|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 05, 2008 06:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I can't explain what was before God
I didn't ask you what was before God.
Quote:
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.
No. Its application may be flawed, but the method itself is sound.
Quote:
I mean, what's the difference between your god-sense (eyes) and feelings?
The difference is that your five senses take in your surroundings, and your feelings come from your reaction to them, as well as from your internal conditions. So if you "feel" God, it is a comination of the interpretation of your senses and your internal conditions. If it is something external that is sensed, what is it that is sensed? And if it is internal, why could it not be a hallucination or placebo or misinterpretation?
Quote:
But if the cave-in hadn't happen, they would NEVER be able to see the sun
But the sun is visible, unlike God.
Quote:
People observe, and people are flawed, like you said.
All right, I will rephrase what I said. Good scientists don't assume anything that they have no basis to assume.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 06:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
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.
Nevertheless too many scientists do behave like that. Shame.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 06:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I didn't ask you what was before God.
No you did not, but some people do (not ask ME, but ask that question).
Quote:
The difference is that your five senses take in your surroundings, and your feelings come from your reaction to them, as well as from your internal conditions.
How do you even know that if you haven't even 'sensed' it. Isn't that an assumption on your behalf? 
Quote:
If it is something external that is sensed, what is it that is sensed?
Good question, do you think people realized what they saw with their eyes immediately?
(note: I can explain the above (what is sensed) but it'll take a lot and I'm not in the mood right now, very busy these days...  ).
Quote:
And if it is internal, why could it not be a hallucination or placebo or misinterpretation?
Well of course, even the eyes can be a hallucination (day dreaming), but you don't actually think like that in day-to-day basis 
Quote:
But the sun is visible, unlike God.
Remember that we were talking about those people that lived in caves, for them the sun is NOT visible.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 06:26 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 18:26, 05 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
Nevertheless too many scientists do behave like that. Shame.
Name 10 that do.
____________
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 06:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Remember that we were talking about those people that lived in caves, for them the sun is NOT visible.
And until they saw it, they had no basis to assume its existence. When they did, then they did. Same with God.
Oh, and one more thing. It is wrong to say, "We have all of the knowledge, so we're right forever, and everyone who goes against us is delusional." Scientists don't know everything that there is to know. But there is a critical difference between a new theory opposing an old one and a religious belief opposing a scientific theory. Theories are supposed to explain all available evidence. It is one thing to not have all of the data, but it is entirely another to contradict the data that we already have. When we know more, we will have to create theories that explain the new knowledge and the old knowledge. A theory that explains the new but not the old is as useless as one that explains the old but not the new. So if someone has a belief that goes against the known, then they're wrong.
It is one thing to say, for example, "String theory is true. We may not have observed a string, but we will if we keep trying to find a way."
It is an entirely other thing to say, for example, "Atoms don't exist."
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 06:28 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 18:29, 05 Jun 2008.
|
@TheDeath
Quote:
For those people, science was no longer just an observation, it was truth.
Maybe so, but if that's true, then it's because these people have not been properly educated in the sciences because they don't understand the scientific method. That's more a fault of the education system than science. And it's also why politicians trying to get garbage like Intelligent Design taught in science class is a travesty - stuff like that will just make it WORSE.
____________
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
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 07:11 PM |
|
|
whether god exists or not is really a battle of egos
god's existance= God exists because I Believe in him
gods non-existance= God doesn't exist, I have not seen him.
that is simply the way it goes.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 07:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And until they saw it, they had no basis to assume its existence.
But they also had no basis to assume the others were delusional (since they weren't there to see the sun). That's the point I'm trying to make
Quote:
It is an entirely other thing to say, for example, "Atoms don't exist."
But what if it's true? I mean, what about the theory that we live in e.g a Matrix... then atoms don't exist, only the 'matrices' full of numbers.. so the theory explains it all.
New theories can sometimes prove some old facts wrong. When you understand that the world works differently on the quantum level, for example, you need to change the way to do your data. This means you need to disregard the old data (even more the old theory!). The new theory need not necessarily explain the old data, it can prove the data wrong..
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 07:41 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 19:42, 05 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
New theories can sometimes prove some old facts wrong. When you understand that the world works differently on the quantum level, for example, you need to change the way to do your data. This means you need to disregard the old data (even more the old theory!). The new theory need not necessarily explain the old data, it can prove the data wrong..
What observations (i.e., facts) do you think quantum theory demonstrated to be wrong?
____________
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
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 07:47 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 19:48, 05 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
What observations (i.e., facts) do you think quantum theory demonstrated to be wrong?
For one: quantum tunneling. A particle with not enough energy (by classical data & theories) can be found in a different place, with absolutely no idea how it got there (and it seemed it defied the law of conservation of energy, if you take the old data into account, of course).
EDIT: data because we did not observe a violation of the conservation law in classical physics
A different theory: imagine time travel. Suppose we collect a lot of data, only to find out later that someone traveled in time to twist things up. Then, since time travel is possible (let's say with alternative Universes), the old data can't work anymore (i.e: it is twisted).
It's like the Newtonian (classical) physics. They are only approximations, but in reality, they are wrong. At least, much more wrong than relativity. If we were interested in precision, such an approximation would result in re-evaluating the data with the relativity theory (because the old one would be based on approximated calculations).
Or for example, take a triangle. The sum of it's angles is 180 degrees. Right? Well, that's how we measure, but it's not the case on the surface of a sphere like the Earth. However, it is unnoticeable so it's usually a very good approximation. If we are serious though we will need to dismiss the old data (based on the 180 degree stuff) when we make the new theory (like the Earth being round).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 08:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But they also had no basis to assume the others were delusional (since they weren't there to see the sun).
This is another flaw in the analogy. Here, both sides use the same tools to verify evidence (their eyes). But in the case of God, it is different.
Quote:
I mean, what about the theory that we live in e.g a Matrix...
Now, there's absolutely nothing to prove that (and, indeed, there is no way to prove it).
I am not familiar with the concept of quantum tunneling, so I won't say anything on that matter. And I'm not sure what you're trying to say about time travel. But what you're saying about the triangle is wrong. The sum of its angles is 180 degrees on a plane. It didn't require us to change anything, just to specify it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 08:30 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:35, 05 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
This is another flaw in the analogy. Here, both sides use the same tools to verify evidence (their eyes). But in the case of God, it is different.
Just because you don't know how to use the 'god-sensing thing' does not mean you don't have it. It's like people not wanting or not knowing how to open their eyes.
Quote:
Now, there's absolutely nothing to prove that (and, indeed, there is no way to prove it).
Of course but that wasn't the point.. point was that new theories can truly indeed state "atoms don't exist" if they are ever proved. That was only an example.
Quote:
The sum of its angles is 180 degrees on a plane.
Is the paper on the ground a 'plane' or is it on the surface of a sphere?
On a note I'd say science is based on a lot of assumptions as well. You see an apple falling: you take gravity for granted to 'explain' it (even though you can as well say there's a God that pulls thing to the center of the Earth). Assumption: every object falls the same based on my experiments. This is the belief of induction, that the future will generally be like the past, that things are repeatable. This is the VERY FOUNDATION of evidence. Because evidence that isn't reproducible, is well not considered evidence (i.e it's 'fake', so they say). Since we are all aware that God is not reproducible, then obviously there can't be any 'evidence' -- at least no evidence that is based on the belief in induction. You see, you can have 'evidence' without it being based on induction. But of course it's not "good enough" for science. That only means you can't prove God with a certain belief -- the belief in induction. But then again, what makes you think induction is true? Maybe it has a high chance of being true, but then it's not 100%, therefore you have no idea whether it can be used for God or not. Any 'evidence' you claim are non-existant for God are based on a belief. That is, evidence is based on a belief. The belief in induction.
Why is that? Well you can see a certain phenomenon happening (like going in a black hole), but that is NOT considered evidence by the average scientist. It needs to be reproducible. Therefore, you have to believe the induction is TRUE and APPLIES everywhere, including for this evidence. If you observe something that is not reproducible then that is not called evidence, even if it may be enough evidence for YOU, it is not for science. Where is this wrong? At the point where it is trusted. Because it is only a belief, no different than religion. Of course I'm not claiming here that religion beliefs are better -- only that they are similar. There is also the belief in the law of contradiction. I won't get into that now.
Some quote:Quote:
Can science establish the truth of anything? W. K. Clifford said, "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.". Then how can science possibly ascertain the sum total of a given "thing" in order to verify it?
If science is contained in a laboratory setting, how can it possibly give universal laws of nature an absolutism? How can they possible describe how nature works as a whole? Actually, the scientists knows he cannot, but he gives his best guess. Guess? Yes, just a guess.
Guess? Yep, because he assumes (believes) that the law of induction is true, for starters. That everything he does in the lab and 'verifies' will also apply outside. Is this a good assumption? Depending how biased you're are, it's still a belief, much like the Bible. Scientists see a piece of evidence. They don't really have all the 'data', they only assume how the evidence got there. They assume what they think it's true -- you won't, for example, assume that the Bible was created by dinosaurs, even though there's no evidence against it. There is no evidence that humans wrote either. But we assume it's true because we believe humans are capable of writing, not dinosaurs (for example!!). We assume the past from things in the present. Likewise we assume in the future from things in the present. Induction strikes again. And they say science has no beliefs.
No matter whether you call this more logical than religious beliefs, it is a biased view, because we all have a tendency to think others are irrational while we are perfectly rational.
EDIT: Other quote:Quote:
This demonstrates the irresponsibility of science in its attempt to simply overthrow the Christian faith. If scientific laws really overthrew the Christian faith, then those laws (like Newton’s) would not crumble, ever. Whether or not science believes something now does not mean it will ever believe it in the future. How can science possibly be trusted? Anything that scientists find are not findings at all but simply formulations. Formulations mean nothing without objective truth behind what the formulations are trying to prove. Experimentation, then, never discovers how nature works. Einstein rightly said, as a secular scientist, "We know nothing about it [nature] at all. Our knowledge is but the knowledge of school children…We shall know a little more than we do now. But the real nature of things-that we shall never know, never."
The problem is that scientists are well too confident in their 'beliefs' that they think they usually know everything, at least when it comes to religion. They say God does not exist, or that God is an illusion. In fact, they should say "I don't know whether God exists or not", if they were to not 'trust' the current science theories since they're only guesses.
Going back to the cave example: the people that called the others delusional were simply ignorant and held too much on their beliefs. Calling them delusional is like KNOWING that a sun does not exist. They don't simply "don't know whether it exists", they are SURE it does not exist, because otherwise they would not call the others delusional
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 08:46 PM |
|
|
I think that I'm going to let Corribus handle this one, since he is far better able to explain the workings of science than I am. I will, however, respond to a few things:
Quote:
It's like people not wanting or not knowing how to open their eyes.
But the people in the cave did use their eyes. They just couldn't use them to see the sun, since they couldn't see through rock.
Quote:
Of course but that wasn't the point.. point was that new theories can truly indeed state "atoms don't exist" if they are ever proved.
I said that new theories have to explain old data. That doesn't mean that they have to say that the old data is correct, but it has to say that "this, this, and that" about the old data makes it wrong. The new theory can't ignore the old data.
Quote:
Is the paper on the ground a 'plane' or is it on the surface of a sphere?
It depends. The ground could, you know, be built so it would be flat. But "plane" is a concept defined by humans.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 08:47 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:49, 05 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
I said that new theories have to explain old data. That doesn't mean that they have to say that the old data is correct, but it has to say that "this, this, and that" about the old data makes it wrong. The new theory can't ignore the old data.
I never said it 'ignores' it, I said it 'proves it wrong', that the data was carried out incorrectly.
Quote:
It depends. The ground could, you know, be built so it would be flat. But "plane" is a concept defined by humans.
Take a piece of paper, put it on the ground outside...
is the ground part of the Earth or not? Is the Earth round or not?
is the table 'parallel' to the ground or not (to be balanced)?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 08:50 PM |
|
|
The ground is not flat because the asphalt is bumpy. But on a small scale, the curvature of the Earth is so small that various local factors influence the ground more.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 08:59 PM |
|
|
But that still supports the idea that the triangle does not have 180 degrees. Of course the 'mathematic definition' of the triangle does have 180 degrees (because that's the definition of the triangle; see above with the world without time about definitions).
Therefore, actually, the triangle on the ground is NOT a triangle, by the definition. A triangle can't exist in this world (because atoms only approximate it), but it can in our minds and in other worlds.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 09:02 PM |
|
|
As far as we know, other worlds are merely thought experiments.
By definition, a triangle has 180 degree on a plane. But when it's not on a plane, it's still a triangle. But a true triangle is impossible in real life; they are only approximate (albeit close approximates). But often that is good enough.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 09:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But a true triangle is impossible in real life; they are only approximate (albeit close approximates). But often that is good enough.
That means it's not a triangle; you can't for example say that 9.1415 is Pi, no matter how many digits you display... since it's an approximation. Of course I don't advise you to use a different term like 'approximated triangle', but I'm talking about the meaning of it, not about how to use it in english (where 'triangle' suffices obviously)
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 09:10 PM |
|
|
It may not fit the definition of a triangle, but for most practical reasons it is a triangle.
Quote:
you can't for example say that 9.1415 is Pi
I should hope not!
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 05, 2008 09:12 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 21:12, 05 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
Quote:
you can't for example say that 9.1415 is Pi
I should hope not!
ok, that means I have to get some sleep 
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
