|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
posted June 04, 2008 04:02 PM |
|
|
Galev, if you want a correct analogy (something undetectable by our primary senses) take infrared as an example.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 04, 2008 04:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Galev, if you want a correct analogy (something undetectable by our primary senses) take infared as an example.
But infrared is still nonetheless, light (electromagnetic waves) 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 04, 2008 04:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"How can you have 'before' and 'after' in a world without time".
How can you have a world without time?
Quote:
Sorry but the Universe is accelerating (at least if you believe what they say)
It may be accelerating now, but it won't always be. (Law of Conservation of Energy).
Quote:
One need no proof about God. If there were any proofs it would be knowledge, not faith.
This is true. One needs no proof to believe in God. But faith and faith-based belief is an illogical concept.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 04, 2008 04:18 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 16:26, 04 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
How can you have a world without time?
Thanks for answering my question.
You can have one much as you can have a 3D world WITH time. Essentially, of course, just because you don't know how that world can be doesn't mean it cannot exist. And it is one reason why explaining 'what was before God' is quite, might I say, impossible, even if supposedly one guy knew, because you see people can't comprehend the idea of a world without time.
That being said, even if I absurdly knew what was before God (if such a thing is even possible), I wouldn't know how to explain it 
Quote:
It may be accelerating now, but it won't always be. (Law of Conservation of Energy).
For it to collapse, it would not only need to stop accelerating, but rather decelerate!
(btw: just because it accelerates doesn't mean it 'has more energy' than before)
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 04, 2008 04:27 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 16:31, 04 Jun 2008.
|
Laws of physics can change on Great Quantities (as they do on Small quantities) so it is just theory what happens. TheDeath is right, by these laws of physics and current observations, the Universe will be torn apart* - rather than be collapsed.
*I don't know many things that are as scary as witnessing that
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 04, 2008 04:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You can have one much as you can have a 3D world WITH time.
Give me one instance of a world without time (other than singularities, which are questionable).
Quote:
(btw: just because it accelerates doesn't mean it 'has more energy' than before)
If it's accelerating, the amount of energy is increasing. Therefore, to compensate, the energy in the system will have to decrease.
Quote:
Laws of physics can change on Great Quantities (as they do on Small quantities)
No. Laws of physics only change when humans change them. If a law of physics doesn't describe all known instances, then it's disproved and we have to find a new one.
As for the different theories, here they are:
Big Crunch
Big Rip
Big Freeze
Big Bounce
I am inclined to agree with the Big Bounce theory.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 04, 2008 05:25 PM |
|
|
|
What I was trying to say is that different laws of physics are applied for example on atom level (quantum physics). And you go with Big Bounce even though the evidence suggest otherwise. Faith be your guide
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 04, 2008 06:11 PM |
|
|
There are objections to all of these. Any or none of them may be true. Until we know more, it's a matter of personal preference.
And regarding different laws of physics, they're the same, or should be. Kind of like how relativity simplifies to classical physics when moving much slower than the speed of light.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Galev
Famous Hero
Galiv :D
|
|
posted June 04, 2008 09:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
One need no proof about God. If there were any proofs it would be knowledge, not faith.
This is true. One needs no proof to believe in God. But faith and faith-based belief is an illogical concept.
Ummm... Is it? If you think, then do. I'm not going to argue on this story. It would lead too far and I don't feel likely for such a long journey... especially not via internet. I hope this not sounds too much like escaping. But well, I've written before I don't want long, pointless argues, I think. I might write here again some time. so...
Good night (or day) till then!
____________
Incidence? I think it's cummulative!
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted June 04, 2008 11:37 PM |
|
|
Interjection:
Judging from the input on last page, why don't someone make (or revive, if there's an old one) an astrophysics thread? It would have quite a popularity, I'd probably write something too, from time to time.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 12:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't want long, pointless argues
But isn't that the point of this thread?
I gave up on believing in people's willingness to debate.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 12:18 AM |
|
|
Amen, brother Mvass...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 09:53 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 09:54, 05 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
Give me one instance of a world without time (other than singularities, which are questionable).
I dunno, some other Universe, or God's realm or whatever else.
Now seriously, the problem is that you are too narrow-minded to this Universe. I mean, if you look at mathematics for example, you'll notice that you can have 'definitions'. By the very definition of something, it exists. For example, the definition of the symbol Pi is "the ratio of the circumference of the circle to it's diameter". By this very simple definition, you can have PERFECT circles -- that is, even though perfect circles do not exist in this world (because atoms only approximate one), it DOES exist by definition. And it actually can exist in another Universe.
Maybe we're in a Matrix and our world is full of numbers, no atoms, no nothing. It's hard to imagine a world different from what we experience from Earth (e.g: world without time, etc). But I do not want to imagine it, I simply state the definition. By the very definition of it "a world without time" is a non-contradictory definition.
That's exactly what I was trying to say. People can't comprehend the idea of a world without time, because all they can grasp is a 3D world WITH time (4D so to speak), or in other words, their world. So imagine: how can I answer a question like "what was BEFORE God" or "Who created God" when we can't even COMPREHEND a world without time. Because God created time as well, therefore until that point it didn't exist. So next time you place a question like that, make sure you understand what's a world without time, if you can...
Quote:
And regarding different laws of physics, they're the same, or should be.
Sure, if you consider 3.1415 to be Pi, however it's only a not-so-good approximation, so nope, they're not the same at all. Approximations are never, I repeat, never the same as the true thing 
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 10:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What do you mean by evidence? Do you mean the "confidence in the law of non-contradiction could be said to be faith. There is no direct way to prove the law of contradiction except that it must be presupposed in order to learn anything or differentiate anything from anything else. Likewise, the principle of induction, which states that the future will be generally like the past, is what makes possible the formulation of scientific laws and theories. We cannot test the truth of this principle scientifically, for we would be assuming the truth of induction to try and prove it.".
Experiments are based on the above belief system. Maybe the above belief system can't be used for God (since you said no evidence based on the above can be used for God).
(I know you'll say that we have to start with certain assumptions, but then why not religious assumptions? that's purely a subjective opinion ).
Because religious assumptions serve no purpose.
The don't benefit anyone beyond delusion, although delusion can be helpful sometimes
Quote:
If one day it is observed that the law of conservation of energy is false then it will be changed, it's not really faith.
If this will be changed, why are you implying that it's true RIGHT NOW?
Well, I'm not saying it WILL be changed.... (?)
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 10:16 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 11:41, 05 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
Because religious assumptions serve no purpose.
The don't benefit anyone beyond delusion, although delusion can be helpful sometimes
Well that's your opinion and frankly most people say the same about things they don't like. You truly have to know something in order to hate it (of course this is a metaphor, I'm not saying you hate religion, it was a quote).
Quote:
Well, I'm not saying it WILL be changed.... (?)
You did not get my point, I was not talking that YOU (TitaniumAlloy) did, I was talking in general.
The flaw of science is like this. Scientists cling on theory A. Some small group of intellectual or philosophers cling on a different theory, B. The problem is, scientists CLAIM and say that the second group are delusional, etc.. in short most people would not even listen to group B because that's what scientists say.
Now suppose theory B is proved later (doesn't have to be religion at all, it could be let's say theory of relativity or 'the start of the Universe' theory: remember most people said in 1950s that the Universe had no beginning!  ).
What do scientists say? Well they say science is NEVER wrong because it 'adapts' to the new theory. PROBLEM: those intellectuals were regarded as delusional. You can't say yesterday that they were and tomorrow that they are right. Science thinks that everyone accepts it's constant apologizes. That's the problem.
So why are you implying that the theory is true and actually even call others delusional (I'm talking in general about scientists) and later you EVEN DARE to say 'ok we changed, science is never wrong'. The problem, why didn't you listen to them in the first place? You said 'no proof' or whatsoever, but then again, you implied so hard they were wrong.
I'm sorry but people are not science's toy and they don't forgive it every time it changes it views, if you know what I mean
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 03:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I dunno, some other Universe, or God's realm or whatever else.
None of which have ever been demonstrated.
It may be interesting to discuss what might happen if "x" were different in a different universe, but it really has no actual application.
Quote:
Sure, if you consider 3.1415 to be Pi, however it's only a not-so-good approximation, so nope, they're not the same at all.
What? That's not what I was talking about. What I'm saying is that classical physics don't apply to objects travelling at the speed of light. Relativity does, and it also applies in all cases that classical physics applies. So classical physics is a specific case of relativity (if c>>v). So if a law of physics does not apply in a certain situation, the observations and experiment must first be checked, but if they turn out to be all right, then the law might be incorrect. So a law of physics should apply in all known cases.
Quote:
The problem, why didn't you listen to them in the first place?
Because you had no basis for assuming that they are correct. Once you do, then, of course, the ideas change.
Let us take a people that are living underground and have never seen the sun. Most of them don't think that the sun exists, because they have never seen it or felt any evidence of it. But a small group of people in that community have made it to the surface a few times and have seen the sun, and know that it exists. This group is called delusional. But one day there is a cave-in, and the people can see to the surface and can see the sun. They now have two options:
1. To accept the sun's existence and admit that they were wrong.
2. To continue saying that the sun doesn't exist.
The first option is what science does. The second option is what religion does. When the known facts change, science changes. Religion does not always do so.
Quote:
I'm sorry but people are not science's toy and they don't forgive it every time it changes it views, if you know what I mean
That's why religion is so popular. Because all too often it doesn't change its views when new evidence is presented. But maybe people are going to get tired of religion not changing its views to adopt to new knowledge.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 04:22 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 16:23, 05 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
None of which have ever been demonstrated.
That doesn't have to be demonstrated, a definition does NOT have to be demonstrated. I mean, if you're expecting to follow the 'God' thing (because you ask e.g: "what was before God?") then you should also know that God created time -- so we have a definition of a world without time.
Quote:
It may be interesting to discuss what might happen if "x" were different in a different universe, but it really has no actual application.
Practical application =/= knowledge
Quote:
What? That's not what I was talking about. What I'm saying is that classical physics don't apply to objects travelling at the speed of light.
Therefore it is wrong, and it's only an approximation at lower speeds (because it's almost unnoticeable). But in the end, it's still an approximation.
Quote:
Because you had no basis for assuming that they are correct. Once you do, then, of course, the ideas change.
Let us take a people that are living underground and have never seen the sun. Most of them don't think that the sun exists, because they have never seen it or felt any evidence of it. But a small group of people in that community have made it to the surface a few times and have seen the sun, and know that it exists. This group is called delusional. But one day there is a cave-in, and the people can see to the surface and can see the sun. They now have two options:
1. To accept the sun's existence and admit that they were wrong.
2. To continue saying that the sun doesn't exist.
The first option is what science does. The second option is what religion does. When the known facts change, science changes. Religion does not always do so.
The people there would be ok if they admit that they were wrong and that science can be wrong.
Also please read this carefully. There is a difference between saying "Look at all those delusional idiots that think a sun exists" and "I don't know, you are not delusional, maybe you have seen the sun, but I haven't, so I don't believe it". Especially because the former states that they truly are delusional, in short it's like they KNOW that they are delusional (which is what most atheists do compared to agnostics). Anyone else will think the same. Now, like, hmm, what will they think after the cave-in?
See? Science thinks it can get away with this. Problem is not that it changes (that is a good thing), but that it thinks it knows the truth at any time. At moment A, it has some views, and calls it truth. At moment B, it changed views, and calls it truth. There can't be more than one truth, and yet people who have different views are often denoted delusional, because hey, science implies truth at any given time, even though later they might be proven right!! When it changes it views, it's like it has never been wrong before, so it completely forgets that. The problem is that history repeats.. it will then do the same thing.
Quote:
That's why religion is so popular. Because all too often it doesn't change its views when new evidence is presented. But maybe people are going to get tired of religion not changing its views to adopt to new knowledge.
What I was trying to say was that you can't really say today that A exists and tomorrow that it doesn't, and then say that science is never wrong because it adapts. It was wrong, and surely is now too. Of course I don't say anything about religion here! Just because science is wrong does not mean religion is true, they're independent.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 04:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
See? Science thinks it can get away with this. Problem is not that it changes (that is a good thing), but that it thinks it knows the truth at any time. At moment A, it has some views, and calls it truth. At moment B, it changed views, and calls it truth.
I will get to your earlier posts in due time, but this is just wrong. (Ignore that science is not a person and doesn't "think" anything.) A scientific theory is a model of reality, a mechanistic explanation of an observation. No physicist thinks that "relativity is the absolute truth". In fact, we all know it's not right, because we know it cannot model things correctly under certain circumstances. When a new theory is made, it is made because an observation is made that the old theory cannot explain. A new theory is then devised that can still explain the old observations, but also can accomodate the new one. And we fully recognize that the new theory is only devised to explain CURRENT OBSERVATIONS. It may also predict FUTURE OBSERVATIONS, and how well those predictions match future observations determines how good a model it is. We expect that the theory is not perfect, because we continue to observe new things; the only way a scientist could call a theory "the truth" is if we knew we had observed everything there is to observe. And how could we ever know that? New theories are better models, not "the truth". And that's all scientists call them. We don't say, "Well THIS is the truth now; the old one is no longer the truth!" You're using a false characterization of how the scientific method works. Essentially, you are using a strawman argument to show that science is the same as religion.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 04:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
God created time -- so we have a definition of a world without time
All right, so you have this definition. What do you want to do with it?
Quote:
Therefore it is wrong, and it's only an approximation at lower speeds (because it's almost unnoticeable). But in the end, it's still an approximation.
Yes. And what of it?
Quote:
The people there would be ok if they admit that they were wrong and that science can be wrong.
If you don't have all of the facts, of course you can make the wrong conclusions. But there's a difference between science being wrong and the scientist being wrong. The scientist may have had a flawed experiment or poor observation, or may just not have all of the data necessary, and thus draw the wrong conclusions. But the scientific method itself is sound.
Quote:
There is a difference between saying "Look at all those delusional idiots that think a sun exists" and "I don't know, you are not delusional, maybe you have seen the sun, but I haven't, so I don't believe it".
Of course here the analogy breaks down, because, unlike the Sun, God is not observable. The difference is that in the analogy, the minority had observed something the majority hadn't, whereas with God it has "felt" (or whatever term you prefer to use) Him/her/it, and cannot demonstrate it. The underground people can point to the sun and say, "Hey, that's the sun!" But can theists point to God? There is a difference between the unobserved (which science is able to demonstrate with the right tools and knowledge), and the unobservable (which anything supernatural is).
Quote:
Problem is not that it changes (that is a good thing), but that it thinks it knows the truth at any time.
It has no basis for assuming anything that it has not observed.
Quote:
The problem is that history repeats...
Scientists can be right and wrong vs. other scientists. But I can't think of a case in which religion was right vs. any scientists.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 04:53 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 17:00, 05 Jun 2008.
|
@Corribus: Thanks for the clarification but I wasn't talking about what science is, but rather how people interpret it. Maybe it's not science. It does not actually imply truth, but the people think otherwise, because they believe that whatever (theory) contradicts their current 'observations' is false. In 1950s people believed the Universe had no beginning. For those people, science was no longer just an observation, it was truth. Everyone who said the Universe had a beginning was usually regarded as delusional (of course I'm talking in general). You can't call someone else delusional unless you know the truth. Because they were speaking something which was no observable yet (the Big Bang) does that mean they were delusional? What gave the scientists the idea that what they observed then was truth?
Of course science can be ideal in theory, but it seems people are twisting it
@mvassilev:Quote:
All right, so you have this definition. What do you want to do with it?
Well I used it to explain to you why I can't explain what was before God, or maybe to make you see why such a question is absurd.
Quote:
Yes. And what of it?
It's an approximation. Wasn't that my point several posts ago?
Quote:
If you don't have all of the facts, of course you can make the wrong conclusions. But there's a difference between science being wrong and the scientist being wrong. The scientist may have had a flawed experiment or poor observation, or may just not have all of the data necessary, and thus draw the wrong conclusions. But the scientific method itself is sound.
But the method is still based on scientists, aka people, therefore it has much of the flaws as a scientist, since it depends on them.
Quote:
Of course here the analogy breaks down, because, unlike the Sun, God is not observable. The difference is that in the analogy, the minority had observed something the majority hadn't, whereas with God it has "felt" (or whatever term you prefer to use) Him/her/it, and cannot demonstrate it.
Is there a difference? I mean, what's the difference between your god-sense (eyes) and feelings? Aren't both interpreted by the brain? You can say that they have seen some signs of God with their third eye.
Quote:
The underground people can point to the sun and say, "Hey, that's the sun!" But can theists point to God? There is a difference between the unobserved (which science is able to demonstrate with the right tools and knowledge), and the unobservable (which anything supernatural is).
But if the cave-in hadn't happen, they would NEVER be able to see the sun (much like God)
Quote:
It has no basis for assuming anything that it has not observed.
Now you're using science like a person (much like I did). It cannot observe because it has no eyes. People observe, and people are flawed, like you said.
I'm not in the mood to get into how "some" people are favored by science though
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
