             How about ... - (mmoffitt)
         Please don't rehash Pascal's Wager - (warmachine) - (4)
             Perhaps you would be more comfortable with . . . - (Andrew Grygus)
             Strong atheists - (crazy) - (2)
                 sturdy more than strong, nick was a strong before he convert -NT - (boxley)
                 Funny, - (imric)

Dr. Peter prescribes a nice warm cup of shut the hell up.
47 ms