[ThereBeDragons]

^Translation: "Atheists gave me my electricity and science so I can masturbate verbally on the internet, lamenting their very existence."

The people who invented electricity are all dead and weren't atheists anyway.

Typical religious dogma, shits on the hand that feeds it. Jesus was slowly tortured to death for preaching love and forgiveness after all.

If humanity is to have a future at all, it has to stop practicing lunacy as an institution.

Humanity has no future. The universe will eat us one day or another. Thanks, science.

[fuser]

Science says that we all die and nothing matters.

Where?

[ThereBeDragons]

Where?

One day all intelligent life will cease to exist and all trace of humanity will disappear, meaning that nothing you (or anyone else) achieved in your puny mortal life matters in the long run.

[Igor Antunov]

Science says that we all die and nothing matters.

No, it says reality is far more wondrous and worthwhile of pursuit than fantasy. It demands that you get out and challenge nature itself, until it dispenses answers.

The universe is far larger and far more varied and mysterious than any religious prescription of heaven and hell. The practical implications and broader concepts raised in a typical tertiary level physics textbook far exceed anything any religious or philosophical text has ever come close to even considering, let alone explaining in a satisfactory manner.

[ThereBeDragons]

No, it says reality is far more wondrous and worthwhile of pursuit than fantasy. It demands that you get out and challenge nature itself, until it dispenses answers.

The universe is far larger and far more varied and mysterious than any religious prescription of heaven and hell.

The universe is full of interesting shit but we already know how the story ends.

The practical implications and broader concepts raised in a typical tertiary level physics textbook far exceed anything any religious or philosophical text has ever come close to even considering, let alone explaining in a satisfactory manner.

The universe obeys mathematical equations. It's far more useful and explains much more than religion and philosophy ever will but it's philosophically super disappointing. The equations are what they are. Why? That's not a scientific question.

[fuser]

One day all intelligent life will cease to exist and all trace of humanity will disappear,

I doubt "Science" tries to make such claim (some scientist may be), rather this question doesn't bother science. The same way there are many fatalist school of religious thoughts according to which nothing matters but that doesn't imply that every religion thinks so.

Frankly as per me I don't get "science vs religion" shit, criticising science to prove superiority of religion or vice versa is one of the most ridiculous debates.

[Igor Antunov]

The universe is full of interesting shit but we already know how the story ends.

No we don't. We don't know the exact character of that end or what possibilities exist to escape it or change it. That is the central problem with religious dogma-it presumes to know everything at once.

Frankly as per me I don't get science vs religion shit, criticising science to prove superiority of religion or vice versa is one of the most ridiculous debates.

Exactly. Every church should be taxed, every science class devoid of creationist nonsense.

[ThereBeDragons]

I doubt "Science" tries to make such claim (some scientist may be), rather this question doesn't bother science.

Cosmology is a science. Technically "science" doesn't say that if I'll die if I inject myself with a cocktail of AIDS and smallpox. Scientists do. They're right.

No we don't. We don't know the exact character of that end or what possibilities exist to escape it or change it. That is the central problem with religious dogma-it presumes to know everything at once.

Yeah, and we don't know that the speed of light is constant, but we're pretty sure it is. Humanity is fucked. Heat death, big freeze, big crunch, big rip, proton decay, vacuum metastability event. Pick your poison, they'll all kill you just the same.

[fuser]

Cosmology is a science. Technically "science" doesn't say that if I'll die if I inject myself with a cocktail of AIDS and smallpox. Scientists do. They're right.

You don't need a scientist to tell you that i.e. it is a well known fact because of massive amount of evidence and as such, this claim is a scientific one. Whereas your end of the world scenarios are not measurable scientific fact (just may be opinion of some scientist).

Cosmology

See here : There is no one accepted scientific theory declaring what you are on behalf of Science. Neither it is on major scientific agenda (barring discovery channel). According to science it is all uncertain and not fatally fixed as you are claiming.

[ThereBeDragons]

You don't need a scientist to tell you that i.e. it is a well known fact because of massive amount of evidence and as such, this claim is a scientific one. Whereas your end of the world scenarios are not measurable scientific fact (just may be opinion of some scientist).

Nobody knows that I will die. What will happen to me if I inject myself with a killer cocktail is not a measurable scientific fact, up until the point where I actually do so (and die horribly), at which it becomes a scientific fact. Until then it is merely a prediction.

See here : There is no one accepted scientific theory declaring what you are on behalf of Science. Neither it is on major scientific agenda (barring discovery channel). According to science it is all uncertain and not fatally fixed as you are claiming.

Nobody knows how they are going to die, but most people know they will die somehow. Heart attack, cancer, stroke, war, terrorism, nuclear apocalypse, drowning, accident, murder, suicide - how it will happen is anybody's guess. But everybody is pretty sure that they will die.

The universe is the same. It is extremely difficult to put together a scientifically consistent cosmology in which intelligent life can exist forever. It's even more unlikely than the notion that you will live forever (or until the end of the universe) because the notion that men die is based in certain biological assumptions that may be turned over by discovery.

But if you're looking for gravity to stop being R^2 or the speed of light to start changing you're shit out of luck.

[fuser]

It is not a measurable scientific fact what will happen to me if I inject myself with a killer cocktail, up until the point where I actually do so (and die horribly), at which it becomes a scientific fact.

No it is actually a scientific fact. Because Science knows exactly as a biological entity how will you end up after injecting certain chemicals in your body and the resultant biochemical reaction. This is not some opinion like end of universe.

Nobody knows how they are going to die, but most people know they will die somehow. Heart attack, cancer, stroke, war, terrorism, nuclear apocalypse, drowning, accident, murder, suicide - how it will happen is anybody's guess. But everybody is pretty sure that they will die.

And this comparison is valid, how? It is not valid as in one there is a scientific consensus and another there is none. There is no consensus on the nature of universe let alone its death or even surety of its death.

The universe is the same. It is extremely difficult to put together a scientifically consistent cosmology in which intelligent life can exist forever. It's even more unlikely than the notion that you will live forever (or until the end of the universe) because the notion that men die is based in certain biological assumptions that may be turned over by discovery.

Yes, we don't know shit. Neither Science claims to be knowing this as you were forcing on Science a claim that she was not making. I mean seriously, any scientist can claim that after a million years (if we survive) we will achieve immortality and would be able to create our own universes. (life's not really worthless after all,eh.) but still that would be an opinion piece and not scientific fact. Basically these are baseless hopes just as yours was a baseless despair.

According to science (if you want meaning), life is awesome and one need to celebrate his/her existence simply because of the scientific fact i.e. the very very slim probability of our existence. Of course one can disregard this as well as one can disregard any religious meaning to living.

But then as I have always said, religion and science belong to two completely different realms. So I am not trying to prove superiority of either science or religion here.

[ThereBeDragons]

No it is actually a scientific fact. Because Science knows exactly as a biological entity how will you end up after injecting certain chemicals in your body and the resultant biochemical reaction. This is not some opinion like end of universe.

The universe obeys laws. We know roughly what they are.

And this comparison is valid, how?

We don't know how the story ends but we know it will.

Yes, we don't know shit. Neither Science claims to be knowing this as you were forcing on Science a claim that she was not making. I mean seriously, any scientist can claim that after a million years (if we survive) we will achieve immortality and would be able to create our own universes. (life's not really worthless after all,eh.) but still that would be an opinion piece and not scientific fact. Basically these are baseless hopes just as yours was a baseless despair.

He could, but that would be baseless. He would need to propose a physical process by which a universe could be created before it could be considered Science. On the other hand, the mechanisms by which we can get ourselves into all sorts of BAD END are firmly based in scientific theory. Energy is conserved. Entropy increases. The universe accelerates. We would have to be fundamentally wrong about basic physical theories to dodge these bullets.

To be honest, I hate this argument. I want to be wrong more than anything. So I won't argue about this anymore.

According to science (if you want meaning), life is awesome and one need to celebrate his/her existence simply because of the scientific fact i.e. the very very slim probability of our existence. Of course one can disregard this as well as one can disregard any religious meaning to living.

The chance my parents met were pretty small, but here I am. It doesn't take science to figure that out.

[fuser]

The universe obeys laws. We know roughly what they are.

And yet Science makes no such prediction as you are claiming they are. This is basically a strawman argument against science.

We don't know how the story ends but we know it will.

You may be but not science. now, picture this : Science will be so advance in a billion years that we will be able to create our own universes and jump there before our universe collapse, hence preserving intelligent life. Now is there way any one can most definitely refute that? Obviously not, that is precisely why "end of everything is 100 % certain according to science" is your claim and not science's.

He could, but that would be baseless. He would need to propose a physical process by which a universe could be created before it could be considered Science

We do know the physical process roughly (big bang?) but as I previously said there is no universal consensus. But following you where we have rough idea about universe then we do know the process through which it came into existence. We just don't have the ability.

On the other hand, the mechanisms by which we can get ourselves into all sorts of BAD END are firmly based in scientific theory.

Yes we can (I am not denying that) but it is not 100% certain as you are claiming that science is claiming. Both of these claims are false.

The chance my parents met were pretty small, but here I am. It doesn't take science to figure that out.

Of course, now you don't need spirituality/religion to make your existence meaningful. But this is all very subjective and as I already said one can disregard this completely and I can totally understand that pov.



Edit : I realize that many things I have written would require "faith" in science and I have no problem with that. One can't escape faith imo, including the internet atheist corps.

[Pants-of-dog]

Scientific predictions about the end of the universe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip

[fuser]

^ I have already posted a wiki link covering all these theories, check those within the context of discussion. But to repeat myself, these are hypothesis technically speaking and not scientific theory like say evolution and neither there is an universal consensus that our Universe will most definitely end with all intelligent life in it.

See this wiki page : It also contains hypothesises regarding, "no end" and "complete uncertainty."

[Pants-of-dog]

^ I have already posted a wiki link covering all these theories, check those within the context of discussion. But to repeat myself, these are hypothesis technically speaking and not scientific theory like say evolution and neither there is an universal consensus that our Universe will most definitely end with all intelligent life in it.

See this wiki page : It also contains hypothesises regarding, "no end" and "complete uncertainty."

Since you used the word "prediction", I posted examples of predictions. A hypothesis makes testable claims, or in other words, it makes predictions.

While it is true that we don't know for certain which (if any) of these hypotheses may be true, there is no scientific hypothesis that claims that the universe that we can access will somehow last forever in such a way as to allow life.

To summarise, according to the best current scientific knowledge we have, the universe as we know it will eventually cease to be able to support life.

[fuser]

Since you used the word "prediction", I posted examples of predictions. A hypothesis makes testable claims, or in other words, it makes predictions.

And I had already posted those examples in addition to another examples showing that Scientific community is also saying no such predictions can be made and universe can survive forever (But I do noted your silence on that) , so I don't see what argument you were making with those examples besides a semantic point you are trying to make here.

My basic point is quite clear, so please don't try to obtuse it. Which is to repeat my self there is nothing in science that guarantees end of universe and all life within it, so there's no point in forcing that point on Science and declaring thus Science devoids all meaning from existence (a point which itself can be contested )

While it is true that we don't know for certain which (if any) of these hypotheses may be true, there is no scientific hypothesis that claims that the universe that we can access will somehow last forever in such a way as to allow life.

And I made no such claim either, so again what's the point?

To summarise, according to the best current scientific knowledge we have, the universe as we know it will eventually cease to be able to support life.

Universe as we know it, may be but there is no consensus on Universe itself. We don't understand universe fully let alone making such far fledged predictions.

[Drlee]

Science can't even agree on what the "universe" is. How can they assert how it will end? Of course this has little to do with the future of faith. The only thing that could do that would be to prove the existence of God and publish his interviews.

[fuser]

As I have always said, Science and Religion both are completely different things existing in different realms either trying to prove superiority of one over another or trying to reconcile them is stupid. Let them and they are going to exist parallel to each other for any foreseeable future.

[Pants-of-dog]

And I had already posted those examples in addition to another examples showing that Scientific community is also saying no such predictions can be made

The scientific community cannot be saying that no such predictions can be made, because these predictions have already been made.

and universe can survive forever (But I do noted your silence on that) ,

No. There are no hypotheses that talk about our universe surviving forever. The hypothesis tha tcomes closest is that of the multiverse living forever, but since we can't access other universes in the multiverse, we are stuck in this universe which will die according to the hypothesis.

so I don't see what argument you were making with those examples besides a semantic point you are trying to make here.

I am showing that scientists do have predictions about the end of the universe, despite your claim otherwise.

My basic point is quite clear, so please don't try to obtuse it. Which is to repeat my self there is nothing in science that guarantees end of universe and all life within it, so there's no point in forcing that point on Science and declaring thus Science devoids all meaning from existence (a point which itself can be contested )

There is nothing in science that guarantees anything. Science does not provide absolute 100% proof or knowledge. Quite the opposite: all scientific knowledge is contingent, which means it can all be changed if we come across new facts.

I don't think anyone is arguing that this makes science devoid of all meaning.

And I made no such claim either, so again what's the point?

Sorry. i thought you claimed that there was a scientific hypothesis that claimed that the universe would be able to support life forever.

Universe as we know it, may be but there is no consensus on Universe itself. We don't understand universe fully let alone making such far fledged predictions.

That is why I said "to the best of our knowledge".