The so many discoveries and advances in different sciences made by catholic people is not necessarily a credit due to the Church but just to them. Doing otherwise is misleading.

BTW, the blunder of condemning Galileo could have been happily avoided by minding their own business. What actual qualifications all who judged him, had? Peer review you mean?

It is also misleading to deny the fact that this research as well as much of modern philosophy was born within their walls. I haven't seen anyone credit church with birth of genetics, Mendel is...

 

Begs the question, what are they looking for?

kv

Truth

 

I had no idea Tyrion Lannister was a full-size physicist in real life.


Those are pretty interesting test results. Again like before, I'm not a physicist so I can't comment with any credibility, but as a layman it seems a bit "out there." I don't understand all of what was in the videos but I understand troubleshooting and basic experimentation. I have come up with some very long-winded explanations for observations that were based on flawed initial assumptions. The answer was actually quite simple but based on something I wasn't aware of.

I have no idea what I'm talking about but the explanations given in that video sound like my explanations when I'm missing information.

Yea, that's rather were I am at as well. What they are claiming to be observing is difficult to rationalize given present views of how we perceive time and cause and effect to work plus as I am understanding apparently is going against some of what is known and felt to be understood modes of quantum interaction that seemed to imply there could be two or more simultaneous end outcome effects for a single event based cause.

From what I am gathering from their speculation is that it may be indicating that in how quantum interactions work there is only one solidly defined outcome that ever becomes part of defined reality and not the dual or multiple simultaneous outcomes as has been previously thought that could be taken to be implications of there being multiple alternate quantum level realities formed by or for a single cause event.

I too have no idea what it all means either, but now it's just high enough on my nerd radar I will be putting an active effort into following it from time to time to see what it may lead to.

Why do they think that the experiment reveals retrocausality (an oxymoron, i.e. the ability to influence the past of the Universe)? It simply doesn't.

• nothing can possibly become definite until the point of irreversible decoherence
• the correlations between the signal and idler photons are correlations, not causation.

Quantum mechanics only predicts the final results of experiments: it is not possible to say what the "real properties of the system" were prior to the measurement; and it's unsurprising that everything that occurs before a measurement may influence its outcome.

I have no real idea as of yet either. This is just something I came across in the last week or so making it a rather new concept, I have yet to dig into in any major depth beyond the basic theory and speculations, that it may be the mechanism for how quantum level interactions become defined into reality based effects without all the speculated on alternate simultaneous undefinable/alternate until observed states of flux.

 

The so many discoveries and advances in different sciences made by catholic people is not necessarily a credit due to the Church but just to them. Doing otherwise is misleading.

BTW, the blunder of condemning Galileo could have been happily avoided by minding their own business. What actual qualifications all who judged him, had? Peer review you mean?

Regarding the heliocentric theory of the solar system, Galileo was right for the wrong reasons. Although his results were true, his reasoning was faulty, and his procedures deficient.

More on that later. Right now I need to hit the sac

 

I realise I'm arriving late to this thread but there are so many things wrong with the first post I thought I should point them out.

One good thing that came out of it, is that I was exposed to the existence of theories contrary to evolution and "the big bang." I did not believe the contrary theory (creationism) or the mainstream theory but just knowing that there is room for multiple explanations led me to be skeptical of everything.

You are mixing two definitions of the word "theory". The scientific usage of "theory" is very different from the colloquial. Evolution is a scientific theory, creationism is not, at best it is a hypothesis. So, creationism is not a contrary theory to evolution and the big bang.

I do not believe that we are the product of a bunch of random happenings. The idea that a series of billions of instances of being in the right place at the right time led to intelligent life is just as unlikely to me as the idea that the "The God I Am" created it all.

This only works if you think that intelligent life is the goal. For instance, if you win the lottery, you would probably accept that it was the result of random chance and it would be. Someone had to win it and that someone may feel special but are they?

I think all religions were primarily created to satisfy man's question of existence, and secondarily as a tool to control the masses. That includes Atheism. I consider modern Atheism to be a religion too; just look at the way Atheists act - like religious zealots. Prominent atheists (ex: Bill Nye the "science" guy) will go on TV and shame anyone who disagrees with them in the most virulent way possible.

Atheism is not a religion. Atheism simply rejects the claim that there is a god, it does not claim that there is no god only that there is insufficient evidence to support that claim. The prominent atheists, as you call them, are not promoting atheism they are encouraging people to think rationally and to follow the evidence. No true thing was ever diminished by being questioned so if theists are correct, they have nothing to fear from atheists. Furthermore, and this has been said many times before, the only difference between a theist and an atheist is that the atheist believes in one less god.

I love science, and the scientific method. I think that sometimes we just need to admit when we really have no clue about something.

Science is the best method we have for investigating reality and this is demonstrable. Scientists are not afraid to say "We don't know", religion on the other hand claims to know everything yet presents no evidence. It's even worse than that because the religious explanations only add to the mystery by invoking intelligent supernatural beings.

I think that our own existence is something that we currently can't explain with any rational theory and that we need to keep our minds open to any possibility. Intelligent design is one theory that I ponder, although I have no idea who the "creator" might be, I haven't been given a plausible explanation by any religion, and I have studied several.

Once again you are mixing up different usages of the word theory. And what do you mean by "rational theory"; are you proposing that an irrational theory, if such a thing could exist would be better? You are also presupposing an intelligent creator by referring to one as a "who".

 

You are mixing two definitions of the word "theory". The scientific usage of "theory" is very different from the colloquial. Evolution is a scientific theory, creationism is not, at best it is a hypothesis. So, creationism is not a contrary theory to evolution and the big bang.
[...]
Atheism is not a religion. Atheism simply rejects the claim that there is a god, it does not claim that there is no god only that there is insufficient evidence to support that claim. The prominent atheists, as you call them, are not promoting atheism they are encouraging people to think rationally and to follow the evidence.
[...]

Science is the best method we have for investigating reality and this is demonstrable. Scientists are not afraid to say "We don't know", religion on the other hand claims to know everything yet presents no evidence. It's even worse than that because the religious explanations only add to the mystery by invoking intelligent supernatural beings.

[...]

Once again you are mixing up different usages of the word theory. And what do you mean by "rational theory"; are you proposing that an irrational theory, if such a thing could exist would be better? You are also presupposing an intelligent creator by referring to one as a "who".

Ok, I concede. I am confusing the scientific and colloquial definitions of the word "theory." But I am not alone in this. In fact it's so common I doubt most people even know the difference. I think prominent science figures on TV purposely confuse the distinction (and I hate to keep pointing the finger at Bill Nye, but his public persona embodies exactly the kind of thing I refer to).

So do you deny that there is dogma in science? I think that's what most ypur post hinges on; that science is above reproach. That science is always willing to accept when doesn't have the answers. I agree that is supposed to be the role of science, but that isn't what I always see. What I see is science generating a hypothesis, prematurely calling it a theory (Who gets to decide when it evolves to theory?), and then publicly shaming anyone who doesn't buy into it as a "science denier" (heretic).

Is there sufficient evidence to confirm that we evolved from single cell organisms? That humans are accelerating global warming with CO2 emissions? That vaccines don't cause autism? To be clear I am not arguing against any stance on any issues with the questions I just asked. I vaccinate my kids, try to reduce my carbon footprint, and I don't teach my kids that they were created by God. My point here is that these are some of the most vicious fights that science is currently engaged in with religious zeal. I haven't seen enough evidence to call these ideas theories. I consider them hypotheses but plausible so I exercise caution.

You don't think public science acts even just a little bit like a religion? You might have worked in a lab or other scientific endeavor and practiced real science (if so, I envy you) so what I've said might feel like an insult to the work that you have personally invested in. But the rest of the world only sees what is on TV and what is on TV might as well be Joel Osteen with a nasty attitude.

 

But the rest of the world only sees what is on TV and what is on TV might as well be Joel Osteen with a nasty attitude.

Which is why they write a movie Da Vinci Code, and not give credit to the author who wrote "The Blood and the Holy Grail" it's just to disinteresting to read about a researcher, researching crack pot ideas. But, I'm not the one who suspected people of being a Witch or that there is a Secret Society based on a blood line believed to belong to Christ either.

kv

Edit: It's also why this thread has it's appeal, first thing I find is history is fascinating at my age and that we only have a narrow view of it because of the players who confiscate it by destroying any proof it may have existed.

 

Ok, I concede. I am confusing the scientific and colloquial definitions of the word "theory." But I am not alone in this. In fact it's so common I doubt most people even know the difference. I think prominent science figures on TV purposely confuse the distinction (and I hate to keep pointing the finger at Bill Nye, but his public persona embodies exactly the kind of thing I refer to).

So do you deny that there is dogma in science? I think that's what most ypur post hinges on; that science is above reproach. That science is always willing to accept when doesn't have the answers. I agree that is supposed to be the role of science, but that isn't what I always see. What I see is science generating a hypothesis, prematurely calling it a theory (Who gets to decide when it evolves to theory?), and then publicly shaming anyone who doesn't buy into it as a "science denier" (heretic).

Is there sufficient evidence to confirm that we evolved from single cell organisms? That humans are accelerating global warming with CO2 emissions? That vaccines don't cause autism? To be clear I am not arguing against any stance on any issues with the questions I just asked. I vaccinate my kids, try to reduce my carbon footprint, and I don't teach my kids that they were created by God. My point here is that these are some of the most vicious fights that science is currently engaged in with religious zeal. I haven't seen enough evidence to call these ideas theories. I consider them hypotheses but plausible so I exercise caution.

You don't think public science acts even just a little bit like a religion? You might have worked in a lab or other scientific endeavor and practiced real science (if so, I envy you) so what I've said might feel like an insult to the work that you have personally invested in. But the rest of the world only sees what is on TV and what is on TV might as well be Joel Osteen with a nasty attitude.

I've never heard a scientist misuse the word "theory" but it is very common with religious apologists who claim any guess is as valid as the next i.e. evolution is just a theory, creationism is also a theory therefore creationism is as valid an explanation as evolution. This deliberate equivocation is designed to mislead people who don't know the difference.

There may be dogmatic view held by some scientists but the scientific method has been proven to be the most reliable method of understanding our environment but most importantly, and unlike religion, science is not founded on dogma and even a scientific theory can be subject to change and this is welcomed by scientists because it means that our understanding has just taken a step forward.

I've just grabbed the first definition of Scientific theory that comes up on Google:
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."
Do any of the god claims meet these criteria?

The argument for the existence of god(s) has to stand on its own merit regardless of whether the big-bang or abiogenesis or evolution are true; these could all be proven false tomorrow and it wouldn't lend the slightest credibility to the god claims. We may never know how we got here (wherever "here" is) but the best way to investigate our origins is to apply the scientific method and follow the evidence, without evidence we can only truthfully say that we don't know, sticking a god in there is just as useful and valid as saying it all happened by magic.

 

Do any of the god claims meet these criteria?

Not that I'm aware of. I did not find any in my quest for understanding. I also did not find the evidence for mainstream scientific theories about where we came from/how we came to be, to be very compelling either. I was hoping this thread would tease out more information from either side to leave me with something believable (to me- maybe too tall an order).

 

Ok, I concede. I am confusing the scientific and colloquial definitions of the word "theory." But I am not alone in this. In fact it's so common I doubt most people even know the difference. I think prominent science figures on TV purposely confuse the distinction (and I hate to keep pointing the finger at Bill Nye, but his public persona embodies exactly the kind of thing I refer to).

So do you deny that there is dogma in science? I think that's what most ypur post hinges on; that science is above reproach. That science is always willing to accept when doesn't have the answers. I agree that is supposed to be the role of science, but that isn't what I always see. What I see is science generating a hypothesis, prematurely calling it a theory (Who gets to decide when it evolves to theory?), and then publicly shaming anyone who doesn't buy into it as a "science denier" (heretic).

Is there sufficient evidence to confirm that we evolved from single cell organisms? That humans are accelerating global warming with CO2 emissions? That vaccines don't cause autism? To be clear I am not arguing against any stance on any issues with the questions I just asked. I vaccinate my kids, try to reduce my carbon footprint, and I don't teach my kids that they were created by God. My point here is that these are some of the most vicious fights that science is currently engaged in with religious zeal. I haven't seen enough evidence to call these ideas theories. I consider them hypotheses but plausible so I exercise caution.

You don't think public science acts even just a little bit like a religion? You might have worked in a lab or other scientific endeavor and practiced real science (if so, I envy you) so what I've said might feel like an insult to the work that you have personally invested in. But the rest of the world only sees what is on TV and what is on TV might as well be Joel Osteen with a nasty attitude.

I've never heard a scientist misuse the word "theory" but it is very common with religious apologists who claim any guess is as valid as the next i.e. evolution is just a theory, creationism is also a theory therefore creationism is as valid an explanation as evolution. This deliberate equivocation is designed to mislead people who don't know the difference.

There may be dogmatic view held by some scientists but the scientific method has been proven to be the most reliable method of understanding our environment but most importantly, and unlike religion, science is not founded on dogma and even a scientific theory can be subject to change and this is welcomed by scientists because it means that our understanding has just taken a step forward.

I've just grabbed the first definition of Scientific theory that comes up on Google:
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."
Do any of the god claims meet these criteria?

The argument for the existence of god(s) has to stand on its own merit regardless of whether the big-bang or abiogenesis or evolution are true; these could all be proven false tomorrow and it wouldn't lend the slightest credibility to the god claims. We may never know how we got here (wherever "here" is) but the best way to investigate our origins is to apply the scientific method and follow the evidence, without evidence we can only truthfully say that we don't know, sticking a god in there is just as useful and valid as saying it all happened by magic.

I have come to see that much of the problems with the accuracy and or outright honest validity, or lack thereof, in such fields regarding the multitude of theories they have on any subject is that what and how it's presented to the general public is where that majority of the misconception, ambiguity and, too often, outright lies regarding the likely validity or lack thereof comes from.

I for one read things near daily, or at least weekly, where some group makes some claim that some scientist or scientific research group or even political party made a new world changing discovery that proves something when in fact once the hard cold and very real publishes papers and true accounts of what really happened on the actual work they did or events that happened shows everything is nearly totally the opposite of was and how it was presented to the public.

Just look at how many claims about AGW/CC have been shoved down our collective throats saying that something was found to be near 100% proof of something only to find out weeks to months or even a year or more later it was just one more round of misrepresented data to outright lies being pushed by the same long since discredited groups and their followers because they have an agenda that serves them at the expense of most everyone else no different than what many certain political and religious followings have if they are not an actual part of one of them to begin with. Same with how many politically driven claims about who did or does what to whom and why have been shown to have near zero factual basis in their claims as well yet certain groups push them with unending spins to try and keep their agendas or their -cocoons of blissfully ignorant stupidity- intact for another day.

To me anyone who makes a bold claim had better have bold proof to back themselves up with or else by my views they are going to be seen as either simply ignorant in what they understand and believe, which is totally understandable and forgivable (to a limit), or they have an agenda or such that relies heavily on misinformation to succeed, or they are just honest to goodness legitimately stupid to the point they can not understand where, how and why what they believe in is in fact wrong.
Which to be honest, for me and all of my experiences online, I have found that the second two tend to account for the vast majority of the problems and general sources of misinformation regarding real legitimate science, religion and politics and their theory and general life applications, regardelss of source and subject, come from. Either someone has a less than honest agenda they are trying to fulfill or they are simply too stupid to understand the where how and why they and their belief systems are based on are wrong to begin with.

People and groups in all aspects of life who have a legitimate want to know as much about any and everything they can about any topic do not have a problem with being shown that what they did know and believe is not totally correct. They may not initially like hearing that what they thought was true is in fact not but they will accept it.
The other two groups largely governed by agendas and or outright stupidity tend to not take such news and revelations so well which leads to and compounds the ongoing problems we deal with every day to where we are now where and why most every major claim brought into the public light now has to be heavily vetted and reconfirmed from a multitude of known credible sources before it can be taken to be a fact or strongly supportable theory of any kind, to which as all of us who are not stuck under a rock or miered in their own ignorance to outright stupidity now know way too much of what the mass media and certain political groups (and above all their followers) claims do not and can not pass that test.

I for one have little issue with having my views challenged by legitimate plausible theory and or proven confirmable fact. Never have and never will, but, I do not take hearsay and unfounded claims made by those who have continually and repeatedly proven themselve to be far from credible and or knowledgeable on any subject to be of any merit beyond being petty butt hurt trolls desperately trying to uphold a false and flawed/failed agenda or belief system or worse.

Not that I'm aware of. I did not find any in my quest for understanding. I also did not find the evidence for mainstream scientific theories about where we came from/how we came to be, to be very compelling either. I was hoping this thread would tease out more information from either side to leave me with something believable (to me- maybe too tall an order).

Similar views here as well. So far 'Magic' and 'magical beings' has been pretty well ruled out to not exist beyond the imaginations of the uneducated and or just simple minded, so until it's given provable defined credibility I cannot rationalize that it is in fact responsible for anything that has ever happened ever.

However, as to be confirmed but theoretically likey scientific/natural process tends to carry some weight as an explanation since it is tied to known and proven observable fact.
Especially given it is well known in molecular biology and other molecular science fields that nature does seem to carry a well defined affinity for wanting to restructure simple atoms and molecules into arrangements of greater and greater complexity pretty much on its own. Many of which are the known literal building blocks of life as we define it.

 

... But the rest of the world only sees what is on TV and what is on TV might as well be Joel Osteen with a nasty attitude.

And therein lies the demise of modern society. We allow our minds to be numbed, dumb down, corrupted by mainstream media that have vested interests.

Do you want to know how many hours of TV I watch per day? Zero, nada, rien, zilch.

You may also want to read this (off-topic):
https://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Cinema-Government-Hollywood/dp/1548084980

 

Do any of the god claims meet these criteria?

That is one of the things that put me off Religion. I was thinking, If their whole body of work is based on believing whatever the Church says, they could tell me anything, with no basis in fact or logic or reality. Do I want to sign up for those lessons? How many years will it take to learn all of the, "Because I said so's?" And if I learn them all, what good will it do me?

"Hey Dennis, you need a 370 volt capacitor because God said so."

Well, in a roundabout way, God did say so, but that's not why I know the answer and that's not what I'm going to learn in a church.

Religion comes across to me like a late night TV commercial.
Battle-ready tactical flashlight. Buy a feeling of security.
Electric stair lift. Buy the feeling that you belong in your own home.
God loves you. Buy a feeling of peace when you realize your time is going to run out.

What I have seen is that church is good for social contact, but it's hiding under dogma.
The real business of a church is business. The orators are trained to manage the sheep.
The sheep don't discuss Religion. That is not why they attend.
Meanwhile, the money goes to the people who play golf with the Pastor.
They, "can't afford" $600 for me to upgrade the sound system, but they can afford $1800 for somebody else to do exactly what I said they need?
I don't know how to play golf.

So the Catholic Church has done great things in the last thousand years.
Who goes to church to study astronomy, philosophy, or biology?
And how would one know which teachings are fact based and which are faith based?
And how much time would be spent sorting out which is which?
I can find better sources of information, and when I sort out which I believe, nobody tells me I'm going to Burn in Hell for all Eternity because I chose this one instead of that one.

 

Truth

Took awhile for me on this, I've been in and out - I'm headed out in a bit to gets some cheap craft beer.

But, I'm stunned at your canned response, in that I'm not sure it would be a return on investment for Catholics because so many are blind followers and contribute to their cause.

Here in Utah, I created a phrase toward some in the Mormon Religion who have adopted the belief yet do not actually believe it, they just fall in line behind the next person blindly.

I call it "Easy Believe-ism" then they make their own interpretations of the system while others agree with them when confronted by Truth.

kv

 

Scientists are not afraid to say "We don't know"

I beg to differ. There are numerous who can not state those words.

 

I call it "Easy Believe-ism" then they make their own interpretations of the system while others agree with them when confronted by Truth.

One of my sisters joined the Mormon thing. Got me a place in Mormon Heaven.
But her main goal was to work them AND the government for financial support.

 

Scientists are not afraid to say "We don't know"

I beg to differ. There are numerous <Scientists> who can not state those words.

Then they are not good Scientists! They are either bad Scientists or fake Scientists.

Good Scientists seem to just get on with the job. It seems to be the bad Scientists that get the most attention as far as I can tell.

 

so until it's given provable defined credibility I cannot rationalize that it is in fact responsible for anything that has ever happened ever.

One of my beliefs about God is that He (She) will never appear beside me and fix one of my problems.
One of my aunts believed that God stood at the foot of her bed and spoke to her while she was sleeping, but nobody else ever saw him (her).

 

Scientists are not afraid to say "We don't know"Then they are not good Scientists! They are either bad Scientists or fake Scientists.

Good Scientists seem to just get on with the job. It seems to be the bad Scientists that get the most attention as far as I can tell.

Sure, they are bad scientists. But the environment they work in does not help. Science is not done simply to obtain knowledge. You want to get a patent that will bring you money. You want to promote your lab so that it will be easier to get funding renewed. It has become monetized and politicized.

I worked in a water research lab for 2 years after graduating. It helped me decide definitevely not to go into academics - you have to do research that is in favor in order to survive, you have to produce favorable results in order to survive especially as you are starting. So I do not see how this is different from anything else himanity has created.

For general public, the shows that have been dimming down science and the "easy access" books have not helped either.

 

All of our science is based on a supply of randomness, filtered by probability. They must use these made up concepts because there are completely ignorant. It's a mathematical abstract. They refuse to consider physical structure/process. With randomness and probability, anyone can prove anything.....and they have.

And of course they couldn't be more wrong. All that you see and measure is made out of one entity.
This entity has two states........which causes all phenomena in perfect order and eliminates all randomness. Randomness is not needed....or permitted. It's non-existent.

Probability only exist between the ears......by people who lack knowledge.

No one sees the exposed perfection. Your religion is what you believe. Everyone has a religion.
And like science you believe what you're taught. If not taught you reason or mock.....or it's not important to you. OR it scares you. Many refuse to consider their life.....let alone their death.

It would be hard to debate or have an opinion....on unconsidered things........but people do. They argue/debate with definitions......because that is all they have. Most modern debate is over definitions or the use of definitions now. Understanding is no longer required.....and that's why we have none.

The true structure of the universe not only proves the existence of the Creator.........it advertises it.

If we can research long enough before it all falls apart........it will probably be material science that confirms this. Unless a new field that requires structure emerges. It could be confirmed now if we had complete control of the EM spectrum. The physical universe is held together with a chorus of song.

But Someone is conducting a symphony on this rock.

My opinion.

Edit: The word entity......means physical charge.

 

All of our science is based on a supply of randomness, filtered by probability. They must use these made up concepts because there are completely ignorant. It's a mathematical abstract. They refuse to consider physical structure/process. With randomness and probability, anyone can prove anything.....and they have.

And of course they couldn't be more wrong. All that you see and measure is made out of one entity.
This entity has two states........which causes all phenomena in perfect order and eliminates all randomness. Randomness is not needed....or permitted. It's non-existent.

Probability only exist between the ears......by people who lack knowledge.

No one sees the exposed perfection. Your religion is what you believe. Everyone has a religion.
And like science you believe what you're taught. If not taught you reason or mock.....or it's not important to you. OR it scares you. Many refuse to consider their life.....let alone their death.

It would be hard to debate or have an opinion....on unconsidered things........but people do. They argue/debate with definitions......because that is all they have. Most modern debate is over definitions or the use of definitions now. Understanding is no longer required.....and that's why we have none.

The true structure of the universe not only proves the existence of the Creator.........it advertises it.

If we can research long enough before it all falls apart........it will probably be material science that confirms this. Unless a new field that requires structure emerges. It could be confirmed now if we had complete control of the EM spectrum. The physical universe is held together with a chorus of song.

But Someone is conducting a symphony on this rock.

My opinion.

this is why I have always liked mathematics and hated statistics...