"Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" Discussion

[Yeata Zi]

Catching up!!!

[Yeata Zi]

Watched the last episode!

Neil deGrasse Tyson has said he won't do a season two, but maybe we will get a new host?

[MonickerPenis]

I really should catch up.

It started as just a thing for me and my relatives, getting a basic understanding of science.

Most believe that science is a part of some type of 'liberal conspiracy' or that it is some form of religion, or that it is Satanism incognito.

[Yeata Zi]

Apocke

I really should catch up.

It started as just a thing for me and my relatives, getting a basic understanding of science.

Most believe that science is a part of some type of 'liberal conspiracy' or that it is some form of religion, or that it is Satanism incognito.

Whaaaaaaaaaaat

[MonickerPenis]

Yeata Zi

Apocke

I really should catch up.

It started as just a thing for me and my relatives, getting a basic understanding of science.

Most believe that science is a part of some type of 'liberal conspiracy' or that it is some form of religion, or that it is Satanism incognito.

Whaaaaaaaaaaat

It's the Catholicism that rages rampant in my family.

[Yeata Zi]

Apocke

Yeata Zi

Apocke

I really should catch up.

It started as just a thing for me and my relatives, getting a basic understanding of science.

Most believe that science is a part of some type of 'liberal conspiracy' or that it is some form of religion, or that it is Satanism incognito.

Whaaaaaaaaaaat

It's the Catholicism that rages rampant in my family.

But... I'm basically Catholic and I don't think this. :/

[MonickerPenis]

Yeata Zi

Apocke

Yeata Zi

Apocke

I really should catch up.

It started as just a thing for me and my relatives, getting a basic understanding of science.

Most believe that science is a part of some type of 'liberal conspiracy' or that it is some form of religion, or that it is Satanism incognito.

Whaaaaaaaaaaat

It's the Catholicism that rages rampant in my family.

But... I'm basically Catholic and I don't think this. :/

You're a Moderate then. You don't take what the Bible says seriously. At least not the violent and cruel parts.

[Yeata Zi]

Apocke

Yeata Zi

Apocke

Yeata Zi

Apocke

I really should catch up.

It started as just a thing for me and my relatives, getting a basic understanding of science.

Most believe that science is a part of some type of 'liberal conspiracy' or that it is some form of religion, or that it is Satanism incognito.

Whaaaaaaaaaaat

It's the Catholicism that rages rampant in my family.

But... I'm basically Catholic and I don't think this. :/

You're a Moderate then. You don't take what the Bible says seriously. At least not the violent and cruel parts.

I don't see what that would have to do with not thinking science is real. :/

[MonickerPenis]

Yeata Zi

Apocke

Yeata Zi

Apocke

Yeata Zi

Apocke

I really should catch up.

It started as just a thing for me and my relatives, getting a basic understanding of science.

Most believe that science is a part of some type of 'liberal conspiracy' or that it is some form of religion, or that it is Satanism incognito.

Whaaaaaaaaaaat

It's the Catholicism that rages rampant in my family.

But... I'm basically Catholic and I don't think this. :/

You're a Moderate then. You don't take what the Bible says seriously. At least not the violent and cruel parts.

I don't see what that would have to do with not thinking science is real. :/

I don't mean to insult you, but there are things we know for certain reasons.

A lot of things we know to be true because of evidence associated to them.

Some things are thought to be true, based on what a book of lore says.

Conflicts can arise between the two~
One person thinks that a god created all organisms/life.
Another person knows through thorough evidence, that a god does not get credit for the creation of life.

[Yeata Zi]

Apocke

Yeata Zi

Apocke

Yeata Zi

Apocke

It's the Catholicism that rages rampant in my family.

But... I'm basically Catholic and I don't think this. :/

You're a Moderate then. You don't take what the Bible says seriously. At least not the violent and cruel parts.

I don't see what that would have to do with not thinking science is real. :/

I don't mean to insult you, but there are things we know for certain reasons.

A lot of things we know to be true because of evidence associated to them.

Some things are thought to be true, based on what a book of lore says.

Conflicts can arise between the two~
One person thinks that a god created all organisms/life.
Another person knows through thorough evidence, that a god does not get credit for the creation of life.

I don't see how God can't get credit for the creation of life, even if it didn't happen in the literal sense that is written in the Bible. God could be behind evolution and the big bang and etc.

[MonickerPenis]

Yeata Zi

Apocke

Yeata Zi

Apocke

Yeata Zi

Apocke

It's the Catholicism that rages rampant in my family.

But... I'm basically Catholic and I don't think this. :/

You're a Moderate then. You don't take what the Bible says seriously. At least not the violent and cruel parts.

I don't see what that would have to do with not thinking science is real. :/

I don't mean to insult you, but there are things we know for certain reasons.

A lot of things we know to be true because of evidence associated to them.

Some things are thought to be true, based on what a book of lore says.

Conflicts can arise between the two~
One person thinks that a god created all organisms/life.
Another person knows through thorough evidence, that a god does not get credit for the creation of life.

I don't see how God can't get credit for the creation of life, even if it didn't happen in the literal sense that is written in the Bible. God could be behind evolution and the big bang and etc.

Can you demonstrate that in any way?

[Lilith Maura]

Apocke

Can you demonstrate that in any way?

I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to jump on this.

I don't think that there is an answer that will satisfy your question. Science makes several assumptions and limitations to itself, chief of these being Methodological Naturalism. This means that science only consider natural causes for the processes and phenomenon we see in nature. As such it is impossible for science to answer a question on religion, or faith, or spirituality, physic powers, or any other supernatural phenomenon; it lacks the means to observe, measure, or test such things. Without Methodological Naturalism however, science would never make any progress in its study of nature, so its a required limitation.

Multiple models for how a god could create the universes can be proposed, be it the absent deist "clock maker" god, or the always involved god of the Abrahamic religions. the problem is that science can only make comment on what it observes in nature, and thus is limited to just that. Trying to argue that science disproves the existence of a creator god, or vice versa is like a dog chasing its own tail. The two notions are wholly incompatible.

[MonickerPenis]

Gothic Acantha

Apocke

Can you demonstrate that in any way?

I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to jump on this.

I don't think that there is an answer that will satisfy your question. Science makes several assumptions and limitations to itself, chief of these being Methodological Naturalism. This means that science only consider natural causes for the processes and phenomenon we see in nature. As such it is impossible for science to answer a question on religion, or faith, or spirituality, physic powers, or any other supernatural phenomenon; it lacks the means to observe, measure, or test such things. Without Methodological Naturalism however, science would never make any progress in its study of nature, so its a required limitation.

Multiple models for how a god could create the universes can be proposed, be it the absent deist "clock maker" god, or the always involved god of the Abrahamic religions. the problem is that science can only make comment on what it observes in nature, and thus is limited to just that. Trying to argue that science disproves the existence of a creator god, or vice versa is like a dog chasing its own tail. The two notions are wholly incompatible.

Our 'method' works. It has been demonstrated to work, as we have observed the product of its practice. This has happened an innumerable amount of times. As for natural causes, there is not a difference between 'supernatural' and 'natural' beside the fact that one is demonstrable and the other isn't, and doesn't play a part in anyone's life. 'Supernatural' things aren't apart of our reality, and I refuse to live as if they were. Demonstrate to me that a 'supernatural' thing can be considered 'natural' or real, and I gladly will accept it as a part of our reality.

There is an answer that would satisfy me. There are many, actually. It depends on what you claim. If you were to claim that the god of Catholicism were real, I'd have a set amount of questions that would need to be satisfied. If you wanted to prove to me that Jertanert, the ruler of Planet 2674025 existed, I'd have a set question/s for you.

Science imposes no limitations on itself. I'm fairly certain that you've heard the metaphor of the 'Ever Sharpening Sword'. Whenever something is found to be false, we correct it. We don't rely on any standard, except the current one. That current standard may be flawed in some ways, but it has proven it's effectiveness thus far. In the future, when humans start looking into greater things (I'm no physicist or cosmologist, but what happened before the Big Bang - If there was anything before it.) and their standard is not equipped in the correct fashion to study it.

[Lilith Maura]

Quote:

Demonstrate to me that a 'supernatural' thing can be considered 'natural' or real, and I gladly will accept it as a part of our reality.

I can’t, and that is the whole purpose of Methodological Naturalism, to limit science to only natural processes. It does not consider supernatural hypothesis’s because it is unable to directly observe or test them, making it impossible to study them. If they were able to, then these things would not be supernatural.

The annoying thing about the supernatural is that it can decide whatever it wants to be. If a god wants to make a rock so heavy that it can’t lift the rock, it can do just that. Then an instance later, it can decide to lift that same rock. It’s not bound by rules, logic, or laws, and thus is impossible for us to quantify.

Quote:

If you were to claim that the god of Catholicism were real, I'd have a set amount of questions that would need to be satisfied.

I agree, I would to, but the answers that can be provided will never satisfy what you or I want, because we would have to consider something we can’t observe or measure as evidence, and according to the rules set by Methodological Naturalism it’s not.

Quote:

Science imposes no limitations on itself.

Yes it does, several in fact. The scientific method is one such limit. However, I think you are misunderstanding by what I mean by limit. I don’t mean limit as in a ‘lack of ability’, but rather as a ‘control’.

[Yeata Zi]

Apocke

Yeata Zi

Apocke

Yeata Zi

Apocke

You're a Moderate then. You don't take what the Bible says seriously. At least not the violent and cruel parts.

I don't see what that would have to do with not thinking science is real. :/

I don't mean to insult you, but there are things we know for certain reasons.

A lot of things we know to be true because of evidence associated to them.

Some things are thought to be true, based on what a book of lore says.

Conflicts can arise between the two~
One person thinks that a god created all organisms/life.
Another person knows through thorough evidence, that a god does not get credit for the creation of life.

I don't see how God can't get credit for the creation of life, even if it didn't happen in the literal sense that is written in the Bible. God could be behind evolution and the big bang and etc.

Can you demonstrate that in any way?

Nope. Which is why it's called Faith, bro.

Science I can demonstrate. Faith I can't. They are two different beasts.