Date
Author
Source
Preserved copy
Translated material
Additional materials
Comments ( Add comment )
- Wrote 09/06/2010 at 14:28
- link
- complain
- (Delete a comment)
Science not only can, but should also deal with the problem of the existence of God (more precisely by evidence of His absence). Creationists do not hesitate to attack the theory of the evolution of Darwin, despite the fact that they understand it, like a "pig in oranges." In modern society, obscurantism masters the minds of millions in the same way as in the Middle Ages. Scientists are the only ones who are able to withstand religious "brainwashing."
answer
- Wrote 09/06/2010 at 16:27
- link
- complain
- (Delete a comment)
An explanation to the idiots that they are idiots cannot be a problem of science.
answer
- Wrote 06/06/2010 at 18:45
- link
- complain
- (Delete a comment)
Hawking
Hawking has long become a subject of show business. A group of interpreters of the sounds he emerged is fed around him. If the theoretician is not able to write formulas (with his hand or hands of assistants), then he remains to support his rating with all sorts of quinoons, moving from the world of scientific journals to the yellow or glamorous press.
answer
- Wrote 06/06/2010 at 21:10
- link
- complain
- (Delete a comment)
- (block the user)
The last publication - The Classical Universes of the No -Boundary Quantum State - in 2008, in Phys.rev.D. Far from the yellow edition, frankly.
Before that: Information Loss in Black Holes. - Phys. Rev. D72, 084013 (2005).; Three -year break. Who knows, maybe in 2010 something else awaits us? I would not be in a hurry with the conclusions about the departure of hoking (generally accepted transcription) from the scientific scene, although without illness he had already left the post of head of the department of mathematics (many such cases in Russia, by the way?).
And you are mistaken about “unable to write formulas”-he mastered the Texov format another 15-20 years ago, he bakes something like g \ frac {m_1m_2} {r^2} and receives a beautiful formula at the output, more beautiful than other students in Word-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-E
Not to mention the "sounds"-the astrophysicist can not speak from the mid-80s, it has a speech synthesizer and he prints a contraction of the cheek muscle.
answer
- Wrote 06/06/2010 at 18:56
- link
- complain
- (Delete a comment)
All this only confirms the thesis that the only path of a rational person is agnosticism.
answer
- Wrote 09/07/2010 at 03:29
- link
- complain
- (Delete a comment)
- (block the user)
Science vs religion
Stupid contrast. Completely different approaches, tasks and goals. It is scientifically impossible to prove the presence or absence of God. Personally, I do not see any contradictions between the theory of evolutionary development and any religion. As well as between the theory of the Big Bang and the assertion that the Universe was created by God. These statements are in non -reflecting worlds, and the evidence that, due to the presence of gravity, the divine impulse does not sound as deeply as the fact that since the astronauts did not see God, then he was not, and since not a single monkey in the zoo became a man, then Darwin's theory is incorrect.
answer
- Wrote 09/07/2010 at 04:36
- link
- complain
- (Delete a comment)
The afterlife
"And even the stories of those who survived the clinical death did not clarify anything, since the explanation" Black tunnel is a hallucination of the brain with oxygen starvation "was quite sufficient."
In her interview, Bekhtereva scientifically explained that the oxygen starvation of the brain and other theories about the dying injection of endorphins do not correspond to reality and cannot explain the coherent visions. Descriptions of Raimond Moody is difficult to attribute to the unscientific.
answer
- Wrote 09/07/2010 at 16:25
- link
- complain
- (Delete a comment)
All or nothing?
"Based on the physical laws describing gravity, the Universe could arise and arose from nothing."
From nothing happens, more precisely, nothing happens. At least insofar as “nothing” is simply “nothing”. It is no less stupid to discuss the emergence of the universe from nothing than to find out what was "before the beginning of time." The emergence of the universe from "nothing" would be a violation of the law of maintaining mass and energy, fundamental for the universe itself.
"We know that the world appeared as a result of a large explosion ..."
No one knows this, since the “theory of the Big Bang” is nothing more than a hypothesis that contradicts the many observed phenomena. So far, in BV you can only believe, as in any other hypothesis of the appearance of being. In this sense, it is no different from religion.
Mr. Hawking himself, positioning himself as a positivist, often talks about things fundamentally unverified and, therefore, far beyond science.
answer
- wrote today at 00:29
- link
- complain
- (Delete a comment)
- (block the user)
Separation of God from science is like separating your head from thoughts
That's because God is not interesting to the so -called science, science remains soulless, and religion is short -sighted and inferior.
All spiritually developed scientists come to faith in God and improve their understanding of God all their lives.
A new essential knowledge about man, God and the Universe, will appear on the eve of the Ara of Aquarius in Russia and Ukraine ... ”(V.S. Solovyov, 6 Letter, 1875)
Knowledge is already there, but not everyone is apparently available.
answer
- wrote today at 14:01
- link
- complain
- (Delete a comment)
Glory to the flying pasta monster!
answer
- wrote today at 14:51
- link
- complain
- (Delete a comment)
God's gift with fried eggs.
Can I love coffee if you like tea? Is it necessary to love tea if you like coffee? Religion implies mystical knowledge of reality, science-logical. One does not contact with the other. Faith and knowledge are not a hindrance, but not an assistant.
It is regrettable when the dogma becomes unripe or simply tortured theories. Forces and means are spent on their protection and confirmation, truly worthy of better use. Remember Darwin with Lamarck. The truth is somewhere approximately in the middle. Was it worth breaking spears? Unfortunately, people, regardless of profession and beliefs, are characterized by the desire to be at least a little right of all others. And even the most true and faithful positivist is taken to refute what to prove or refute by definition.
As for the fact that nature does not need our gods, she also decisively does not need gravitons. Nevertheless, a significant part of the respected scientific community stubbornly continues to look for a black cat in a dark room, knowingly knowing that it is not there.
answer