exploration Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Everyone knows that there exist an end to visibility whenever he look at the sky If even no one put into account the beginning of existence. NOMATTER how many room of universes exist,and also it does not matter that if you start from one point you will probably return to the starting point,according to Einstein theory.The situation defends on the border of visibility and how a thinking mind capable of perceiving invisibility and what is beyond the INVISIBILITY BORDER. By visibility here I mean that any perception of element.And by invisibility anything non element like soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionposter Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Everyone knows that there exist an end to visibility whenever he look at the sky If even no one put into account the beginning of existence. NOMATTER how many room of universes exist,and also it does not matter that if you start from one point you will probably return to the starting point,according to Einstein theory.The situation defends on the border of visibility and how a thinking mind capable of perceiving invisibility and what is beyond the INVISIBILITY BORDER. By visibility here I mean that any perception of element.And by invisibility anything non element like soul. Nope, the universe has no observable boundaries, this is what astronomers and cosmologists have agreed on. Even if there is infinite room, the light could be so thin and/or stretched out from so far away that we just can't measure it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exploration Posted October 29, 2011 Author Share Posted October 29, 2011 Thanks mr nope for your view,but regarding thinniness of light or thickness is not a matter of controversy. The truth cannot be restricted in the hand of some astronomers/cosmologies since they might not be the messengers of the true secret of existence. Furthermore,as a matter of logical assumption in other to pass a particular theory,if possibly an observer reach the farthest distance to the limit of physical element,then there exist null evidence that the observer can be able to perceive infinity of the universe nor can the observer able to trespass the boundary of NO SENSORY organs perception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baric Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 since they might not be the messengers of the true secret of existence. This is a science forum, not a religion forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exploration Posted October 29, 2011 Author Share Posted October 29, 2011 If science counsel us to disagree religion no body else no matter who is he to ENSLAVE OUR FREE THINKING WILL .thus representing himself as either:- God of astromy Prophet of physics IDol of math or anyone else. Am just waiting for good REASONING that will benefit HUMANITY as a whole REGARDLESS of someone CREED. WE ARE FREE THINKERS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baric Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 If science counsel us to disagree religion no body else no matter who is he to ENSLAVE OUR FREE THINKING WILL .thus representing himself as either:- God of astromy Prophet of physics IDol of math or anyone else. Am just waiting for good REASONING that will benefit HUMANITY as a whole REGARDLESS of someone CREED. WE ARE FREE THINKERS I understand that English is probably not your first language, but the problems in your grammar make it difficult to parse the philosophical meaning that you are trying to get across in your post. Science is the only non-dogmatic process man has developed to increase his knowledge about the world. Ultimately, no scientific theory is sacred and each one risks being overturned or refined as more evidence is gathered. In other words, science and reasoning are the hallmarks of freethinking. There are no "gods", "prophets", or "idols" in science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 ! Moderator Note Please read the rules for this section. You must present a scientific idea with evidence that backs it up. The idea must be testable and make predictions. You must use terminology that we understand, or explain fully any terminology that is not part of accepted science. If you want to stay in this section, you must abide by the rules. Otherwise this thread will be moved elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 If science counsel us to disagree religion no body else no matter who is he to ENSLAVE OUR FREE THINKING WILL As baric has said, science does not enslave our thinking, rather it sets us free. Perhaps you have been misled by reports of science in the media, or the ideas presented in science documentaries, or the declarations of sincere, but unimaginative thinkers with an interest in science, but little understanding of it. These can often be misguided, sensational and sometimes just plain wrong. I agreed earlier with baric that science does not enslave our thinking, but it's more than that. Science, to be properly conducted and therefore to be called science, requires and demands that we be free in our thinking. This freedom is present at all stages of the scientific process. Restriction of freedom may occur from time to time, because scientists are also humans, but the great strength of the scientific method is that these restrictions will be identified and removed. Spend some time on this board listening, asking questions, challenging people's assertions and you will find that science both demands and sustains a climate fo freedom. Am just waiting for good REASONING that will benefit HUMANITY as a whole REGARDLESS of someone CREED.Pure science has, arguably, no goal other than the joy that comes from acquiring knowledge. The benefit to humanity is both direct, in providing insights into the wonders of the universe and indirect, by leading to technical developments. You don't have to wait for good reasoning. It is all around you - you just have to reach out with an open mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exploration Posted October 30, 2011 Author Share Posted October 30, 2011 Morning everyone Whenever a scientist invent,discover,or postulate he quickly announce to the public that he is the pioneer of such thing,this is where the question arouse, FOR THE JUSTICE to be in the right place.WHO IS THE INVENTOR OF THIS said so intelligent SCIENTIEST? We spend many years trying to copy the creation of human body in the form of ROBOT,but our scientific work seem SHAMEFUL. If there exist the inventor of ROBOT,there must be the inventor of SCIENTIST . PREJUDICE in LOGICAL assumption will never led humanity to the right way. WE HUMAN usually claiming the possession of something BASE ON THE WITNESSES of our SENSE,meantime DENYING THE CLAIMED PROPOSED BY THE INTELLIGENT MIND that invent the BRAIN of EINTEIN,the PLUTO and BARICAL assertions. Ty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Good morning exploration, you did not read a single word I wrote, or if you did, you did not pause to actually think about them. I have taken the time to understand what you have written, to think about your ideas and to respond to them. It would be polite if you were to do the same thing. You are making an assertion - a statement - that since a robot has a designer, so too must a scientist. You therefore argue that the credit for the scientist's discovery should go to God, not to the scientist. This is the old argument first presented by William Paley - If we find a watch on the heath, we reasonably infer that it was produced by an intelligent watchmaker. Did you know that one of Darwin's most treasured books was a copy of William Paley's Natural Theology. He admired the logical manner in which Paley presented the argument for the existence and nature of God. It is probable that he structured On the Origin of Species in an analagous manner. A copy of Natural Theology, along with Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology, went with him on the Beagle, as he voyaged around the world. Despite Darwin's admiration for Paley and Paley's arguments, what he saw on that voyage and what his subsequent investigations demonstrated, was that there was no need to invoke a watchmaker to explain the diversity of life. The mechanism of natural selection, acting upon variation in populations, was sufficient to do the job. If you wish to continue to argue this point you must either bring new evidence to the discussion, or admit that you make an unfounded assertion, that you act from faith without an iota of evidential support. You then make a further assertion: "WE HUMAN usually claiming the possession of something BASE ON THE WITNESSES of our SENSE." This is a true statement for many humans, most of the time and probably all humans some of the time. However, the findings of science are only incidentally the findings of humans. By this I mean that it is the scientific method that reveals the wonders of the universe. The senses of an individual human, the thought of an individual human, are not to be trusted. Every idea and every observation must be questioned and duplicated, every hypothesis must be tested (repeatedly) and validated. It is the scientific method, in the hands of the scientist, that brings clarity to our understanding. I recommend, exploration, before you criticise something that you learn more about what you are criticising. Boldy repeating tired, discredited arguments is of no value. You made an impassioned plea for free thinking. If there is a God I trust she will give you the wisdom to think freely on this matter, rather than spouting dogma. If there is no God, then the matter is for you alone. Either way the next step to enlightenment lies in your own hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exploration Posted October 30, 2011 Author Share Posted October 30, 2011 NATURAL SELECTION the baseless assertion . Why the nature create not of cars,computers,cooking materials etc? If natural selection does matter,what of ARTIFICIAL SELECTION ?? scientists did nothing morethan making CORRECTIONS to nature. Those and similar scientific activities brought noting more than destruction to both nature and humanity . GLOBAL WARMING and NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES are slight examples. Which out of the two is suppose to be GUILTY,the NATURAL SELECTION or the ARTIFICIAL SELECTION ? When shall it be the time for the science to COMPENSATE HUMANITY ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionposter Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) If science counsel us to disagree religion no body else no matter who is he to ENSLAVE OUR FREE THINKING WILL .thus representing himself as either:- God of astromy Prophet of physics IDol of math or anyone else. Am just waiting for good REASONING that will benefit HUMANITY as a whole REGARDLESS of someone CREED. WE ARE FREE THINKERS Scientists who agree that something is a scientific law always know there could be some small sliver of wrongness for a new theory, but we only know what we know, and after much evidence for a theory, there's not much room for any other inference other than 1. The universe has no observable boundary, that's a fact. Even if it does have a boundary, you can't see it, you can try looking in your telescope if you want to test this out. Edited October 31, 2011 by questionposter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exploration Posted October 31, 2011 Author Share Posted October 31, 2011 The popularity of science emerge as a result of human greediness and selfishness ,permitting the wonders of science to launch their TREMENDOUS ALTERATIONS to the INTELLIGENT ,PERFECT and ABSOLUTE DESIGN of NATURE. With an IGNORANT understanding of the MATHEMATICALLY COMPLICATED DESIGN of NATURE launched war against the SETTINGS and RESTRICTIONS of NATURE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 The popularity of science emerge as a result of human greediness and selfishness ,permitting the wonders of science to launch their TREMENDOUS ALTERATIONS to the INTELLIGENT ,PERFECT and ABSOLUTE DESIGN of NATURE. With an IGNORANT understanding of the MATHEMATICALLY COMPLICATED DESIGN of NATURE launched war against the SETTINGS and RESTRICTIONS of NATURE. ! Moderator Note exploration, you are ignoring specific questions being asked of you, a violation of our rules. What little can be successfully derived from your writings seems like preaching, which is a second violation. Please re-read the rules you agreed to when you joined the forum, and abide by them in the future. If you do not, your threads will be closed and you will be suspended or banished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinW Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 NATURAL SELECTION the baseless assertion .Why the nature create not of cars,computers,cooking materials etc? If natural selection does matter,what of ARTIFICIAL SELECTION ?? scientists did nothing morethan making CORRECTIONS to nature. Those and similar scientific activities brought noting more than destruction to both nature and humanity . GLOBAL WARMING and NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES are slight examples. Which out of the two is suppose to be GUILTY,the NATURAL SELECTION or the ARTIFICIAL SELECTION ? When shall it be the time for the science to COMPENSATE HUMANITY ? I think your mixing two different things. (Man made and Nature made.) Global warming is not proven and nuclear reaction is found in many different places naturally. And what do you mean by guilty? Guilty of what? I don't understand. Science compensating for humanity? I'm really lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts