Re: Agnostic how?

by **Aardvark** Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:07 pm

Well this turned out much more then I thought it would. My main point was even if you don't care to study up most people have at least entertained their own separate creation scenarios, even if they're a bit off their rocker. Personally I like the theory that we're pretty much all non-linear beings thrown into a made up plain of existence as either an experiment or entertainment. Yeah it's a bit crazy, inane, stupid, wacko(pick your adjective), but it's fun to tell either an Atheist or Religious follower about it and watch them get mad.

But I believe Mordin from ME2 had the most accurate description of an Agnostic belief: "Refuse to believe life ends here. Too wasteful."

by **Dray The Fingerless** Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:14 pm

Life is but a perspective we humans create.

by **Sinusoidal** Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:38 pm

A frame of reference is based on time theory, it is not an alternate plane of reality. If the laws of conservation of time and momentum hold in an inertial frame of reference, there is no reason to believe it would not hold in another inertial frame of reference.

by **Dray The Fingerless** Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:59 pm

Sinusoidal wrote:A frame of reference is based on time theory, it is not an alternate plane of reality. If the laws of conservation of time and momentum hold in an inertial frame of reference, there is no reason to believe it would not hold in another inertial frame of reference.

In other words, if they hold up on a basic building block of existence, why wouldnt they in another similar building block? Youre basically just assuming that there will always be a point to wich go back further enough that they would be the same.

There is no reason to believe it would hold either. Or that there would be another frame of reference. Theres that word again. Reference.

On another note, i dont think we speak in the same subject. Youre still trapped in the Big Bang theory and the laws that have come from deduction and mathematics. Wich i tend to agree with for most of the time. I am speaking wayyyyy above that level. At levels where mathematics are irrelevant, and proof is non existent. There are things that science and mathematics cannot explain.

by **Dray The Fingerless** Thu Mar 10, 2011 7:35 pm

Btw, i just thought this image fits the conversation
Agnostic how? - Page 2 2v0ir2t

by Nihil Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:19 pm

Dray The Fingerless wrote:
Sinusoidal wrote:A frame of reference is based on time theory, it is not an alternate plane of reality. If the laws of conservation of time and momentum hold in an inertial frame of reference, there is no reason to believe it would not hold in another inertial frame of reference.

In other words, if they hold up on a basic building block of existence, why wouldnt they in another similar building block? Youre basically just assuming that there will always be a point to wich go back further enough that they would be the same.

There is no reason to believe it would hold either. Or that there would be another frame of reference. Theres that word again. Reference.

On another note, i dont think we speak in the same subject. Youre still trapped in the Big Bang theory and the laws that have come from deduction and mathematics. Wich i tend to agree with for most of the time. I am speaking wayyyyy above that level. At levels where mathematics are irrelevant, and proof is non existent. There are things that science and mathematics cannot explain.

You have a highly romanticized view of science, if there are things science and math cannot explain, quite simply, they don't exist. The study of reality cannot study what doesn't exist, furthermore, I am only talking about our universe and our laws, I don't yet buy this multiverse stuff, neither does my physics teacher, as of yet, they are just trying to fit pieces to a puzzle, almost fitting, but not.

by **Dray The Fingerless** Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:29 pm

Things science and maths cannot explain yet*

Better?

by Nihil Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:32 pm

Dray The Fingerless wrote:Things science and maths cannot explain yet*

Better?

You know things that science and math cannot explain yet? enlighten me please.

All of our studies result from science and math, they are the only ways that we can know things without actually seeing them and experiencing them.

by **Dray The Fingerless** Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:36 pm

Nihil wrote:
Dray The Fingerless wrote:Things science and maths cannot explain yet*

Better?

You know things that science and math cannot explain yet? enlighten me please.

All of our studies result from science and math, they are the only ways that we can know things without actually seeing them and experiencing them.

So you like taking words in literal fashions? Good luck with that.

by **dandaman7** Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:37 pm

When you say explain, do you mean prove?

by **Dray The Fingerless** Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:40 pm

Technically, nothing is provable thru the scientific method, at least absolutely. But Nihil likes to take words literally only in the parts that suits an argument. I swear, sometimes he can be smart, and sometimes he can be really dumb.

by **soran** Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:17 pm

the laws of conservation of mass and energy destroy the theory of the big bang in a way because it states that energy cannot just exist or be destroyed soooo how did that stuff that started the big bang even get there? SOMETHING that we dont understand that even math and science cant even prove would have had to do something to create the ingredients for the big bang to even happen. IMO its a fail theory

by **Dray The Fingerless** Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:57 pm

All you have now in terms of energy and mass was there at Big Bang. This also relates to time distortion, wich is a very complex and confusing thing.

by **soran** Sun Mar 13, 2011 9:06 pm

yeah jus from the sounds of it i dun wanna get into it lol

by **Ptolemy** Sun Mar 13, 2011 10:22 pm

so there is this magic that happend so the big bang could happen... I can see that as a theory.

by **Dray The Fingerless** Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:21 am

It is magic only until it becomes science.

by **Aureus** Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:25 am

And there is this God that decided to be created... I see that as theory

by **Lucky** Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:06 am

Nihil wrote:
Dray The Fingerless wrote:Things science and maths cannot explain yet*

Better?

You know things that science and math cannot explain yet? enlighten me please.

All of our studies result from science and math, they are the only ways that we can know things without actually seeing them and experiencing them.

General relativity and quantum mechanics don't work together. Quantum mechanics works fine on a small scale, but I don't see stars, myself, or the planet occupying an infinite amount of spaces or seemingly vanishing out of existence for brief periods of time only to reappear someplace else. Yet subatomic particles have been known to do that. There's something science and math can't explain yet.

by **Red-X** Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:26 am

Lucky wrote:
Nihil wrote:
Dray The Fingerless wrote:Things science and maths cannot explain yet*

Better?

You know things that science and math cannot explain yet? enlighten me please.

All of our studies result from science and math, they are the only ways that we can know things without actually seeing them and experiencing them.

General relativity and quantum mechanics don't work together. Quantum mechanics works fine on a small scale, but I don't see stars, myself, or the planet occupying an infinite amount of spaces or seemingly vanishing out of existence for brief periods of time only to reappear someplace else. Yet subatomic particles have been known to do that. There's something science and math can't explain yet.

same with religion, yet w/e we say it always goes back to the bible =_=

by **dandaman7** Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:29 am

Because religion can explain things, true or untrue.

by **Dray The Fingerless** Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:49 am

Lucky wrote:
Nihil wrote:
Dray The Fingerless wrote:Things science and maths cannot explain yet*

Better?

You know things that science and math cannot explain yet? enlighten me please.

All of our studies result from science and math, they are the only ways that we can know things without actually seeing them and experiencing them.

General relativity and quantum mechanics don't work together. Quantum mechanics works fine on a small scale, but I don't see stars, myself, or the planet occupying an infinite amount of spaces or seemingly vanishing out of existence for brief periods of time only to reappear someplace else. Yet subatomic particles have been known to do that. There's something science and math can't explain yet.

Oh i totally forgot that. xD

But what Nihil means is that science and mathematics by nature, explain everything, it is simply knowledge humanity does not have yet. wich is why i said they dont explain everything(to us) yet.

by **Ptolemy** Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:22 pm

Aureus wrote:And there is this God that decided to be created... I see that as theory

No God did not suddenly create himself He always was, is, and will be for ever.

by **Red-X** Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:33 pm

hearing that just flat out doesnt make sense to me....this debate can go on forever...........

by **Ptolemy** Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:06 pm

It could. It is easy for me to argue Faith in God, it is hard for someone that does not believe to understand Faith in God.

by **Aureus** Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:46 pm

Speak for urself

The only religious argument is "just was"

by Sponsored content