• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Truth : Science Vs. Religion

Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
4,315 (1.21/day)
Likes
1,015
Location
Multidimensional
System Name Derp!
Processor i7 7700 @ 4.2Ghz Turbo On
Motherboard Gigabyte B250 Phoenix Wifi ITX Motherboard
Cooling Noctua NH-L9i LP Cooler || Cooler Master Fan Pro RGB 120mm x 2
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 2400mhz RAM
Video Card(s) AMD Reference RX 480 8GB
Storage 250GB SS 960 Evo M.2 || WD Blue 500GB SSD || 2TB SG FC SSHD
Display(s) Hisense 1080p Smart LED HDTV 40inch
Case Fractal Node 202 Mini ITX Case
Audio Device(s) Realtek HD Audio / HDMI Audio Via GPU
Power Supply Corsair SFX 600W PSU
Mouse CoolerMaster Masterkeys Lite L RGB Mouse
Keyboard CoolerMaster Masterkeys Lite L RGB Mem-Chanical Keyboard
Software Windows 10 Home 64bit
Benchmark Scores Later
It's just another dead end.

Science and religion got nothing to do with each other. For some people their religion is their science and for other people their science is their religion. Religion doesn't need any explanation at all. It has "take it or leave it approach". While science is a totally different thing.

Actually what's the real goal of science? Right it's knowledge, absolute truth, M-theory, universal formula ... you name it. Does this all have to do anything with god? Not necessarily. Atm nothing really can prove or disprove god's existence while zealots or atheists still foaming at the mouth the real truth won't change. And maybe there isn't even any truth at all. Maybe everything is random and chaotic and has no meaning at all just like in quantum world. Maybe it all like Mr. Feynman says, is about sums of possibilities and nothing more. As for myself ... I'd rather be spending my life on thinking and seeking for answers which I want to know, being happy or sad, feeling lost or found than fearing shaking and waiting for the heaven or eternal salvation. Ok.. end of rant.
Very well said:toast:;)
 
T

twilyth

Guest
Science and truth have nothing to do with one another. Truth in it's absolute sense is a purely metaphysical construct. Science does not provide truth. It provides a relative degree of certainty, which is not, by any stretch of the imagination the same thing.
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
540 (0.20/day)
Likes
58
Location
TX
System Name W540
Processor i7 4700MQ 4x 3.40GHz
Motherboard W540
Cooling Modded Fan + AS5
Memory 16GB PC12800 DDR3 Dual Channel
Video Card(s) nVidia Quadro K2100M 2GB GDDR5
Storage 256GB Samsung 850 Pro SSD
Display(s) 15.4" 3K IPS
Case ThinkPad W540
Audio Device(s) Realtek HD Audio
Power Supply 175W
Mouse Razer DeathAdder WOT Edition
Keyboard Razer Deathstallker
Software Windows 10 Home
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
5,936 (2.20/day)
Likes
6,640
Science and truth have nothing to do with one another. Truth in it's absolute sense is a purely metaphysical construct. Science does not provide truth. It provides a relative degree of certainty, which is not, by any stretch of the imagination the same thing.
orly? Truth has many different meanings, here's one of them:

truth noun \ˈtrüth\
a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true
I see nothing metaphysical here.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2010
Messages
1,655 (0.61/day)
Likes
729
Location
Philly
System Name Primary Rig
Processor Phenom II X4 B50 @ 3.7GHz
Motherboard Biostar TA790GX 128M
Cooling Sunbeam CR-CCTF 120mm , 6x120mm, MOS-C1
Memory 2x2GB Kingston HyperX 1066 @ 800 4-4-4-12
Video Card(s) Sapphire HD 5830 800/1000 @ 885/1225
Storage 320GB, 400GB, 500GB, 1.5TB
Display(s) Hannspree HF259
Case CM 690
Power Supply OCZ 850W
Benchmark Scores 3Dmark06: 18545/5219 CPU Mark 7.0: 3911.2 Cinebench R10: 11826/3359 x264 HD 2.0: 75.6/23.9
orly? Truth has many different meanings, here's one of them:

. . .

I see nothing metaphysical here.
Equivocation
The whole metaphysical truth thing is a big bother. For instance, if nothing can be proved to be true, then how can I be sure that nothing can be proved to be true? Consequently this is reduced to truth = scientific truth = large body of evidence supporting a theory = indisputable conclusion. Damned paradoxes :laugh:.
Science and truth have nothing to do with one another.
Though I agree with the rest of your post I disagree with this. In science some events are said to be so unlikely that they are scientifically impossible. In the same manner, something that is supported by a large body of evidence is considered to be scientific truth.
 
Last edited:
T

twilyth

Guest
orly? Truth has many different meanings, here's one of them:



I see nothing metaphysical here.
That's why I said in it's absolute sense. Translation, absolute truth.

edit: This is the standard to be used in the context of religion since religion claims to convey precisely that - absolute knowledge - absolute truth.
Equivocation

Though I agree with the rest of your post I disagree with this. In science some events are said to be so unlikely that they are scientifically impossible. In the same manner, something that is supported by a large body of evidence is considered to be scientific truth.
And yet things that one generation may find as having been proven beyond any doubt, may turn out, years or even centuries later, to have been either erroneous or at least incomplete. There are so many examples of this that it is virtually cliche. If you doubt that, pick up this excellent book - "The structure of scientific revolutions."

But it's irrelevant in any event since science does not even pretend to show us absolute truth - only relative truth that happens to adequate to our needs at a particular point in time.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
5,936 (2.20/day)
Likes
6,640
Equiwhat? :confused:

If I say that numerical value of e is 2.71828 (without writing all that infinite amount of digits) it doesn't mean that is not true. It's only a part of "true". Every little piece of truths added up to one will make the truth. "The universe doesn't have a single history, but every possible history" that's how it works. Even if it's impossible to find this it doesn't mean that it's metaphysical or doesn't exist. The universe as we see it, is not as it seems. It still doesn't mean that science is wrong because in this frame of reference it's all right. Just like tiny world and macro world which have totally different laws if you have a clue what I'm talking about. And calling scientists' attempts to find uniform field theory metaphysical is rather stupid.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2010
Messages
1,655 (0.61/day)
Likes
729
Location
Philly
System Name Primary Rig
Processor Phenom II X4 B50 @ 3.7GHz
Motherboard Biostar TA790GX 128M
Cooling Sunbeam CR-CCTF 120mm , 6x120mm, MOS-C1
Memory 2x2GB Kingston HyperX 1066 @ 800 4-4-4-12
Video Card(s) Sapphire HD 5830 800/1000 @ 885/1225
Storage 320GB, 400GB, 500GB, 1.5TB
Display(s) Hannspree HF259
Case CM 690
Power Supply OCZ 850W
Benchmark Scores 3Dmark06: 18545/5219 CPU Mark 7.0: 3911.2 Cinebench R10: 11826/3359 x264 HD 2.0: 75.6/23.9
And yet things that one generation may find as having been proven beyond any doubt, may turn out, years or even centuries later, to have been either erroneous or at least incomplete. There are so many examples of this that it is virtually cliche. If you doubt that, pick up this excellent book - "The structure of scientific revolutions."
:laugh: No, I don't doubt it. It's that which is the spirit of the post you responded to.
But it's irrelevant in any event since science does not even pretend to show us absolute truth - only relative truth that happens to adequate to our needs at a particular point in time.
Due to the problems I've had with certain terms (like truth, fact, knowledge) I've grown accustomed to using them purely in their scientific form, ergo,
true = according to all evidence; accepted as fact​
It rarely occurs to me that many people do not use these words in this way.
It still doesn't mean that science is wrong because in this frame of reference it's all right.
I never said it was wrong; I believe many scientific theories are as true as true can get.

Let me tell you a little story about a cave . . . :D
And calling scientists' attempts to find uniform field theory metaphysical is rather stupid.
Straw man :D
Seriously though, I'm too tired to continue this discussion but I'm enjoying it a lot.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
381 (0.15/day)
Likes
39
science and truth have nothing to do with one another. Truth in it's absolute sense is a purely metaphysical construct. Science does not provide truth. It provides a relative degree of certainty, which is not, by any stretch of the imagination the same thing.
fma: b?
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
5,936 (2.20/day)
Likes
6,640
That's why I said in it's absolute sense. Translation, absolute truth.
Yeah I know. That philosophical concept of absolution is rather perplexing. If there are 10^500 universes and each of them has its own laws then of course our truth got nothing to do with theirs.
 
T

twilyth

Guest
:laugh: No, I don't doubt it. It's that which is the spirit of the post you responded to.

Due to the problems I've had with certain terms (like truth, fact, knowledge) I've grown accustomed to using them purely in their scientific form, ergo,
true = according to all evidence; accepted as fact​
It rarely occurs to me that many people do not use these words in this way.
That's completely understandable, but any philosophical discussion requires precision in one's terminology. If we posit that scientific truth and religious truth bear no similarity, then how can a thread titled "truth: science vs religion" lead to any sort of deeper understanding. It is doomed to devolve into yet another pissing contest.
a & b, but no, not the source of my information.
Yeah I know. That philosophical concept of absolution is rather perplexing. If there are 10^500 universes and each of them has its own laws then of course our truth got nothing to do with theirs.
No, it's much worse than that. Scientific truth by it's very nature is empirical. Religious truth by it's very nature is metaphysical.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
5,936 (2.20/day)
Likes
6,640
I never said it was wrong; I believe many scientific theories are as true as true can get.

Let me tell you a little story about a cave . . . :D
Nice story. I also like how Stephen Hawking stated an analogy that we're like fishes who live in a fish tank which glass distorts everything. Illusion vs reality. For those who live inside the illusion, the illusion becomes reality. Ok ok ... it's kinda Inception lol.

No, it's much worse than that. Scientific truth by it's very nature is empirical. Religious truth by it's very nature is metaphysical.
It's worse indeed. For example if they say that god gave people choice but knows everything that will happen then how is this a choice? While others say that god can know everything but he chose not to, so people would have a REAL choice. This for the millionth time will rise a "war" did people create religion or it was all given by god. And even worse does religion got to do anything with real god? Maybe real god is not like that god who was described in Muslim/Christian/Jew/etc religion? Maybe today talking about this will be considered a blasphemy and can initiate a flame war or even fist fight while in the past people easily got killed for this.
 
T

twilyth

Guest
It's worse indeed. For example if they say that god gave people choice but knows everything that will happen then how is this a choice? While others say that god can know everything but he chose not to, so people would have a REAL choice. This for the millionth time will rise a "war" did people create religion or it was all given by god. And even worse does religion got to do anything with real god? Maybe real god is not like that god who was described in Muslim/Christian/Jew/etc religion? Maybe today talking about this will be considered a blasphemy and can initiate a flame war or even fist fight while in the past people easily got killed for this.
The prescience prohibits free will argument is bogus. But that's irrelevant. Religion claims to tell you the absolute truth about god, the soul, etc, etc. The fact that religions disagree over all things metaphysical proves nothing and is hardly a criticism. The issue is whether religious truth bears any relationship of any kind to scientific truth, and the fact of the matter is that it does not. Therefore discussing one type of "truth" versus another completely different kind of "truth" is nothing short of pointless and misguided.

I would also point out that religious truth is not limited by what is logically permissible. At the core of every religion are certain "mysteries" that require you to accept as fact things that are in blatant contradiction. Jesus was god and man - contradiction. God the father, son and spirit are all the same entity and yet all distinct entities at the same time - contradiction.

And before you start complaining that there are no contradictions in science, read up a little on something like quantum mechanics. In QM, a single particle can exist in multiple, mutually exclusive positions simultaneously. A particle can simultaneously travel several separate paths. Two entangled particles can communicate instantaneously over any distance regardless of whether it is measured in miles or billions of light years.

Beyond that, there are Godel's famous completeness theorems. It basically states that any axiomatic deductive system cannot derive all true conclusions unless one or more of the axioms are inconsistent. What this means to me is that an inherent contradiction is necessary in order for a deductive system to be complete.

Of course since you can derive any conclusion from a contradiction, that doesn't mean much in practical terms. But it should be a clue to the limits of our logic and reason.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
5,936 (2.20/day)
Likes
6,640
The prescience prohibits free will argument is bogus. But that's irrelevant. Religion claims to tell you the absolute truth about god, the soul, etc, etc. The fact that religions disagree over all things metaphysical proves nothing and is hardly a criticism. The issue is whether religious truth bears any relationship of any kind to scientific truth, and the fact of the matter is that it does not. Therefore discussing one type of "truth" versus another completely different kind of "truth" is nothing short of pointless and misguided.

I would also point out that religious truth is not limited by what is logically permissible. At the core of every religion are certain "mysteries" that require you to accept as fact things that are in blatant contradiction. Jesus was god and man - contradiction. God the father, son and spirit are all the same entity and yet all distinct entities at the same time - contradiction.

And before you start complaining that there are no contradictions in science, read up a little on something like quantum mechanics. In QM, a single particle can exist in multiple, mutually exclusive positions simultaneously. A particle can simultaneously travel several separate paths. Two entangled particles can communicate instantaneously over any distance regardless of whether it is measured in miles or billions of light years.

Beyond that, there are Godel's famous completeness theorems. It basically states that any axiomatic deductive system cannot derive all true conclusions unless one or more of the axioms are inconsistent. What this means to me is that an inherent contradiction is necessary in order for a deductive system to be complete.

Of course since you can derive any conclusion from a contradiction, that doesn't mean much in practical terms. But it should be a clue to the limits of our logic and reason.

Like I said before religion doesn't need any proof, because it's based on belief and dogma. And it accepts miracles and other supernatural things. Contradictions appear if either judgment/theory is vague (or wrong) or when one doesn't understand it. It happens in science and in religion.

And why you tell me about QM? :confused: If you haven't noticed I've talked about this in previous posts. Theory says that even time doesn't matter in quantum world. I perfectly know what quantum entanglement is.

http://www.braungardt.com/Physics/Quantum Nonlocality.htm
 
T

twilyth

Guest
Like I said before religion doesn't need any proof, because it's based on belief and dogma. And it accepts miracles and other supernatural things. Contradictions appear if either judgment/theory is vague (or wrong) or when one doesn't understand it. It happens in science and in religion.

And why you tell me about QM? :confused: If you haven't noticed I've talked about this in previous posts. Theory says that even time doesn't matter in quantum world. I perfectly know what quantum entanglement is.

http://www.braungardt.com/Physics/Quantum Nonlocality.htm
Then you should have gotten the point that even logic and reason breakdown on certain levels of reality. Therefore, logic and reason cannot be the standard by which we judge a system that claims to provide insight into things that are beyond logic and reason - in other words, metaphysical systems like religion.

The other point is that even scientific truth is fungible. We accept the contradictions inherent in QM because we find it useful to do so. But they are still contradictions. There's no way to gloss over that fact.

Religion tends to be based on dogma, that's true. But so what? Why does that impugn the truth that it claims to possess? It doesn't.

Finally, religion can also be based on personal experience. I'm sure everyone has heard the expression "religious experience." The ultimate validation of any believe is first hand experience. You may criticize the experience as delusional, but your criticism does not make it fact.
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
216 (0.05/day)
Likes
119
Location
Mataram-NTB, Indonesia
System Name Folding System
Processor Intel 4770K Haswell
Motherboard Gigabyte G1 Sniper
Cooling EK Clean CSQ WB + EK CoolStream RAD XTX 480 + EK GTX780Ti Full WB + Swiftech D5 Pump
Memory 4 x 4 GB DDR3 GSkill Ripjaws F3 17000 GBZL | 4 x 4GB DDR3 Corsair Dominator Platinum
Video Card(s) 2 x Inno3D GTX 780Ti 3GB SLI
Storage 2x Patriot Pyro 240GB Raid 0 | 2x WD Green 3TB Raid 0 | 4x Seagate 4TB Raid 0
Display(s) Viewsonic LED VA1938wa 19" / 2 x Dell U2312HM 23" IPS Panel
Case Corsair 900D + 1 Aerocool 14cm Fan, 3 CM Fan 12cm, 4 Scythe Slim Fan 12cm, 4 Aerocool Shark 12cm
Audio Device(s) ASUS Xonar Phoebus + Hippo cri head amp + Sennheiser HD 598 + Razer Megalodon
Power Supply Seasonic P1000 Platinum
Mouse Logitech G502
Keyboard Gigabyte Aivia Osmium Mech Keyboard
Software Windows 10 Home
nah..science doesn't always contradict religion..its only current human ego, perception and imagination cant reach the essence of religion or its teaching.

religion said that human come from dust/dirt..there is a time when this religion dogma didn't have scientific proof and some scientist at that time wont agree but now with our new technology we can conclude that human and dust are both Carbon based and science can proof religion teaching..and we can find many more example like this.

Religion on the other hand always one of the source of Scientific driver of change, no modern medicine, antibiotics, anesthetic, mathematics, astronomic discovery ever found by scientist without religion impulse, even many great war caused by religion eventually led to scientific discovery.

i have no problem with Scientist and God, only the ignorance of their supporters.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
5,936 (2.20/day)
Likes
6,640
Then you should have gotten the point that even logic and reason breakdown on certain levels of reality. Therefore, logic and reason cannot be the standard by which we judge a system that claims to provide insight into things that are beyond logic and reason - in other words, metaphysical systems like religion.

The other point is that even scientific truth is fungible. We accept the contradictions inherent in QM because we find it useful to do so. But they are still contradictions. There's no way to gloss over that fact.

Religion tends to be based on dogma, that's true. But so what? Why does that impugn the truth that it claims to possess? It doesn't.

Finally, religion can also be based on personal experience. I'm sure everyone has heard the expression "religious experience." The ultimate validation of any believe is first hand experience. You may criticize the experience as delusional, but your criticism does not make it fact.
Every system has its own logic and reasons. Micro and macro worlds are two different things even tho macro world is formed by micro world. The things that we find spooky or contradictory are normal in that world. It's like when people hear that our world is 10D and not 3D they just freak out.

Religion does also have its own logic and reasons. I don't hear of "religious experience" you talk about and other revelations. Most people I know are religious because their parents were religious and parents of their parents were religious as well and so on. There are many different religions after all. Norse mythology told that even their gods obeyed some ultimate rules and (physical) laws. That order came from chaos (a bing bang if you will). Some geeks think that god is beyond event horizon so physically out of reach but he can still alter this space-time. Everyone has own views. And nobody says that religion is sheer fallacy or fiction. Just like no one can say do heaven and hell exist or not, because no one came back from there.

religion said that human come from dust/dirt..there is a time when this religion dogma didn't have scientific proof and some scientist at that time wont agree but now with our new technology we can conclude that human and dust are both Carbon based and science can proof religion teaching..and we can find many more example like this.
Religion isn't always meant to be understood literally. Some things can always be metaphorical. For example "I am nothing but dust and ashes". Doesn't exactly mean this. It says that we are just another for of life, that the universe doesn't revolve around us (Earth)
 
Last edited:
T

twilyth

Guest
Every system has its own logic and reasons. Micro and macro worlds are two different things even tho macro world is formed by micro world. The things that we find spooky or contradictory are normal in that world. It's like when people hear that our world is 10D and not 3D they just freak out.

Religion does also have its own logic and reasons. I don't hear of "religious experience" you talk about and other revelations. Most people I know are religious because their parents were religious and parents of their parents were religious as well and so on. There are many different religions after all. Norse mythology told that even their gods obeyed some ultimate rules and (physical) laws. That order came from chaos (a bing bang if you will). Some geeks think that god is beyond event horizon so physically out of reach but he can still alter this space-time. Everyone has own views. And nobody says that religion is sheer fallacy or fiction. Just like no one can say do heaven and hell exist or not, because no one came back from there.



Religion isn't always meant to be understood literally. Some things can always be metaphorical. For example "I am nothing but dust and ashes". Doesn't exactly mean this. It says that we are just another for of life, that the universe doesn't revolve around us (Earth)
Then it would seem that we agree. We can't judge the quantum world by our corporeal sensibilities and similarly we can't judge the higher reality described in religion by mundane rules and conventions. I'm glad we straightened that out.
 
Joined
May 21, 2009
Messages
4,966 (1.57/day)
Likes
1,511
System Name i7-PC / HTPC / iMac
Processor i7 3820 / Phenom II 940
Motherboard GIGABYTE G1.ASSASSIN2 / M3A79-T Deluxe
Cooling Corsair Hydro H100i / Scythe II (HS only)
Memory G.SKILL Trident X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3 1600mhz / 4GB DDR2 1066 (@800) Corsair Dominator
Video Card(s) GB Radeon HD 7950s 3GB / GB Radeon HD 7950s 3GB
Storage 2x 80GB Intel X-25, 2x600gb SATA, 1x1tb 5400RPM storage /1x600GB, 3x500GB,1x160,1x120 SATA
Display(s) 1x 27" Yamakasi / Vizio 42" HDTV
Case Lian Li Lancool PC-K58 / Antec 900
Audio Device(s) HT Omega Striker 7.1 / Onboard and HDMI from ATi Card
Power Supply PC Power & Cooling 750W / 610W
Software Ubuntu / Windows 8.1 Pro / OS X / PHPStorm / Gaming
my problem with religion in general can be summed as this:

if you are willing to base your life around a belief that has no real world evidence,
no verifiable truth, no way to prove "THIS EXISTS" , then how can I trust anything
else you say or do? you are irrational and illogical now in my book, because you base
your world off something nobody else can verify, even if they were to agree.

i accept there could be more to the universe than observable verifiable science, but look at
it like a game, and once you play the "god did it" card, the game is over. what specifically
happened, on an atomic level? how did it occur? why? what will happen next? what else does
this mean?

none of those questions can be answered once that card is played.so let's try and hold
off from playing that card as long as possible, and try and gain some actual scientific
understanding & insight for this place we live.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
22,428 (5.77/day)
Likes
8,945
Location
'Merica. The Great SOUTH!
System Name TheMailbox 5.0 / The Mailbox 4.5
Processor RYZEN 1700X / Intel i7 2600k @ 4.2GHz
Motherboard Fatal1ty X370 Gaming K4 / Gigabyte Z77X-UP5 TH Intel LGA 1155
Cooling MasterLiquid PRO 280 / Scythe Katana 4
Memory ADATA RGB 16GB DDR4 2666 16-16-16-39 / G.SKILL Sniper Series 16GB DDR3 1866: 9-9-9-24
Video Card(s) MSI 1080 "Duke" with 8Gb of RAM. Boost Clock 1847 MHz / ASUS 780ti
Storage 256Gb M4 SSD / 128Gb Agelity 4 SSD , 500Gb WD (7200)
Display(s) LG 29" Class 21:9 UltraWide® IPS LED Monitor 2560 x 1080 / Dell 27"
Case Cooler Master MASTERBOX 5t / Cooler Master 922 HAF
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1220 Audio Codec / SupremeFX X-Fi with Bose Companion 2 speakers.
Power Supply Seasonic FOCUS Plus Series SSR-750PX 750W Platinum / SeaSonic X Series X650 Gold
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei (RAW) / Logitech G5
Keyboard Razer BlackWidow / Logitech (Unknown)
Software Windows 10 Pro (64-bit)
Benchmark Scores Benching is for bitches.
my problem with religion in general can be summed as this:

if you are willing to base your life around a belief that has no real world evidence,
no verifiable truth, no way to prove "THIS EXISTS" , then how can I trust anything
else you say or do? you are irrational and illogical now in my book, because you base
your world off something nobody else can verify, even if they were to agree.

i accept there could be more to the universe than observable verifiable science, but look at
it like a game, and once you play the "god did it" card, the game is over. what specifically
happened, on an atomic level? how did it occur? why? what will happen next? what else does
this mean?

none of those questions can be answered once that card is played.so let's try and hold
off from playing that card as long as possible, and try and gain some actual scientific
understanding & insight for this place we live.
Thats a very close minded view.
 
Joined
May 21, 2009
Messages
4,966 (1.57/day)
Likes
1,511
System Name i7-PC / HTPC / iMac
Processor i7 3820 / Phenom II 940
Motherboard GIGABYTE G1.ASSASSIN2 / M3A79-T Deluxe
Cooling Corsair Hydro H100i / Scythe II (HS only)
Memory G.SKILL Trident X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3 1600mhz / 4GB DDR2 1066 (@800) Corsair Dominator
Video Card(s) GB Radeon HD 7950s 3GB / GB Radeon HD 7950s 3GB
Storage 2x 80GB Intel X-25, 2x600gb SATA, 1x1tb 5400RPM storage /1x600GB, 3x500GB,1x160,1x120 SATA
Display(s) 1x 27" Yamakasi / Vizio 42" HDTV
Case Lian Li Lancool PC-K58 / Antec 900
Audio Device(s) HT Omega Striker 7.1 / Onboard and HDMI from ATi Card
Power Supply PC Power & Cooling 750W / 610W
Software Ubuntu / Windows 8.1 Pro / OS X / PHPStorm / Gaming
Thats a very close minded view.
how so? i would appreciate elaboration?

I am always open to having my mind changed, but nothing has had that impact.
it's a view that has been formed over my lifetime based on what i have seen and
experienced.

i don't automatically assume you're wrong - that's the point. I don't know. but
neither do you! and when you assert a faith-based life-view versus a science
based one, i have to disagree with you.

look at it this way: even if you are right, how can i ever know that? I would
rather know a million inconsequential scientific details, than just sit and wonder
about the big question with no way to ever know if you are right.
 
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
22,428 (5.77/day)
Likes
8,945
Location
'Merica. The Great SOUTH!
System Name TheMailbox 5.0 / The Mailbox 4.5
Processor RYZEN 1700X / Intel i7 2600k @ 4.2GHz
Motherboard Fatal1ty X370 Gaming K4 / Gigabyte Z77X-UP5 TH Intel LGA 1155
Cooling MasterLiquid PRO 280 / Scythe Katana 4
Memory ADATA RGB 16GB DDR4 2666 16-16-16-39 / G.SKILL Sniper Series 16GB DDR3 1866: 9-9-9-24
Video Card(s) MSI 1080 "Duke" with 8Gb of RAM. Boost Clock 1847 MHz / ASUS 780ti
Storage 256Gb M4 SSD / 128Gb Agelity 4 SSD , 500Gb WD (7200)
Display(s) LG 29" Class 21:9 UltraWide® IPS LED Monitor 2560 x 1080 / Dell 27"
Case Cooler Master MASTERBOX 5t / Cooler Master 922 HAF
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1220 Audio Codec / SupremeFX X-Fi with Bose Companion 2 speakers.
Power Supply Seasonic FOCUS Plus Series SSR-750PX 750W Platinum / SeaSonic X Series X650 Gold
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei (RAW) / Logitech G5
Keyboard Razer BlackWidow / Logitech (Unknown)
Software Windows 10 Pro (64-bit)
Benchmark Scores Benching is for bitches.
how so? i would appreciate elaboration?

I am always open to having my mind changed, but nothing has had that impact.
it's a view that has been formed over my lifetime based on what i have seen and
experienced.

i don't automatically assume you're wrong - that's the point. I don't know. but
neither do you! and when you assert a faith-based life-view versus a science
based one, i have to disagree with you.
Whats constant in science?
 
Joined
May 21, 2009
Messages
4,966 (1.57/day)
Likes
1,511
System Name i7-PC / HTPC / iMac
Processor i7 3820 / Phenom II 940
Motherboard GIGABYTE G1.ASSASSIN2 / M3A79-T Deluxe
Cooling Corsair Hydro H100i / Scythe II (HS only)
Memory G.SKILL Trident X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3 1600mhz / 4GB DDR2 1066 (@800) Corsair Dominator
Video Card(s) GB Radeon HD 7950s 3GB / GB Radeon HD 7950s 3GB
Storage 2x 80GB Intel X-25, 2x600gb SATA, 1x1tb 5400RPM storage /1x600GB, 3x500GB,1x160,1x120 SATA
Display(s) 1x 27" Yamakasi / Vizio 42" HDTV
Case Lian Li Lancool PC-K58 / Antec 900
Audio Device(s) HT Omega Striker 7.1 / Onboard and HDMI from ATi Card
Power Supply PC Power & Cooling 750W / 610W
Software Ubuntu / Windows 8.1 Pro / OS X / PHPStorm / Gaming
testing, retesting. verification. open-ness to new and contradictory ideals.

the mindset that we CAN figure it out, we just have to try. versus the mindset
that we CAN NEVER figure it out, so let's just wait for the rapture.

i realize not every religious being believes in rapture, but there is the pervasive
belief that it is pre-ordained by god, and there is no reason to try and learn or
fix the world we have destroyed.
 
T

twilyth

Guest
my problem with religion in general can be summed as this:

if you are willing to base your life around a belief that has no real world evidence,
no verifiable truth, no way to prove "THIS EXISTS" , then how can I trust anything
else you say or do? you are irrational and illogical now in my book, because you base
your world off something nobody else can verify, even if they were to agree.

i accept there could be more to the universe than observable verifiable science, but look at
it like a game, and once you play the "god did it" card, the game is over. what specifically
happened, on an atomic level? how did it occur? why? what will happen next? what else does
this mean?

none of those questions can be answered once that card is played.so let's try and hold
off from playing that card as long as possible, and try and gain some actual scientific
understanding & insight for this place we live.
That is absolutely not true. Some of the greatest scientists have had strong religious convictions and some have been ardent atheists. You seem to be under the impression that the only purpose of religion is to explain how the world came to be. They got out of that business a long time ago. Well, excluding the Creationists of course.
 
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
1,106 (0.31/day)
Likes
178
Location
london
System Name Staggered
Processor Intel i5 6600k (XSPC Rasa)
Motherboard Gigabyte Z170 Gaming K3
Cooling RX360 (3*Scythe GT1850) + RX240 (2*Scythe GT1850) + Laing D5 Vario (with EK X-Top V2)
Memory 2*8gb Team Group Dark @3000Mhz 16-16-16-36 1.25v
Video Card(s) Inno3D GTX 1070 HerculeZ
Storage 256gb Samsung 830 + 2*1tB Samsung F3 + 2*2tB Samsung F4EG
Display(s) Flatron W3000H 2560*1600
Case Cooler Master ATCS 840 + 1*120 GT1850 (exhaust) + 1*230 Spectre Pro + Lamptron FC2 (fan controller)
Power Supply Enermax Revolution 85+ 1250W
Software Windows 10 Pro 64bit
Can someone explain to me why people argue between something based on empirical data and something based on faith?
It's like saying my rock song is better than your omelette. They have nothing to do with each other.