We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences
along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site
is free and easy, just CLICK
Already a member and forgot your password? Click
Discussion in 'General Chat' started by drdln, Jul 11, 2011.
ditto. I enjoyed your sensible statement. Thanks.
On thing I loved about this thread is that regardless of everyone's beliefs the discussion stayed civil! I love great discussions! We all believe in different things and discussing these with people who have different view points will only expand our knowledge
True. And I'm convinced all the facts won't be on the table anytime soon (not on my lifetime anyway)...
But getting on-topic here. I think people have the right to believe what they want, and the right to express said belief. Just don't try to pass it as a fact when there's no evidence to back it up.
For example, I believe Earth is not the only planet with inteligent life. Why do I believe it? Because considering the vastness of the universe it would be very self-centered to think we're that special. But can I prove it? No. So I don't try to pass it out as fact, it's just something I believe.
But Landslide, your belief in intelligent extraterrestrial life is supported by the facts we have at hand now and as our knowledge of the cosmos increases, so does the evidence for intelligent life elsewhere.
True, but it is also correct that one shouldn’t pass that off as fact…yet.
But I also don’t think there is anything wrong with rating the likelihood that any given unproven belief is true. I believe fairly strongly that there is extraterrestrial life out there. Intelligent life? Less likely but still plausible. To believe that life evolved on a planet out there somewhere is reasonable in my book because 1: we have proof that it has happened on at least one planet before (Earth) and 2. The sheer number of planets out there increases the odds of it having happened before and 3. The more data that comes in the less unique Earth is beginning to look.
There's always the idea that if the Universe is indeed infinite, then it follows that there are an infinite number of planets, and that therefore any theoretically conceivable life form must exist. Including any variation on our own; somewhere in the Universe, a poster named coffee good is writing this exact post.
(That's really more science fiction than anything, but I like the idea.)
That's precisely my point.
Which part of physics is bothering you, please feel free to correct rather than making blank statements.
2. Energy can convert into matter and matter can convert into energy
3. Total energy is constant.
We have agreed that we have no problem with each others views. Just be specific using your physics expertise to correct anyone or all 3 points. So that I can learn rather than arguing back and forth. Thanks.
What bothered me was that I got the impression that you claimed those facts were proof of the existence and benevolence of a god, which it in fact says nothing about one way or the other. I'm pretty sure I said that already.
Yes,I believe in the afterlife,John Edwards says so.
The politician or the charlatan?
Aren't all politicians charlatans?
I think problem is not the physics or the interpretation. The problem is I assume certain things that people will already know. So I end up causing more confusion that become botheration.
For example, when I mention energy; most of the people start talking about electrical energy, mechanical energy etc which they learned in college science courses rather than creative energy. The energy that converts into matter. The energy as in ATP molecule, a characteristic of life. I am not complaining but trying to figure out the problem
So my simple but unsatisfactory answer is I cannot explain my philosophy in few lines that took several books to express. Thanks for your input.
The problem is that you try to use scientific concepts to support your religious/philosophical beliefs.
You can be a scientist and still believe in god, but you cant misuse scientific concepts to make your faith seem more rational.
As I have mentioned on other thread; I have taken unusual position to believe that "Science, Religion & spirituality" can co-exist rather than believing that science and faith are like oil and water. They don't mix.
We are missing a lot by treating them like oil and water. World will be better place if we rethink, IMHO. I agree with what Einstein said.
"Religion without science is blind.
Science without religion is lame."
I have spent my entire life in University research labs as a scientist [starting with Yale Univ] where we predominantly use left brain but my right brain compelled me to look at other possibilities. I know bombs are being thrown from both sides, scientists as well as religious fundamentalists. I have stuck my head in the middle and I like this position because that's what I believe. Truth from religion and truth from science cannot contradict itself.
BTW, Not only I don't misuse, but I use science very carefully.
...which is where you would be revolutionising physics. We know how energy converts into matter, and there's nothing "creative" about it - in fact, it just involves the same sort of energy that you learned about in science class. But good luck with that.
I quite enjoy reading your way of thinking. You bring up some very interesting points.
The story of how one soldier became the US Army's first official Pastafarian.
Thanks. I do appreciate your open minded positive attitude.
Separate names with a comma.