The Q/A Thread.

[cookiecutter]

Religion is supported by a majority of the human race, doesn't necessarily make them anymore right than me when it comes to my beliefs, or pessmism as you claim it to be.

Religion is believed by most people but utterly unsupported by evidence. That is why it is wrong. The Big Bang is supported by a ton of evidence. That is why it is most likely right.

Consider me like Socrates, "All I know, is that I know nothing." The great thing about all of these debates is that, the big bang theory is just that, a theory, not fact.

I clearly addressed this in my previous post but I'll do it again. Theory in Science means something very well supported and the best current explanation based on the evidence. I gave examples of two other theories that you would have to be an idiot to not believe in it.

Which means it's ok to be "pessimistic" about it. It's ok to question it, or look towards other theories as to how our existence came to life. The only way you learn or develop your own belief is to question it. That's all I'm doing.

It's absolutely ok to question it. That is how science works! It is NOT ok to say we'll never find the answer.

 

[skeptik]

It's okay to say we'll most likely never find the answer. I don't think that we'll ever understand the origins of the universe. It's nearly impossible for a living thing to conceive of something having always existed in any real sense. We're so confined by time that I don't think one can genuinely understand something having always existed, namely "the universe," or whatever caused the universe to come into being.

 

[cookiecutter]

There are a lot of things we thought we'd never figure out. I bet the ancient Greeks would've been stumped if you asked them to figure out what the sun was made of.

We should not limit our potential based on current difficulties.

 

[skeptik]

Do you actually think that we'll ever find the answer to the origin of the universe problem? And if you do, do you actually think that we could fathom it? I'm not saying that trying to find the answers is a waste of time, but that doesn't mean you can't think that we will find it. I can IMAGINE or picture science unlocking the key to curing genetic diseases, replicating organs, doing various things with cloning and agriculture, etc. But I can't see science explaining where the universe came from.

 

[cookiecutter]

I can't right now, but I don't think it's fair to say humans never will.

For clarification purpose, when you refer to the origin of the universe what do you mean?

 

[skeptik]

I didn't say humans never will, I said I find it unlikely, and it doesn't seem like we would even have the capability of getting our head around the concept of something always existing. By origin of the universe I mean just that, whatever it may be, whether it has always existed, or that it was created, and from what, and from where did that thing that created the universe come from?

 

[cookiecutter]

Well I agree with your first sentence then. My original point was at King Richard who said we never will.

I ask for clarification because I want to know: Do you not believe the Big Bang was the origin of the universe? Or do you believe that but want to understand more specifics?

 

[Hell Awaits Us All]

Religion is supported by a majority of the human race, doesn't necessarily make them anymore right

you're comparing physicists' belief in the big bang to uneducated people believing in religion ? (not saying all people who believe in religion are uneducated, but there's a very strong relation between education and faith).

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

the universe is infinite.
every black hole leads to another universe which is infinite.
in which the universe that is within a black hole has other black holes which has other universes.. and so on and so forth.

 

[skeptik]

Well I agree with your first sentence then. My original point was at King Richard who said we never will.

I ask for clarification because I want to know: Do you not believe the Big Bang was the origin of the universe? Or do you believe that but want to understand more specifics?

I don't have any concrete beliefs because I honestly have not looked into it as much as I would like, but it would seem that the "Big Bang" or some form of this theory is the most likely thing to have occurred. Understanding this, however, while I'm sure I would be greatly aided by reading more on the subject, is another thing entirely.

 

[cookiecutter]

Well it seems we are in complete agreement then

 

[King Richard]

Religion is believed by most people but utterly unsupported by evidence. That is why it is wrong. The Big Bang is supported by a ton of evidence. That is why it is most likely right.

It's not a fact. You cannot prove that the big bang theory is factual. You can bring up whatever evidence YOU think supports that theory. But the end result is still that it's just a theory.

I clearly addressed this in my previous post but I'll do it again. Theory in Science means something very well supported and the best current explanation based on the evidence. I gave examples of two other theories that you would have to be an idiot to not believe in it.

Again, it doesn't matter. The "evidence" you are referring to is still extremely limited compared to the age and vastness of the universe my friend. I really think you are giving humans a bit too much credit here. Everything we know is solely based off of our own perception of things, and our biasness. We are extremely restricted due to our current technology. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we aren't advanced. We've come a long way within just 100 years. There is so much more we could know if we were another 100+ years down the road. But even then, I still think we'd only be a TINY TINY TINY fraction closer to understanding exactly what happened.

Good example: Steven Hawkins' theory on how black holes operated held for 30+ years, until he disproved HIMSELF, totally revising his entire theory. And actually he ended up coming up with a theory that was the complete opposite of something he supported for 30+ years. We're talking about one of the most intelligent people on earth, and even his own iron-clad beliefs were proven to be wrong, assuming our perception of how the universe operates is correct.

So all in all, I'm not saying the big bang theory is wrong, and I'm not saying it's right. I'm not saying anything is wrong or right. I am saying we don't know, and believing in something you cannot prove to be right (religion included), well you'd have to be an idiot to believe that.

It's absolutely ok to question it. That is how science works! It is NOT ok to say we'll never find the answer.

Ok, I take back saying we'll never figure out it. It's within the realm of possibility. But I still think it's not going to happen for a very long time.

It's okay to say we'll most likely never find the answer. I don't think that we'll ever understand the origins of the universe. It's nearly impossible for a living thing to conceive of something having always existed in any real sense. We're so confined by time that I don't think one can genuinely understand something having always existed, namely "the universe," or whatever caused the universe to come into being.

I agree.

There are a lot of things we thought we'd never figure out. I bet the ancient Greeks would've been stumped if you asked them to figure out what the sun was made of.

We should not limit our potential based on current difficulties.

I don't think we are disagreeing with you on this point. Of we'll continue to learn and progress with our knowledge on the universe. That's a pretty common sense statement. But that doesn't necessarily mean we're going to be right when a new breakthrough comes around.

I didn't say humans never will, I said I find it unlikely, and it doesn't seem like we would even have the capability of getting our head around the concept of something always existing. By origin of the universe I mean just that, whatever it may be, whether it has always existed, or that it was created, and from what, and from where did that thing that created the universe come from?

I agree, same thing I said.

 

[AchrisK]

Do you actually think that we'll ever find the answer to the origin of the universe problem? And if you do, do you actually think that we could fathom it? I'm not saying that trying to find the answers is a waste of time, but that doesn't mean you can't think that we will find it. I can IMAGINE or picture science unlocking the key to curing genetic diseases, replicating organs, doing various things with cloning and agriculture, etc. But I can't see science explaining where the universe came from.

I tend to agree with this. It seems rather unlikely that we will even be looking in the right place. What is the precident for something out of nothing? What is our experience outside of time? I think even if we were told the absolute truth about it, that we would not even have the frame of reference to comprehend it.

 

[AchrisK]

The theory states that 10^-35 seconds into the life of the universe (which is 13.7 ± 0.2 billion years old) a phase transition in a single point of infinite heat and energy caused exponential expansion, meaning the bang. Then, at an unknown point, due to an unknown reaction, matter began to predominate antimatter leading to the universe as we know it.

Is this based in known science? Infinite heat seems beyond comprehension, and certainly beyond the labratory, and antimatter seems like it's from a Star Trek episode. I am not trying to mock it or discount it. I just have no clue.

 

[supseudonymous]

Is this based in known science? Infinite heat seems beyond comprehension, and certainly beyond the labratory, and antimatter seems like it's from a Star Trek episode. I am not trying to mock it or discount it. I just have no clue.

Antimatter actually exists, is believed to be extremely abundant, and is one of the coolest things in the totality of all that is. It is the ultimate energy source. It also destroys its equivalent matter counterpart with great fury. We do have some on earth, as we can produce it. Current methods are mind-numbingly slow to the point of near uselessness though.

The entire big bang theory is beyond anyone's comprehension. It's full of unknowns.

 

[AchrisK]

Antimatter actually exists, is believed to be extremely abundant, and is one of the coolest things in the totality of all that is. It is the ultimate energy source. It also destroys its equivalent matter counterpart with great fury. We do have some on earth, as we can produce it. Current methods are mind-numbingly slow to the point of near uselessness though.

That's bizzare!

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

Pretty much a handfull of antimatter would create an explosion that would engulf several solar systems.

 

[cookiecutter]

It's not a fact. You cannot prove that the big bang theory is factual. You can bring up whatever evidence YOU think supports that theory. But the end result is still that it's just a theory. Again, it doesn't matter. The "evidence" you are referring to is still extremely limited compared to the age and vastness of the universe my friend. I really think you are giving humans a bit too much credit here. Everything we know is solely based off of our own perception of things, and our biasness. We are extremely restricted due to our current technology. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we aren't advanced. We've come a long way within just 100 years. There is so much more we could know if we were another 100+ years down the road. But even then, I still think we'd only be a TINY TINY TINY fraction closer to understanding exactly what happened.

Good example: Steven Hawkins' theory on how black holes operated held for 30+ years, until he disproved HIMSELF, totally revising his entire theory. And actually he ended up coming up with a theory that was the complete opposite of something he supported for 30+ years. We're talking about one of the most intelligent people on earth, and even his own iron-clad beliefs were proven to be wrong, assuming our perception of how the universe operates is correct.

So all in all, I'm not saying the big bang theory is wrong, and I'm not saying it's right. I'm not saying anything is wrong or right. I am saying we don't know, and believing in something you cannot prove to be right (religion included), well you'd have to be an idiot to believe that.

I'm clearly not getting my point across. Not everything has to be proven 100% right to be believable. You only need to look at what is plausible. Right now, based on the evidence, the Big Band Theory is what we have. To discount it because it is imperfect or subject to change is retarded and is the same argument Creationists have been using against evolution. "Just a Theory" as I've proven to you twice, is not grounds to dismiss something. If new evidence comes to light of course the theory will change. You gave a great example. I even said in my first post "subject to change on further evidence" or something like that. That is how science gets it's answers. It draws a sketch and then perfects it through testing.

I'll give an example. Darwin's theory of natural selection was groundbreaking and explained a lot. Of course it was imperfect, it had a lot of holes. I'm sure there were some wrong things in it. However, through the process of science the theory was tested and improved until today, only idiots reject it. Now just because it wasn't completely perfect at the beginning, doesn't mean the entire theory should be dismissed.

I see you said, "I'm not saying it's right or wrong...". Well neither am I. I am just saying it is MOST LIKELY right, based on current evidence.

Ok, I take back saying we'll never figure out it. It's within the realm of possibility. But I still think it's not going to happen for a very long time.

Ok, that was what I was referring to and had that phantom argument with Necuratul about.

 

[King Richard]

I'm clearly not getting my point across. Not everything has to be proven 100% right to be believable.

Ok, but to me it seems kind of redundant to believe in something that you can't prove at this given moment to be 100% true.

You only need to look at what is plausible.

This same argument could be used on countless other things. But all that does is make you biased and limit our will to explore new theories.

Right now, based on the evidence, the Big Band Theory is what we have. To discount it because it is imperfect or subject to change is retarded and is the same argument Creationists have been using against evolution.

I agree that we shouldn't discount it completely, and I'm not doing that. But to assume it's a matter of fact because that's all we have to go by at present time is retarded.

"Just a Theory" as I've proven to you twice, is not grounds to dismiss something.

No one is dismissing anything. I've said this a few times now.

If new evidence comes to light of course the theory will change. You gave a great example. I even said in my first post "subject to change on further evidence" or something like that. That is how science gets it's answers. It draws a sketch and then perfects it through testing.

Ok, that's a given.

I'll give an example. Darwin's theory of natural selection was groundbreaking and explained a lot. Of course it was imperfect, it had a lot of holes. I'm sure there were some wrong things in it. However, through the process of science the theory was tested and improved until today, only idiots reject it. Now just because it wasn't completely perfect at the beginning, doesn't mean the entire theory should be dismissed.

You are preaching to the choir now. As stated before, I don't think it should be dismissed. I really do hope it's investigated even more. However, comparing natural selection to the big bang theory is kind of absurd.

I see you said, "I'm not saying it's right or wrong...". Well neither am I. I am just saying it is MOST LIKELY right, based on current evidence.

Cool, and for the 100th time, I say it's not 100% factual. So I'm not going to believe it 100%.

 

[Vossyrus]

So here's a scenario:

I was offered a job with the schoolboard as a janitor in which I will earn around $20/hr. However, for now it's on-call and for the school-wide district rather than just one school so I could possibly be phoned at random, and going to a different school each time I work.

Also, I applied for a position with a school. However, I haven't had an interview yet and don't know what it pays but it is full-time with regular hours, BUT it is at a catholic school - I'm a complete atheist, despise religion etc...this doesn't bother me, but I am curious to know how this will affect my chances of getting hired, unless I completely lie about my religion. On the job application, I answered to 'yes' when asked "are you roman catholic" when clearly I'm not, and more along the lines of an atheist/satanist. How ironic would it be if I get the job.

Which job sounds better so far, and what is the best way to approach the issue with the Catholic school, if I elect to take that route?