DiscussMormonism.com

So Science, which I claim is starting to show it's own authoritarian/religious properties is claiming now the Universe came from nothing because of negative and positive energy that can pop in and out of existence, and that our entire universe might just be well organized nothing. That Gravity is the negative energy and that supposedly enough positive energy came into existence and started the entire universe via a big bang.

But when pushed, they claim "nothingness" is ambiguous, so there really is no such thing as nothingness, as there are quantum fluctuations that pop in and out of existence (magically), but then, so, if, then well..

And then there is the theory we started out as a 1D line.

IMHO Science is grasping for straws to try to explain a universe without God that they are coming up with ideas no sillier than what religion came up with.

*Shrug*

JMS

Science is formulating explanations based on the best evidence we have so far. Or in other words, it's the exact opposite of a religion.

jskains wrote:IMHO Science is grasping for straws to try to explain a universe without God that they are coming up with ideas no sillier than what religion came up with.

*Shrug*

JMS

The difference is that when 'no sillier than what religion came up with' ideas are posited in the scientific realm, they are subject to logical and rational scrutiny.

On the other hand, when those silly religious ideas are posited, they are proposed to be taken without question (and used by some to gain leverage over others).

Certainly there have been and will be silly ideas posited in science. They have been or will be scrutinized and if truly silly, rejected. With religion, you are told by those peddling silly religious ideas that if you do not accept them you risk angering god again you. The most salient difference in the reliability and outcomes is in the methodology.

Honest question:

Have scientist every burned each other at the stake because the disagreed on a fundament?

Let's see, I can believe scientific theories on the nature of the Universe, or I can study what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught, and read the Book of Abraham. The best thing about the scientific method to knowledge is they don't charge me 10%, and they are willing to change their position when new evidence comes to light without the lame excuse of "we don't know why we taught that."

lulu wrote:Honest question:

Have scientist every burned each other at the stake because the disagreed on a fundament?

No but they have charged drinks to each other's tabs at happy hour and later said "Burn!" in an email title.

No better than the lame excuse, "We don't know what it is, so we'll call it "Dark Matter"".

JMS

lulu wrote:Honest question:

Have scientist every burned each other at the stake because the disagreed on a fundament?

Yes. But it is the form of grant terminations or shunning from their scientific communities.

JMS

Bond James Bond wrote:Jskains was a forum poster, dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.

Do you have an actual interesting contribution or are you just noise with the equivalent value of a fart?

JMS