razama wrote...
mibuchiha wrote...
razama wrote...
Finding answers by religion is just as legitiment as finding them through science.
Oh my....I just find it amusing anyone actually said this...I hope you're just joking but...in case you're not, may I know you reasons for saying so?
Geeze... a little condesending dontcha think?... anyways...
Both are, and hear me out, faith based. Indeed, while science is powerful, it isn't unfalable. Even recently, mathmatics has been found to limited, its laws being changed and refined, fitting into the new things we learn and growing along with the growing knowledge humans posses. Because of this, we know that old mathmatics was indeed flawed, an easy example is if you consider that for sometime the concept of zero did not exist (once again, peoples minds were blown;) ) So inorder to use science, as any scientist will tell you, you have to have faith. In both the known, and unknown.
Religion is the same, we do not see a god, but we do see miracles. Their are documentations of people spontanously growning limbs, google William Branham, a man who during the 1950s healed thousands of people, on the spot, recorded even by the FBI as it happened. The unexplainable, yet the fruits of faith present.
So if a man prays, and he is cured of blindness, and another and another researches sciences, and is cured of his blindness is one of them wrong for being cured? They both are cured. Perhaps the man prayed for the other man to find a cure, and perhaps the man who researched had inspiration from the divine. Both men are cured, both found their answer to blindness
Oh my, sorry if you see it that way...
But, you do understand why the law of maths ans sciences are changing over time, right? It's because we learn something new, we find new areas to be explored, and new limits taken down(or imposed). So, yeah, while in the strictest sense it is faith based, the faith that acts as a base in science is nothing more that the feeling of awe when we see something mysterious, accompanied by raging curiosity to explore and learn more about it. Nothing wrong about that...plus intellect alone cannot inspire us to actually explore new things...
Like Einstein said...
"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.'
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.
It is the source of all art and science."
These two quotes are what I think speak best about the 'faith' of scientists, that I while still far from the peak, certainly have felt at least a little of it...
As for faith in religion, it is the same in that it's also based in the mysterious, but with no attempt to learn more about it. Faith in religion promotes people to let the unknown stay unknown, and just gain satisfaction in labeling your lack of knowledge as "god". So how can you say these two faith are that of the same? I don't like to put it this way but, to me it's an insult to even lump these two together. I'm very sure if scientists and the religious share the same faith, instead of searching for lamp we'll just pray for light.
As for miracles, all I can say is that we're still having not enough knowledge as to know the real principles behind why prayers seem to work. Brain is a very complex organ and since prayers in some ways stimulate the brain, I know the answer got to be a complex one, which for now we've been able to find. But I'm very sure that prayer itself is not the answer, because if prayers are indeed able to directly influence the world, certain country would have perished long ago.
And razama, I gotta say your attempt to justify the existence of god using relationship and love is just...corny, at best. Love is too feeble an emotion to even rely to, so using it as a proof for something is really far-fetched...not to mention I see no truth value is brought by any emotion...
Soymilk wrote...
The big bang is just a theory. And just as the physics theories of galaxies have been challenged to the ground, so has the big bang.
Theories of galaxies are challenged? May I take it that it's general relativity(because gravity plays a large part in forming galaxies) that is challenged? If so, may I know your source? Because this is so interesting to me...
As for refuting something just because it's a theory...well, electromagnetism is also just a theory...try living without that.