A lot of people use video games to live out their anti-religious fantasies due to how powerless they are to enact their bigotries against religion in real life.
Pff really? what I have notes is people finding fantastic things too unreal and they ask writers to make their fantasy games more real life style..
many even compare fictional religions with their own or others, many believe that everyone in this forum knows what religion they follow or care about it, I don't by the way, I have little to no interest whatsoever, and something very important for me: I don't want to play a game based on you're choices or anyone also choices.
well it doesnt matter really what we think, does it?
I mean if the Maker does exist in and is proven in Dragon Age 4, clearly all non-beliefer would be wrong.
No matter how much they deny/dislike the idea of the maker in previous dragon age games.
Thats been my point. Its not a question if you WANT the maker to exist or not exist, its if he does or not.
I mean: I could make 10 point why he does exist and 10 why he doesnt.
However, if he shows up in Dragon Age 4 then clearly all my points on why he can't (... or shouldnt) exist must be wrong, since he does.
well it doesnt matter really what we think, does it?
I mean if the Maker does exist in and is proven in Dragon Age 4, clearly all non-beliefer would be wrong. No matter how much they deny/dislike the idea of the maker in previous dragon age games. Thats been my point. Its not a question if you WANT the maker to exist or not exist, its if he does or not.
I mean: I could make 10 point why he does exist and 10 why he doesnt. However, if he shows up in Dragon Age 4 then clearly all my points on why he can't (... or shouldnt) exist must be wrong, since he does.
Bioware writer said they'll not show any GOD in DA.. of course they said the same about how we'll never know how the darkspawn started and then.. Legacy.. anyway my point is what if it never shown? do that mean the maker doesn't exist and is all a fantasy a myth and whatever is written down shouldn't be taken literally, although we should follow whatever has been wrote in whatever book and manuscript or be danmed.. I see a contradiction..do you?.
Anyway I just know one thing, if is solid and tangible then is real. And thats one of the resons of why I believe in what the evil creature in legacy said. more or less. see?
Thats just what I hope you realize LobselVith8, maybe your character ended up being wrong all the time. And keeps spreading his ignorance about atheism to other characters.
My Surana Warden never tried to force his views on other characters; he was simply an atheist. He never tried to convert anyone, he simply expressed his opinion when the issue came up. It's something that genuinely bothered me about Anders trying to force his religious views on Merrill, because she believed in the Creators and simply saw the Beyond (the Fade) as a place for spirits, while Anders kept trying to convince her they were the Children of the Maker, i.e. Spirits and Demons.
SweQue wrote...
Just because the Chantry could be corrupt and wrong on many thing doesnt mean the belief in the Maker isnt.
It doesn't mean the Chantry is correct, either.
If the Chantry preached that my father, my sister, and I were "cursed" and taught their followers that people like my Dalish girlfriend were heathens, why the frak would I follow their religious teachings? That was my mindset with apostate Hawke, although I was never given the freedom to actually follow that through. I honestly hope that this isn't the case with Inquisition, given Gaider's post three months back.
SweQue wrote...
I mean, personally I dont trust the Chantry in Dragon Age at all. But if I lived in the Dragon Age universe, I would probably believe in some kind of entity/be spirtual. And "maker" is just a name for it.
While, if I was a resident of Thedas (and especially a mage) I would not believe in the Maker.
SweQue wrote...
And yes, irl im an atheist but thats because in our world there is no "spirit worlds/Black city" to study etc.
I believe Morrigan's retort to Leliana about magic and spirits already addresses my own feelings about their existance in Thedas.
SweQue wrote...
well it doesnt matter really what we think, does it?
I mean if the Maker does exist in and is proven in Dragon Age 4, clearly all non-beliefer would be wrong. No matter how much they deny/dislike the idea of the maker in previous dragon age games. Thats been my point. Its not a question if you WANT the maker to exist or not exist, its if he does or not.
Or the Maker could be fake, while the Creators could be real. You never know.
SweQue wrote...
I mean: I could make 10 point why he does exist and 10 why he doesnt. However, if he shows up in Dragon Age 4 then clearly all my points on why he can't (... or shouldnt) exist must be wrong, since he does.
The developers said they don't want to answer that question for Dragon Age, so it's no different than the real world: as mere mortals, we don't know the truth.
Yes, but what Morrigan says isnt good enough for me.
If I lived in a Dragon Age universe I probably would belive in some kind of creation. And not in "big bang/evolution".
With that said, A catholic priest invented big bang-theory. But even that theory is a bit far fetched. Everything came out of nothing, and why did it do that on a Tuesday 07:27 etc.
Why did it wait an etnerity for it to come into existence, as Emanuel Kant said.
My point is, science is just as "magical" as myths. So maybe Dragon AGe has its own cool real story to creation beside a God in the end.
Yes, but what Morrigan says isnt good enough for me. If I lived in a Dragon Age universe I probably would belive in some kind of creation. And not in "big bang/evolution".
Fair enough. What Morrigan said was the kind of mindset that my Surana Warden had; he was an elf who had the gift of magic, and he wasn't convinced that the Chantry of Andraste was true in any of their teachings about the Maker, or about the world of Thedas. All he believed in was in the power he wielded as a mage, not in a higher power. I found my Surana Warden to be really interesting, and I'm partial to elven protagonists (which is why I was disappointed to learn that the Inquisitor could only be human).
SweQue wrote...
With that said, A catholic priest invented big bang-theory. But even that theory is a bit far fetched. Everything came out of nothing, and why did it do that on a Tuesday 07:27 etc. Why did it wait an etnerity for it to come into existence, as Emanuel Kant said.
You mean for Thedas? Who knows. My Surana Warden didn't know. I probably would have had apostate Hawke as an atheist as well, even though I tried to make him different from my Warden (i.e. my Warden sided with the progressive King Bhelen, while Hawke helped Lord Renvil Harrowmont escape to safety; my Warden killed the Architect, while Hawke believed that Corypheus would be useful in stopping the Blight). It's mainly the fact that my Hawke is a mage, and I find the Chantry to be anti-mage in their teachings; in contrast, I wouldn't have an issue with playing as a Dalish elf who believed in the Creators.
Somehow topics like this always goes the wrong way. Let's sort this out: i'm straight, ex-muslim atheist.male. Reason i want the option to play an atheist/secular character: well because it's an "option". I role played many religious characters both evil and good. Rp'ing a zealot or a wise man of faith (like Obi Wan of Eps IV) was always appealing to me.
Yet role playing an atheist character in a fantasy setting just as (even more so to be honest) appealing. Even when it's a fact that there are god-like beings exist in this setting, wheter they're subject of faith or not is up to discussion (Valygar of BG2 is a good example who was an atheist ranger.).
I can role play a character who is atheist out of his selfish nature or selfless idealism or just because her mama died and gods didn't do nothing... reasons should belong to the player. I always looked to gay romance options that way. I never tried ( okay okay i did one lesbian Dalish Elf okay! I know it's shallow of me! ) but knowing the option is here important.
For some reason everyone believe such options should be included because there are gay or atheist players and they deserve some love too. Truth is: a good role playing game must have vast options so the player define her "character" the way she wanted. Options on sexuality, race, morality, religion... all needed in a role playing game. If i have those then i don't care wheter i can't customise my armor or not.
People even forget Bioware makes role playing games i guess...
With that said, A catholic priest invented big bang-theory. But even that theory is a bit far fetched. Everything came out of nothing, and why did it do that on a Tuesday 07:27 etc. Why did it wait an etnerity for it to come into existence, as Emanuel Kant said.
My point is, science is just as "magical" as myths. So maybe Dragon AGe has its own cool real story to creation beside a God in the end.
All of cosmology and astrophysics trembles before the firey logic of a dead philosopher and SweQue. /sarcasm
I'm trying to figure out how Kant could possibly have commented on the Big Bang Theory since he died over 100 years before its inception.
well it doesnt matter really what we think, does it?
I mean if the Maker does exist in and is proven in Dragon Age 4, clearly all non-beliefer would be wrong. No matter how much they deny/dislike the idea of the maker in previous dragon age games. Thats been my point. Its not a question if you WANT the maker to exist or not exist, its if he does or not.
I mean: I could make 10 point why he does exist and 10 why he doesnt. However, if he shows up in Dragon Age 4 then clearly all my points on why he can't (... or shouldnt) exist must be wrong, since he does.
Unless everyone's made aware that he exists, your character could still very well not believe in him.
With that said, A catholic priest invented big bang-theory. But even that theory is a bit far fetched. Everything came out of nothing, and why did it do that on a Tuesday 07:27 etc. Why did it wait an etnerity for it to come into existence, as Emanuel Kant said.
My point is, science is just as "magical" as myths. So maybe Dragon AGe has its own cool real story to creation beside a God in the end.
All of cosmology and astrophysics trembles before the firey logic of a dead philosopher and SweQue. /sarcasm
I'm trying to figure out how Kant could possibly have commented on the Big Bang Theory since he died over 100 years before its inception.
Kant wondered why the universe took an enternity to create itself´, if it indeed came to existence one day. He didnt know about the Big Bang theory as it is today, but the idea of an universe that came into existence or been here forever had been debated since ancient greece. But nice try there
Even if the Maker is shown to exists, you shouldn't be forced to worship it, or following the Chantry (which isn't necessarily following the Maker's teachings). The same goes if it'll be shown that the Creators are the real gods. I don't have to be forced to worship them. And I've roleplayed both mages and non-mages as believer of the Maker (though not necessarily fan or followers of the Chantry). I'm not adversed to make PC that believe in the Maker. I just want the freedom to choose my belief.
There have been more than a few Popes and Bishops who don't even believe in a God,. why should the Chantry be different. Maybe people just want to be in a position of power
There have been more than a few Popes and Bishops who don't even believe in a God,. why should the Chantry be different. Maybe people just want to be in a position of power
Yes. But then again, a pro "chantry/maker" person can just point out that in their religion Maker has abandon humans until tehy truly repent and changed their nature, so no wonder he doesnt bother/care that the highest in the chantry could be corrupted.
I myself am Christian but do not want to play a pro Chantry/Templar character.
The Circle reminds me of concentration camps and the people who are housed in them can be raped, tortured or put to death at the whim of the commanding officer. They even condemn whole circles to be put to the sword with little or no justification.
This is all carried out with the blessing of the Chantry in the name of The Maker.
The Wardens fought against Dark Spawn a horde of evil creatures that planned to destroy the world. That's a fight I can Support, Killing thousands of Men women and children because of the actions of a few mavericks is not a fight I could in good conscience support.
For me the choice is not about religious belief or being forced down a tight path, but about my moral compass that would never let me enjoy a game where I am forced to play on the side of animals who can slaughter thousands of innocents without a second thought and then pass it of as the will of The Maker.
And yes I know that there are many people out there who believe that the mages deserve this because their magic ties them to demons, and fair enough that is their opinion but it is not an opinion I wish to follow myself.
I play games for enjoyment and would not gain any enjoyment from this sort of path.
With that said, A catholic priest invented big bang-theory. But even that theory is a bit far fetched. Everything came out of nothing, and why did it do that on a Tuesday 07:27 etc. Why did it wait an etnerity for it to come into existence, as Emanuel Kant said.
My point is, science is just as "magical" as myths. So maybe Dragon AGe has its own cool real story to creation beside a God in the end.
All of cosmology and astrophysics trembles before the firey logic of a dead philosopher and SweQue. /sarcasm
I'm trying to figure out how Kant could possibly have commented on the Big Bang Theory since he died over 100 years before its inception.
Kant wondered why the universe took an enternity to create itself´, if it indeed came to existence one day. He didnt know about the Big Bang theory as it is today, but the idea of an universe that came into existence or been here forever had been debated since ancient greece. But nice try there
"Nice try", my ***. The way you wrote it made it implicitly clear that you were relating the Kant quote to the big bang theory. If you don't want to be misunderstood like that, try to be a bit more clear in your writing.
As for the time thing (why it waited an eternity) that is a ludicrous question. The same question could be applied to the statement that a god created the universe. Why did he wait an eternity to do so? So the point is irrelevant. In any case, physicists have known for quite some time that in the conditions that had to exist prior to the big bang the laws of physics would have been completely different. Time may not even have existed, thus there wasn't any waiting. It's sometimes confusing, but when the vast majority of experts in a field agree that the same hypothesis is likely true, and that same hypothesis passes peer review time and time again I tend to find it far more credible than the arguments of unqualified naysayers.
Even accepting your original intent with the Kant quote I still fail to see the relevance. A philosopher is no more qualified to speak on a matter of science than a chef is qualified to fix computers. In the ancient times, philosophy and science were similar fields and often overlapped, but that ended long before Kant.
EDIT: If you have a legitimate interest in why the Big Bang is so universally accepted by physicists and the evidence for it watch this video:
I've attended this lecture and found it quite interesting for both beginners and those who already have a decent grasp of cosmology. If don't care enough to watch it then perhaps you should learn not to speak about things you don't care enough about to understand. (Look up the Dunning-Kruger Effect)
With that said, A catholic priest invented big bang-theory. But even that theory is a bit far fetched. Everything came out of nothing, and why did it do that on a Tuesday 07:27 etc. Why did it wait an etnerity for it to come into existence, as Emanuel Kant said.
My point is, science is just as "magical" as myths. So maybe Dragon AGe has its own cool real story to creation beside a God in the end.
All of cosmology and astrophysics trembles before the firey logic of a dead philosopher and SweQue. /sarcasm
I'm trying to figure out how Kant could possibly have commented on the Big Bang Theory since he died over 100 years before its inception.
Kant wondered why the universe took an enternity to create itself´, if it indeed came to existence one day. He didnt know about the Big Bang theory as it is today, but the idea of an universe that came into existence or been here forever had been debated since ancient greece. But nice try there
"Nice try", my ***. The way you wrote it made it implicitly clear that you were relating the Kant quote to the big bang theory. If you don't want to be misunderstood like that, try to be a bit more clear in your writing.
As for the time thing (why it waited an eternity) that is a ludicrous question. The same question could be applied to the statement that a god created the universe. Why did he wait an eternity to do so? So the point is irrelevant. In any case, physicists have known for quite some time that in the conditions that had to exist prior to the big bang the laws of physics would have been completely different. Time may not even have existed, thus there wasn't any waiting. It's sometimes confusing, but when the vast majority of experts in a field agree that the same hypothesis is likely true, and that same hypothesis passes peer review time and time again I tend to find it far more credible than the arguments of unqualified naysayers.
Even accepting your original intent with the Kant quote I still fail to see the relevance. A philosopher is no more qualified to speak on a matter of science than a chef is qualified to fix computers. In the ancient times, philosophy and science were similar fields and often overlapped, but that ended long before Kant.
EDIT: If you have a legitimate interest in why the Big Bang is so universally accepted by physicists and the evidence for it watch this video:
I've attended this lecture and found it quite interesting for both beginners and those who already have a decent grasp of cosmology. If don't care enough to watch it then perhaps you should learn not to speak about things you don't care enough about to understand. (Look up the Dunning-Kruger Effect)
I can’t believe that we have got on to the big bang. Big Bang and Darwinism are both just Theories. This means that there is no irrefutable proof that either of them is actually correct, if there was they would be law. There is no irrefutable proof that they are false either, if there was they would no longer be theories.
To say that because a body of Scientist believe it to be true proves that it is just doesn’t make sense. There are plenty of scientific theories that were once believed to be true by general consensus that have since been proven to be wrong. Did the world start with a Big Bang? I don’t know and neither does anybody else for that matter. People can hypothesise one view or the other but until they find actual irrefutable proof it will remain a theory.
I don't wanna derail this thread at all, so I say this only: Big bang is a great theory, but for us to be so sure what happend 13.7 billion years ago... O_o
Maybe in 100 or 1000 year they will laugh at us and our theory.
With that said, A catholic priest invented big bang-theory. But even that theory is a bit far fetched. Everything came out of nothing, and why did it do that on a Tuesday 07:27 etc. Why did it wait an etnerity for it to come into existence, as Emanuel Kant said.
My point is, science is just as "magical" as myths. So maybe Dragon AGe has its own cool real story to creation beside a God in the end.
All of cosmology and astrophysics trembles before the firey logic of a dead philosopher and SweQue. /sarcasm
I'm trying to figure out how Kant could possibly have commented on the Big Bang Theory since he died over 100 years before its inception.
Kant wondered why the universe took an enternity to create itself´, if it indeed came to existence one day. He didnt know about the Big Bang theory as it is today, but the idea of an universe that came into existence or been here forever had been debated since ancient greece. But nice try there
"Nice try", my ***. The way you wrote it made it implicitly clear that you were relating the Kant quote to the big bang theory. If you don't want to be misunderstood like that, try to be a bit more clear in your writing.
As for the time thing (why it waited an eternity) that is a ludicrous question. The same question could be applied to the statement that a god created the universe. Why did he wait an eternity to do so? So the point is irrelevant. In any case, physicists have known for quite some time that in the conditions that had to exist prior to the big bang the laws of physics would have been completely different. Time may not even have existed, thus there wasn't any waiting. It's sometimes confusing, but when the vast majority of experts in a field agree that the same hypothesis is likely true, and that same hypothesis passes peer review time and time again I tend to find it far more credible than the arguments of unqualified naysayers.
Even accepting your original intent with the Kant quote I still fail to see the relevance. A philosopher is no more qualified to speak on a matter of science than a chef is qualified to fix computers. In the ancient times, philosophy and science were similar fields and often overlapped, but that ended long before Kant.
EDIT: If you have a legitimate interest in why the Big Bang is so universally accepted by physicists and the evidence for it watch this video:
I've attended this lecture and found it quite interesting for both beginners and those who already have a decent grasp of cosmology. If don't care enough to watch it then perhaps you should learn not to speak about things you don't care enough about to understand. (Look up the Dunning-Kruger Effect)
Ignoring how pompous you sound, the question of the "Big Bang theory" is just as much a philosophical question as it is a scientific question. One of the four antionomies of Kant doesn't specifically address the "Big Bang theory", but it does address the metaphysical question of the nature of reality with specific regards to the origins (or lack-there-of) of the universe.
Even if the Big Bang theory is 100% correct, this metaphysical antinomy remains problematic and unresolved. This is because the nature of the question is in fact beyond the scope of physics, being a philosophical one (specifically metaphysics).
The scientific nature of the question merely involves empirically determining that such an event occcurred, but it says nothing about whether such an event was the true "beginning of space and time" or not, or even if such a thing exists.
Also, if there was a beginning (such as a creator God), then it necessarily follows that he/she/it would not have waited an eternity before creating the universe so your criticism is mistaken. This is just a matter of logic. If there was a beginning, time cannot extend backwards infinitely.
Modifié par EpicTragedy, 09 janvier 2013 - 11:32 .
With that said, A catholic priest invented big bang-theory. But even that theory is a bit far fetched. Everything came out of nothing, and why did it do that on a Tuesday 07:27 etc. Why did it wait an etnerity for it to come into existence, as Emanuel Kant said.
My point is, science is just as "magical" as myths. So maybe Dragon AGe has its own cool real story to creation beside a God in the end.
All of cosmology and astrophysics trembles before the firey logic of a dead philosopher and SweQue. /sarcasm
I'm trying to figure out how Kant could possibly have commented on the Big Bang Theory since he died over 100 years before its inception.
Kant wondered why the universe took an enternity to create itself´, if it indeed came to existence one day. He didnt know about the Big Bang theory as it is today, but the idea of an universe that came into existence or been here forever had been debated since ancient greece. But nice try there
"Nice try", my ***. The way you wrote it made it implicitly clear that you were relating the Kant quote to the big bang theory. If you don't want to be misunderstood like that, try to be a bit more clear in your writing.
As for the time thing (why it waited an eternity) that is a ludicrous question. The same question could be applied to the statement that a god created the universe. Why did he wait an eternity to do so? So the point is irrelevant. In any case, physicists have known for quite some time that in the conditions that had to exist prior to the big bang the laws of physics would have been completely different. Time may not even have existed, thus there wasn't any waiting. It's sometimes confusing, but when the vast majority of experts in a field agree that the same hypothesis is likely true, and that same hypothesis passes peer review time and time again I tend to find it far more credible than the arguments of unqualified naysayers.
Even accepting your original intent with the Kant quote I still fail to see the relevance. A philosopher is no more qualified to speak on a matter of science than a chef is qualified to fix computers. In the ancient times, philosophy and science were similar fields and often overlapped, but that ended long before Kant.
EDIT: If you have a legitimate interest in why the Big Bang is so universally accepted by physicists and the evidence for it watch this video:
I've attended this lecture and found it quite interesting for both beginners and those who already have a decent grasp of cosmology. If don't care enough to watch it then perhaps you should learn not to speak about things you don't care enough about to understand. (Look up the Dunning-Kruger Effect)
Ignoring how pompous you sound, the question of the "Big Bang theory" is just as much a philosophical question as it is a scientific question. One of the four antionomies of Kant doesn't specifically address the "Big Bang theory", but it does address the metaphysical question of the nature of reality with specific regards to the origins (or lack-there-of) of the universe.
Even if the Big Bang theory is 100% correct, this metaphysical antinomy remains problematic and unresolved. This is because the nature of the question is in fact beyond the scope of physics, being a philosophical one (specifically metaphysics).
The scientific nature of the question merely involves empirically determining that such an event occcurred, but it says nothing about whether such an event was the true "beginning of space and time" or not, or even if such a thing exists.
Also, if there was a beginning (such as a creator God), then it necessarily follows that he/she/it would not have waited an eternity before creating the universe so your criticism is mistaken. This is just a matter of logic. If there was a beginning, time cannot extend backwards infinitely.
Did you miss the part where I said that current models show that time may not have existed before the Big Bang? This answers your point about time not extening backwards indefinitely. Why wouldn't physics be able to answer the question of what came before? It's always possible we might someday find ecidence to clarify that situation. In any case, when there is no evidence there is simply no way of knowing. Navel gazing philosophers have nothing to add.
Technically, nothing is beyond the scope of physics unless it doesn't involve any matter. Even philosophy is the result of physical processes within human minds. Needless-to-say, our physics haven't yet reached the point where we can fully understand the human mind, but theoretically there's no reason we won't be able to figure out such things in the future.
With that said, A catholic priest invented big bang-theory. But even that theory is a bit far fetched. Everything came out of nothing, and why did it do that on a Tuesday 07:27 etc. Why did it wait an etnerity for it to come into existence, as Emanuel Kant said.
My point is, science is just as "magical" as myths. So maybe Dragon AGe has its own cool real story to creation beside a God in the end.
All of cosmology and astrophysics trembles before the firey logic of a dead philosopher and SweQue. /sarcasm
I'm trying to figure out how Kant could possibly have commented on the Big Bang Theory since he died over 100 years before its inception.
Kant wondered why the universe took an enternity to create itself´, if it indeed came to existence one day. He didnt know about the Big Bang theory as it is today, but the idea of an universe that came into existence or been here forever had been debated since ancient greece. But nice try there
"Nice try", my ***. The way you wrote it made it implicitly clear that you were relating the Kant quote to the big bang theory. If you don't want to be misunderstood like that, try to be a bit more clear in your writing.
As for the time thing (why it waited an eternity) that is a ludicrous question. The same question could be applied to the statement that a god created the universe. Why did he wait an eternity to do so? So the point is irrelevant. In any case, physicists have known for quite some time that in the conditions that had to exist prior to the big bang the laws of physics would have been completely different. Time may not even have existed, thus there wasn't any waiting. It's sometimes confusing, but when the vast majority of experts in a field agree that the same hypothesis is likely true, and that same hypothesis passes peer review time and time again I tend to find it far more credible than the arguments of unqualified naysayers.
Even accepting your original intent with the Kant quote I still fail to see the relevance. A philosopher is no more qualified to speak on a matter of science than a chef is qualified to fix computers. In the ancient times, philosophy and science were similar fields and often overlapped, but that ended long before Kant.
EDIT: If you have a legitimate interest in why the Big Bang is so universally accepted by physicists and the evidence for it watch this video:
I've attended this lecture and found it quite interesting for both beginners and those who already have a decent grasp of cosmology. If don't care enough to watch it then perhaps you should learn not to speak about things you don't care enough about to understand. (Look up the Dunning-Kruger Effect)
I can’t believe that we have got on to the big bang. Big Bang and Darwinism are both just Theories. This means that there is no irrefutable proof that either of them is actually correct, if there was they would be law. There is no irrefutable proof that they are false either, if there was they would no longer be theories.
To say that because a body of Scientist believe it to be true proves that it is just doesn’t make sense. There are plenty of scientific theories that were once believed to be true by general consensus that have since been proven to be wrong. Did the world start with a Big Bang? I don’t know and neither does anybody else for that matter. People can hypothesise one view or the other but until they find actual irrefutable proof it will remain a theory.
Theory and law do not mean what you think they mean in a scientific sense. I'll make this simple and just copy/paste Wikipedia, because I'm tired of constantly having to explain this to people on the internet:
" A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observation that describes some aspect of the world. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements. Factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered to be too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing causal relationships (such as those implied by laws) from principles that arise due to constant conjunction.[1] Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found to be false when extrapolated."
On Scientific Theories: " A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4] The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiablepredictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.[5]"
On laws vs theories: " Both scientific laws and scientific theories are produced from the scientific method through the formation and testing of hypotheses, and can predict the behavior of the natural world. Both are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence.[23] However, scientific laws are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[24] Scientific theories are broader in scope, and give overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics. Theories are supported by evidence from many different sources, and may contain one or several laws.[25] A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law.[23][26] Theories and laws are also distinct from hypotheses. Unlike hypotheses, theories and laws may be simply referred to as scientific fact.[27][28]"
You cannot get further than a theory in science. That is the end-all and be-all of explanatory statements in science. It is the best current working model for any given phenomena, which has withstood peer review and criticism. If you reject the accuracy of a scientific theory, and do so without compelling evidence, you are opperating in the realm of pseudoscience.
If you really want to understand these things, I'd recommend the Wikipedia articles on "Scientifc Law", "Scientific Theory", and "Scientific Method". Also, you might want to read Isaac Asimov's "The Relativity of Wrong" (quoted in my sig). It's a short essay that covers how science goes about correcting mistakes and improving models. It can be found with a quick Google search. If you're actually interested in why the Big Bang Theory is almost universally accepted amongst physicists, watch the video I linked earlier. It's over an hour long, but there really is no quicker way to understand Big Bang cosmology. It's complicated stuff.
EDIT: I forgot to address a couple of your points. It's not that the scientific consensus and peer review make something correct. It's that when there is a scientific consensus, that is the best possible conclusion to reach given what we know at the time. Second, I reject your notion that "There are plenty of scientific theories that were once believed to be true by general consensus that have since been proven to be wrong." Since the establishment of the Scientific Method very few theories have been proven wrong in the sense that they were rejected utterly. (I can't think of any, but I threw in the very few just in case). Scientific theories get refined and corrected. I really suggest that you read the Asimov article I suggested, as it touches on this very subject.
Yes, but what Morrigan says isnt good enough for me. If I lived in a Dragon Age universe I probably would belive in some kind of creation. And not in "big bang/evolution".
With that said, A catholic priest invented big bang-theory. But even that theory is a bit far fetched. Everything came out of nothing, and why did it do that on a Tuesday 07:27 etc. Why did it wait an etnerity for it to come into existence, as Emanuel Kant said.
My point is, science is just as "magical" as myths. So maybe Dragon AGe has its own cool real story to creation beside a God in the end.
Just for clarification:
The Big Bang theory isn't an example of "something coming from nothing" especially if you argue that God (or a god depending on your beliefs) was behind it. The theory in no way contradicts the Biblical account of the creation of the universe. The first people to criticize the theory were actually atheists because it pretty much said the universe had a beginning and was created which to them implied "divine creation" and in truth it does.
===
Concerning the DA universe and science need not apply to argue in favor of The Maker. We have the Legacy DLC seemingly supporting the Chant of Light which claims mages went to heaven and corrupted it and then we have the Ashes of Andraste where so-called lyrium does not explain the Guardian's immortality and ability to see into people's past (none of these abilities were reported with the powerful mage archons who consorted with demons so obviously there's something supernatural about the Ashes).
Modifié par Elton John is dead, 10 janvier 2013 - 02:01 .
The first people to criticize the theory were actually atheists because it pretty much said the universe had a beginning and was created which to them implied "divine creation" and in truth it does.
The first people to criticize the theory were actually atheists because it pretty much said the universe had a beginning and was created which to them implied "divine creation" and in truth it does.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
