You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The End of (the catholic) Church
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
Ah right , so the various cosmological models of a cyclical universe from Albert Einstein, to Roger Penrose are of "little or no evidence".Quote from jem:
Only issues is that there is little or no evidence that we live in cyclical universe which is expanding and contracting indefinitely.
Right now the big bang is what the science point to... especially after the recent background radiation predictions and confirmations.
You like to say you "point to Science and Nobel prize winners who explain what their scientific finds are"..... except when you don't like what they say, then its more of that same old tired worn out brand of irrational logic and religiously based pseudoscience yet again.
I tend to agree, though as you may recall, I think science is also faith based. But in the case of jem, I think it's an unfortunate way to fight--faith does not need science for anything except perhaps to try to make converts.Quote from Brass:
Yeah, but what makes jem special is that he tries to use science to deny science. Of course, his own version is pseudoscience, but that doesn't take away from the irony.
Quote from stu:
Ah right , so the various cosmological models of a cyclical universe from Albert Einstein, to Roger Penrose are of "little or no evidence".
You like to say you "point to Science and Nobel prize winners who explain what their scientific finds are"..... except when you don't like what they say, then its more of that same old tired worn out brand of irrational logic and religiously based pseudoscience yet again.
You clearly do not know what you are talking about. Here is Penrose..
he addresses, entropy -- the initial of the universe (you troll liar stu) and fine tuning.
<object width="640" height="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/WhGdVMBk6Zo?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/WhGdVMBk6Zo?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="480" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
There you go again. Off into infantile insult troll mode once again.Quote from jem:
You clearly do not know what you are talking about. Here is Penrose..
he addresses, entropy -- the initial of the universe (you troll liar stu) and fine tuning.
Did you not read earlier where Free Thinker referred to PRATT?
You're regurgitating the same tired old stuff already refuted without paying any attention to the refutations against the claims you make.
Trying to use science or more particularly pseudoscience to support or prove faith the way you always do is futile and pointless.
I think reality is first meant to be understood as best as it can be, and then appreciated for what it is and can be. I don't think facts should be dismissed because they don't "satisfy." And if you're going to have faith, it's best that it begins in yourself and your ability to reason. And to stand on the shoulders of giants who preceded you rather than kick them in the shins the way jem laughably tries to do.Quote from Ricter:
Oh but I do see a difference, which is utilitarianism. But, even that does not satisfy everyone, or in every situation, obviously.
My point goes to your "best" way. What's "best" is debatable. If you don't believe me, look to the evidence (lol)--we debate it.Quote from Brass:
I think reality is first meant to be understood as best as it can be, and then appreciated for what it is and can be. I don't think facts should be dismissed because they don't "satisfy."