Death_By_Pod

Says who? If anything the fact that our universe seems to have expanded from a point would suggest that it did have a beginning. Nothing is stopping the universe from having a creation because anything previous to creation doesn't have any relevance to us. It's not explicitly stated that the universe was always in that state, only that it was in a similar state before inflation. The laws of physics apply only to our universe, there is nothing stopping other universes from having non-fixed energies or any other bizarre behaviour. I don't think even the big bang theory assumes that the universe was created from scratch, just that a universe was created. urrgh Not exactly true but lets assume so. Which is pure speculation. All that energy was trapped in a degenerate state until inflation, like you stated above (a blackhole like ball). Conclusions from faulty assumptions and speculation ahoy. Of course it's a leap of faith, but what do you prefer; A model based on some reasonable assumptions which is working towards reproducing the current universe or the words of a few thousand year old wise men. It's hard to have discussions around complex scientific theories because I doubt anyone here knows enough to really understand every aspect of the theory. You really need to have done a post-graduate course in astrophysics to have a comprehensive understanding of the big bang theory. When the majority of the forum hasn't even passed a high school level of physics or science in general (it gets vastly more complex, believe me) discussions often fill up full of faulty logic, understanding and plain ignorance.

I don't understand what you're saying; writing about God BEFORE we imagined him? :? Something can exist and not exist at once since reality is subjective.

When you ask a nonsensical question, do you expect a sensible answer in return? It doesn't make sense to be able to answer if a God exists or not since it is impossible to evaluate God's existence. There is no way that you can disprove that we did in fact imagine god into existence since the position is just as nonsensical. Even if you could evaluate God's existence, it doesn't change the fact that reality is subjective; there is no way to objectively determine whether something exists or not. There are many things which exist for one population, which don't for another and jumping up and down isn't going to change anyone's mind. No, I'm an Anti-Realist; a perfectly defendable position to take. Ever heard about it, your fancy philosophy transcript would've shed some light on it. Can you prove our galaxy was here before we saw it? Of course not, so why are you so adamant in defending that position. It's a similar reason why I don't think electrons exist as a physical entity; sure it might be a useful model but it still doesn't validate its existence. And what if everyone's brains are too damaged to function properly; what then?

But this argument applies to basically anything unknown like fairies, ghosts, vampires, dragons, spaghetti monsters etc. God is a human construct, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. It doesn't rule out that God is some transcendent, inconsequential being but at the same time it doesn't rule out anything else; that's the problem. Thought is relevant to existence in the case of invented ideas. If humans didn't think think up there idea, people would have no reason to expect the idea to exist. If I asked you if there was Space Orc ruling our galaxy, of course you would say no. That is because the idea of a Space Orc existing is not perpetuated through society so you have no reason to believe in it. However, have you been around the galaxy; how would you know that Space Orc's don't exist? If I asked you if ghosts exist, you might say yes or you might say no. In the case of ghosts, the idea that they exist is commonly perpetuated through society. So that the idea that they exist doesn't sound so far fetched to many people. God is in the same class of ghosts, they are ideas which are perpetuated through society but neither are strong enough to be fully believable. You can't seriously say that God or Space Orc's exist if I didn't mention them to you, since there is no reason for them to exist from an infinite number of possible things. That's like saying people said the Earth was at the centre of the universe and was later found to be at the centre of the universe or saying that there was an ether and later shown to be an ether. Our ideas have been wrong before and there is no reason to believe that we will not be wrong again.

It has, a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is only true for a flat geometry. I'm standing on Earth, I say I'm standing still however someone sitting on the moon would say your moving at around 1000 miles per hour and someone on the sun would say your moving at 67,000 miles per hour. Who is correct? Many species of great apes have a proper social order without god; For example the Bonobo chimpanzee. Things like Religion being the centre of culture, morality etc. all really on the same fallacy, Correlation doesn't not mean causation. No it was locked because people like you ignore extremely compelling evidence without any justification for why it might be wrong and just go on spouting the same old line. "Man from monkey" evolution is shown to be real by shared retroviral DNA fragments. This is only one piece of evidence out of many, however I like this one the most since it's simple and straightforward. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses The sky is blue, get over it. The problem isn't the topic, many people here are just incapable of providing a factually valid argument.

So who is a Muslim, religion transcends 'race'; so profiling by race only would be inherently flawed. You think that these 'terrorists' would be so stupid not to use their white friends to carry out the more riskier operations? Oh hey look its the 68 year old female suicide bomber from last November http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378463201&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull; Better start profiling them grandmothers too. Or how about Robert Cottage a 49 year old white male in possession of explosives http://www.burnleycitizen.co.uk/display.var.951775.0.exbnp_man_faces_explosives_charge.php; Better start profiling them old white grandfathers too. Not to mention GuantÃÆÃâÃâánamo Bay detainees Bisher Al-Rawi (37, British citizen; doesn't look like a stereotypical 'terrorist') or David Hicks (31, white Australian). Come off it, it's a really stupid thing to even begin profiling when there are so many exceptions to the rule it's not funny.

The method itself isn't impportant, you were intellectually dishonest in stating that science followed the scientific method. It doesn't matter if it is partially right or that many people use it; if it isn't consistent with the way people perform science, then it is wrong. This method you provided is objectively wrong, much in the same way Newtonian Gravity is objectively wrong; it's a theory that doesn't explain everything accurately. Majoring in Physics, I haven't decided on a second major yet (Maths, Computational Science or History and Philosophy of Science), or that I'll just skip the second major altogether.

I have no beef against science (I'm even studying for a science degree), your post said that science follows the scientific method (and went on to describe what you call the scientific method) and I pointed out it was factually incorrect. Your account is still practical for many scientists however its just wrong; Much in the same way Newtonian Gravitation is still useful yet wrong. That's not to say that it doesn't follow a method, it's just not the one you are referencing to. It doesn't even encompass everything we call science now so how would it be the scientific method.

It's a nice phone and has plenty of potential for improvement, however the $600 price tag is a major turn off. I guess I'm just one of those people who like a phone to make calls and sms; I guess high tech phones just isn't my thing. The technology is revolutionary, however it's use for a small screen on a phone is pretty limited. The examples on apple's site don't offer anything new that couldn't be done with only one finger. You can flip through album covers and photos by dragging a finger in the direction you want to move and you can zoom in and out via touch buttons or gestures. You shouldn't have to make something so complex that it requires multiple fingers to operate in the first place; especially for simple tasks like calling someone up.

Many theories in the field of physics are formulated without observation, mainly because technology hasn't caught up with theory. A few examples would be dark matter, which was only directly observed recently. Higgs-boson (a particle responsible for mass) which has been formulated for decades and hopefully will be detected by the LHC (which should be ready by next year). Also String theory is based off mathematical models which have very difficult test conditions which will take many, many years until we can hopefully verify it. Furthermore applications based on theory such as fusion power, we don't observe a fusion power plant and then explain how it was designed; many experiments aren't about copying an observation, rather trying to create a new one. That's the problem, your using the term scientific method as if it were an authoritative method of performing science, such a method doesn't exist. 'The scientific method', is a loaded phrase which is commonly known as the 100%, proper way of performing science (in a sense the perfect method). Sure you can write up a useful method of science that many people use, but it isn't THE scientific method. All you're doing is giving your half baked method of science authority and appealing to people's emotion. Sciences that rely on abductive reasoning (inference to the best explanation) usually don't have replicable experiments. How would you go about recreating the motion of the Earth's plates or forming the Grand Canyon. How would you evaluate whether weathering or a gigantic flood created the Canyon, both are plausible and you can't physically test either conjecture. You're over simplifying things to a point where isn't a valid argument (whether science is based on beliefs and should be classed as religion). The complexity of what science is and its goals are what differentiates it from religion, not that it follows an a completely subjective method of science. Your original argument was in support of the person you were trying to refute.

The article you linked to is a rather classical view, the most obvious failure of this view is that it doesn't explain how theories can be produced before anything is observed. For example, Brownian motion uses atoms to describe its motion before atoms were even discovered; so the idea of atoms would be from theory not observation. Not everything that you consider science follows the procedure you provided, so you can't call it the scientific method; it's that simple. Having a simple scientific method allows more things to get away with being called or being labelled science, which leads to bad consequences. Eugenics was considered scientific and was used as the reason to sterilise hundreds of thousands of people as well as killing tens of thousands of people. How about astrology; people claim it as scientific, however it fails to accurately explain anything. It has the perfect excuse as well, it is impossible to get the precise location of the planets so its predictions can vary wildly; so why can't astrology be science, its predictions would be true if they can get precise information.

So what do you think philosophers of science do all day? Pat each other on the back for a job well done? So who's scientific method is right? Bacon, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Bloor, or one of the many others not listed? That's the problem, there isn't one design of the scientific method and thinking otherwise is quite naive at best. Chemists (experimentation), Archaeologist (collecting fragmented information), Astronomers (inference from observation) and Psychologists (statistical analysis) are four professions which highlight how one scientific method will not work for the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... of_science "As with all philosophical topics, the search has been neither straightforward nor simple. Logical Positivist, empiricist, falsificationist, and other theories have claimed to give a definitive account of the logic of science, but each has in turn been criticised." The site makes it look a little more definitive then it really is; like it states there is no definitive account. Accounts range from a traditional view, sociological views and to the view that there is no single account. Keep Reading: Philosophical Taoism While a number of immortals or other mysterious figures appear in the Zhuangzi, and to a lesser extent in the Dao De Jing (e.g., the "mysterious female" in chapter 6), these have generally not become the objects of cultic worship. We must not confuse Dao with the western concept of monotheism. The Dao is not personal, nor is it an unchanging spiritual entity similar to the Hindu Atman. The Chinese word Dao can mean a process or a path, but not an entity. It is only to be followed, not to be worshipped. Dao merely means the natural way of the universe. Being one with the Dao does not indicate an union with an eternal spirit in the Hindu sense, but merely live with the change and accept the way of nature; that of impermanence and flexibility. Early texts describe Tao not as equal to "the One," but as a principle underlying both the One and the Many. One revealing phrase used to describe it is huntun (roughly, "chaotic mixture"). In the wake of Wang Bi, philosophical Taoists have tended to describe it as "nothingness," which is the origin of "being." (Cf. the apophatic tendencies of theism, including negative theology.)" A very common definition of religion is a set of beliefs, it wouldn't necessarily require worship of a god. The point still remains, that atheism isn't intrinsically linked with science. You're just stereotyping what the typical "atheist" would be and then claiming that scientific chat would be somehow religious by association.

That doesn't take into account things which are derived from theory, nor does it take in account things which cant be experimented on. People might apply some sort of method to their everyday work but you can't say that there is a definitive method of science.

Many Eastern Religions (Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism) don't believe in a God, however it doesn't stop them from believing in something. Atheism doesn't stop you from believing in anything else, it just means that you don't believe in a God. Atheism is a negative claim, the onus of proof is on the person who makes a positive claim. It's no more insulting then Mormonism, Scientology or any other wacky cult religions. What is the scientific method? As far as myself and philosophers of Science, it doesn't exist.

Uhh did you understand what I was saying? The more floors you have, the higher the density of elevators, water/sewerage pipes etc. needed to run the tower. This is due to the fact that everything on the top floor needs to go through every floor below it to get to ground level; it's common sense.

There is no reason in most parts of the world to build tall buildings; there is plenty of space to expand outwards. There is no point making it more of a engineering challenge then needs be. Besides how would you have enough room in the tower for elevators, water, sewerage, counter balances, dampeners and fire stairs; the higher the tower, the more you need of the above to service the higher floors. There is nothing stopping you from creating concepts, however the concepts themselves are infeasible to construct due to weak materials, amenities and practicality.

Most of the questions that you ask have no definite answer or have multiple answers (and vary due to state legislation and where you live). So how would you go about creating a concrete course and assessment framework when such things would need to be constantly updated and altered to keep up with the changing world. What is the use of being taught life skills if you don't have the initiative to go out and learn first hand what it all means; a book can only go so far, especially for something so subjective. You're bound to mess up somewhere, that's what we call life. The over protectiveness of this generation's parents have failed to actually care for their kids if their child is too scared to make mistakes and need to be taught about life skills instead of actually experiencing them. If you want to learn about shares, go read about it or talk to a finance manager about how you can finance shares through your work. If you want to learn about a job market, then find a job you want to do and find industry recruitment agencies and talk to people in the industry. I don't see we need to have a class which is based on common sense.

Capital punishment really comes down to how do you value a humans life. Deterrence and retribution are not conclusively valid reasons for capital punishment. There isn't a correct way to value a person's life, so how would you evaluate whether it is worth maintaining a person's life without knowing its value? You don't respect things like racism because there is no factual basis for what people perceive to be 'race', race is a false distinction. However there is no factual basis for or against capital punishment so there is no reason to respect one position over the other. There is a difference between giving your opinion and making your opinion out to be something more then what it is. Using loaded language like: "Please explain how hypocritically torturing Saddam was justice." You're attempting to gain an emotional response out of the reader which goes beyond what the sentences meaning in an attempt to gather support and assert authority. A much better sentence would have been: "Please explain why you support killing Saddam, yet you don't support Saddam's killings? Isn't hanging an inhumane way to die?" This is a clear, can't be misconstrued and isn't emotionally provocative.

Please explain why you like to use loaded language. The judgement being hypocritical, torturous or just is completely relative, depending on your beliefs. I might not believe in capital punishment but that doesn't stop me from respecting rulings which involve the death sentence. People hold different ideas of what justice is, you need to get over that the world revolves around you and let people just be. On the other hand I think it is more torturous being locked in a prison for the rest of my life knowing I will never be able to contribute to society, have regular civil liberties and lead a relatively normal life. Let's face it Saddam was either going to live life behind bars or be killed, In his situation I would have been glad for a quick and painless death.

Better not enjoy dissecting cadavers, mutilating a dead body should never be enjoyed. Thinking like this made the anatomist profession and dissection taboo; limiting the progression of medicine for around 1500 years. There are many reasons why someone would enjoy watching a death and not all of them would be for sadistic pleasure. Even if it were for sadistic pleasure, what makes it so wrong? Thanks for the insight Mr Authority.

Exactly, some people like to preach and some find it repulsive; Either way, it is a matter of opinion.

You don't need to be an atheist to rationalise subjective morality (I'm not an atheist for example), in fact I see it as a consequence of biology. We codify laws so that we have some form of cohesiveness and a minimal level of civil freedom. Even without formal laws, people would be discouraged from doing anything viewed as too negative, since people will eventually turn on them. I wouldn't necessarily say that we have to act as if it were objective, since useful laws are ones created as a response to a need from the population. I doubt it would be possible to create a law without influence from general opinion since the lawmakers themselves live in a society of differing opinion.

Saying that getting punched in the face as something 'objectively wrong', is just a band-aid patch and being lazy; It doesn't explain anything. Great, it's objective, but you are still not answering why it is objective or how it came to be objective. If getting punched in the face is objectively wrong, then why is someone punching you in the face? There is nothing inherently wrong with someone punching you in the face. The person who punches you in the face must deal with the consequences associated with such an action, which is decided by people affected by the event.

Faith is one of those words which mean different things depending on the context (like the word 'theory', which means opposite things). It is important to have faith (trust, confidence etc.) in people and things in order to live reasonable lives. However faith (belief in something not based in proof) should be something best kept for things which are trivial (having faith that the next card in a friendly game of poker will give you a full house) or for things which can be proven in the foreseeable future. Having faith that a fusion reactor is a economically viable source of power is significantly different to having faith that Elvis is coming back with the U.F.O's.