View Full Version : redacted
VooDoo6Actual
12-13-11, 23:59
redacted.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-14-11, 06:13
And God chuckles....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V5l43pSsT0
If found, would support/fill in the gaps of a lot of major theories. It has to exist for the theories to be correct, so actually finding it is huge in the science world. It's a potentially big deal to everyone else, but they have more important things to focus on like American Idol and sales at the mall and such.
I've always been facinated by physics.... Just never had the brain power to actually study in the field.
I'm stuck watching Big Bang Theory.
And God chuckles....
Please don't go OT in this short thread by trying to turn it into a God discussion per another thread just ruined... I respect your right to discuss God/religion in a thread specific to that topic, is it possible for you et al to respect others having a purely science based discussion?
Eurodriver
12-14-11, 10:11
So how did the god particle get there?
Nathan_Bell
12-14-11, 10:17
Fun little fact, Higgs wanted to call it the God Damned Particle but was not allowed to.
So how did the god particle get there?
An imaginary super hero put it there.
Or... short of having the needed science/physics knowledge for what is on the very edges of current science (meaning it's a challenging topic even for many scientists in the field) look to write ups on theoretical physics/quantum physics for non scientists on what the current thinking is there.
I've always been facinated by physics.... Just never had the brain power to actually study in the field.
Ditto. Had I the real math brain for it, would have focused on it more to be sure.
Does anyone else think that we're meddleing with things that we shouldnt??
Nathan_Bell
12-14-11, 10:42
Does anyone else think that we're meddleing with things that we shouldnt??
Nope, if God is omnipotent and omnipresent we would be unable to go where we shouldn't, and if there is no God who is to say what we should meddle in?
Does anyone else think that we're meddleing with things that we shouldnt??
Nope.
Just checking, kinda makes me nervous....dont really know why.
Just checking, kinda makes me nervous....dont really know why.
You feel like this because...
If a scientist (group) of scientists found something that would mean unlocking ALL of the mysteries of the universe, but upon doing so would mean the imminent destruction of life as we know it...they would.
Simply to KNOW, for a few minutes.
Its like the red pill/blue pill.
Or the anology I prefer, the little kid with a big shiny button.
"Dont push it!"
montanadave
12-14-11, 11:51
While some theoretical physicists postulate confirmation of the Higgs Boson will allow them to put the final piece in place for confirmation of the Standard Model of particle physics by explaining the origin of mass in the universe, there are others who speculate the entire notion of seeking a fundamental explanation for the universe may prove to be a fool's errand.
One of the many reasons I have ceased to engage in debate with religious "true believers" is a fundamental disagreement as to what constitutes proof of any particular system of "beliefs" (and the arguments over semantics can be just as tiresome as the larger debate). Suffice it to say that I am an empiricist, I prefer facts to faith, and subscribe to Karl Popper's principle of falsifiability. In essence, an assertion should be subject to being proven false if evidence comes to light which shows that initial assertion to be in error. In my view, science meets that requirement. Theories are proposed to explain observed phenomenon and experiments are devised to test those theories which can be replicated and independently verified. Should the day come when someone discovers something new which throws a wrench in the works, the old theory is discarded, another one is devised which can incorporate the new evidence, and the process repeats itself.
Contrast that with the "true believers" who subscribe to a particular system of beliefs based on faith and whatever selectively chosen evidence whose veracity is confirmed by a tautology ("it's true because it says it's true"). Their beliefs cannot be challenged because there is no way to disprove any of it. They believe it to be true and that is sufficient. For them.
I'm not looking to get into a cat fight over all that. Folks are free to believe as they will. If it works for them, so be it. We each have to find our own path to truth which satisfies our evidentiary requirements. All of this is simply an introduction to a fascinating conundrum rapidly developing in the world of theoretical physics.
A recent essay in Harper's entitled "The Accidental Universe: Science's Crisis of Faith" by Alan Lightman, a professor of physics at MIT (http://www.harpers.org/media/pages/2011/12/pdf/HarpersMagazine-2011-12-0083720.pdf) explores the notion of the "multiverse" and how the acceptance of such a concept might very will place science in the same box as religious faith. To wit, if our observed universe is only one of an infinite number of possible universes and the basic features of our universe are the result of simple random chance, there are no fundamental causes and principles to ultimately explain our universe, much less the proposed infinite multiverse. As lightman notes in his essay:
"If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true. Our universe is what it is because we are here."
Lightman uses the analogy of a school of fish wondering why their world is filled with water and seeking to prove the universe is similarly filled with water. After years of unsuccessfully attempting to prove that proposition, a particularly imaginative fish suggests perhaps their water-filled world is only one of many, with others being completely dry and with everything in between. There's just one catch. The fish can't offer any proof (at least as it has been defined) that those other worlds exist.
Back to Lightman's essay:
"That same uncertainty disturbs many physicists who are adjusting to the idea of the multiverse. Not only must we accept that basic properties of our universe are accidental and uncalculable. In addition, we must believe in the existence of many other universes. But we have no conceivable way of observing these other universes and cannot prove their existence. Thus, to explain what we see in the world and in our mental deductions, we must believe in what we cannot prove."
So, much to my chagrin, the science I have long believed capable of leading us towards some ultimate explanation of the universe (or multiverse) might leave me in the same boat as the "true believers," i.e. having to accept an explanation lacking evidence and supported only by belief.
Interesting, no?
turdbocharged
12-14-11, 12:00
Shit we've known about the multiverse for years. Just watch Stargate SG-1. LOL every other episode was about time travel, alternate universes.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-14-11, 12:06
Please don't go OT in this short thread by trying to turn it into a God discussion per another thread just ruined... I respect your right to discuss God/religion in a thread specific to that topic, is it possible for you et al to respect others having a purely science based discussion?
Uhm, off topic? It's called it the God Molecule, actually the God particle.
Doesn't this particle relate in some way to the search for a unifying theory to explain quantum, and macro ( probably not the right term) physics?
PBS has a good Nova series online right now called the fabric of the universe. It talks about the god particle and string theory and such. Highly recommend watching it.
Interesting, no?
Very and I agree with your entire post above. I have to say however, some of his comments strike me as odd for a person of his background. Many theories based on models could not be proven at the time given the technology of the time. That didn't make them invalid, just not yet supported beyond models.
For example, that time and space are interconnected and time changes relative to space and time, could not be supported 'till they invention of the atomic clock.
There's many examples like that.
Science never works by "having to accept an explanation lacking evidence and supported only by belief"
Not ever. Technology to actually test, modern theories may or may not ever exist, which means they can never be fully accepted without the possibility of alternative possibilities. Ergo,"aliens did it" or "God did it" or "shit happens" all competing, with what ever has the most actual support considered the most likely.
I have no doubt yet more major twists and turns, that turn things on their head yet again, will show up.
It's also totally possible fundamental principles we held so dear, are in fact wrong, or in need of major revamp, or in need of minor revamp, and many scientists are coming to that realization.
Does not change a thing. It's the process of science.
Uhm, off topic?
Yes.
You called it the God Molecule, actually the God particle.
I called it no such thing. Look closer, and BTW, I know the difference between a molecule and a particle. The OP, not having a science background as far as I know, didn't make the distinction, and I saw no reason for correction, mostly due to his being a good shit and about 3X my size. :D
montanadave
12-14-11, 12:53
Regardless of how it started or how it will ultimately end (leaving open the possibility of no beginning or end :laugh:), it's an interesting journey, to be sure.
I, for one, enjoy the uncertainty and the anticipation of what may lie around the next bend in the road.
I recall an analogy (though I cannot recall where I first read it) which equated man's body of knowledge to an island in an infinite sea, with the shoreline representing the frontiers of our current inquiry. As we push out further into the unknown, our "island" or body of knowledge increases, but so does the length of the shoreline from which we stand and contemplate all that still waits to be discovered.
As we used to say back in the day, kinda trippy!
I, for one, enjoy the uncertainty and the anticipation of what may lie around the next bend in the road.
As do I. Sadly however, " ... Each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand mediocre minds appointed to guard the past. ..." - Maurice Maeterlinck
No less true today as it was when people got burned at the stake for suggesting the sun didn't revolve around the earth. :rolleyes:
Does anyone else think that we're meddleing with things that we shouldnt??
If they're not careful they are going to manufacture a black hole that will suck up the entire Earth...or they may just careless sail off the edge of it.
:jester:
While some theoretical physicists postulate confirmation of the Higgs Boson will allow them to put the final piece in place for confirmation of the Standard Model of particle physics by explaining the origin of mass in the universe, there are others who speculate the entire notion of seeking a fundamental explanation for the universe may prove to be a fool's errand.
One of the many reasons I have ceased to engage in debate with religious "true believers" is a fundamental disagreement as to what constitutes proof of any particular system of "beliefs" (and the arguments over semantics can be just as tiresome as the larger debate). Suffice it to say that I am an empiricist, I prefer facts to faith, and subscribe to Karl Popper's principle of falsifiability. In essence, an assertion should be subject to being proven false if evidence comes to light which shows that initial assertion to be in error. In my view, science meets that requirement. Theories are proposed to explain observed phenomenon and experiments are devised to test those theories which can be replicated and independently verified. Should the day come when someone discovers something new which throws a wrench in the works, the old theory is discarded, another one is devised which can incorporate the new evidence, and the process repeats itself.
Contrast that with the "true believers" who subscribe to a particular system of beliefs based on faith and whatever selectively chosen evidence whose veracity is confirmed by a tautology ("it's true because it says it's true"). Their beliefs cannot be challenged because there is no way to disprove any of it. They believe it to be true and that is sufficient. For them.
I'm not looking to get into a cat fight over all that. Folks are free to believe as they will. If it works for them, so be it. We each have to find our own path to truth which satisfies our evidentiary requirements. All of this is simply an introduction to a fascinating conundrum rapidly developing in the world of theoretical physics.
A recent essay in Harper's entitled "The Accidental Universe: Science's Crisis of Faith" by Alan Lightman, a professor of physics at MIT (http://www.harpers.org/media/pages/2011/12/pdf/HarpersMagazine-2011-12-0083720.pdf) explores the notion of the "multiverse" and how the acceptance of such a concept might very will place science in the same box as religious faith. To wit, if our observed universe is only one of an infinite number of possible universes and the basic features of our universe are the result of simple random chance, there are no fundamental causes and principles to ultimately explain our universe, much less the proposed infinite multiverse. As lightman notes in his essay:
"If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true. Our universe is what it is because we are here."
Lightman uses the analogy of a school of fish wondering why their world is filled with water and seeking to prove the universe is similarly filled with water. After years of unsuccessfully attempting to prove that proposition, a particularly imaginative fish suggests perhaps their water-filled world is only one of many, with others being completely dry and with everything in between. There's just one catch. The fish can't offer any proof (at least as it has been defined) that those other worlds exist.
Back to Lightman's essay:
"That same uncertainty disturbs many physicists who are adjusting to the idea of the multiverse. Not only must we accept that basic properties of our universe are accidental and uncalculable. In addition, we must believe in the existence of many other universes. But we have no conceivable way of observing these other universes and cannot prove their existence. Thus, to explain what we see in the world and in our mental deductions, we must believe in what we cannot prove."
So, much to my chagrin, the science I have long believed capable of leading us towards some ultimate explanation of the universe (or multiverse) might leave me in the same boat as the "true believers," i.e. having to accept an explanation lacking evidence and supported only by belief.
Interesting, no?
Correct and Golf Clap for what I have always found amusing about non-Christians.
If you believe in a science based reason for how the universe and life was created, then you have to have FAITH in certain things that science cannot explain. Which, for ME means that I would have to put faith in my fellow man which I KNOW is flawed as humans are not perfect.
I must admit that I do not have the strength and resolve to put that much faith in man.
YMMV.
C4
As do I. Sadly however, " ... Each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand mediocre minds appointed to guard the past. ..." - Maurice Maeterlinck
No less true today as it was when people got burned at the stake for suggesting the sun didn't revolve around the earth. :rolleyes:
I too enjoy the journey of discovery. I'd rather know for sure than know a story. What we end up discovering vs. what we expected to find is sometimes simply incredible.
I think of the body of knowledge we have now and compare that to what we had when I was a child, or to what we had when my grandparents were kids and it is simply amazing to me.
I think there are probably answers that will forever elude us because the evidence existed long before we did and sadly that will probably prevent us from ever answering the really big questions. But at the same time a little mystery and the search for the meaning of life is in a way the meaning of life.
Correct and Golf Clap for what I have always found amusing about non-Christians.
If you believe in a science based reason for how the universe and life was created, then you have to have FAITH in certain things that science cannot explain. Which, for ME means that I would have to put faith in my fellow man which I KNOW is flawed as humans are not perfect.
I must admit that I do not have the strength and resolve to put that much faith in man.
YMMV.
C4
Science CURRENTLY does not claim to know how life originated or where the pure energy of the singularity of the big bang came from. That is a key difference.
Science is only what we know, what seems very likely based upon what we know and what might be possible given what we know. And real science is very specific about which is which. Science does not take anything on faith. And people are very, very clear when they are making assumptions based upon what "might be."
This is the key difference between religion and science.
Religion claims to know the answer to those two BIG QUESTIONS and science will tell you "we don't know but this is what might be."
Science CURRENTLY does not claim to know how life originated or where the pure energy of the singularity of the big bang came from. That is a key difference.
Science is only what we know, what seems very likely based upon what we know and what might be possible given what we know. And real science is very specific about which is which. Science does not take anything on faith. And people are very, very clear when they are making assumptions based upon what "might be."
This is the key difference between religion and science.
Religion claims to know the answer to those two BIG QUESTIONS and science will tell you "we don't know but this is what might be."
Ah, but many people use science to BELIEVE that we (man) have it all figured out.
How many "big bang" documentaries do we now have on TV that do EVERYTHING they can to prove that a bunch of space dust bunched together and gave us the Universe and then we "evolved" from fish, apes or squirrels???
People put their "faith" in the ability of man to "explain" how everything was created (even though they have zero idea), but believing that there is a GOD that did it is just out of the question.
Some of you though have MUCH more faith than I could ever muster as a Christian. Good for you!
C4
As a "person of faith", I find the scientific pursuit of knowledge fascinating and inspiring. That same God who created man, gave man a brain and commanded him to use it.
I applaud efforts to better understand and explain how things work. It just gives us a glimpse at God's awesomeness in having all knowledge and knowing how to manipulate things to effect His plans for His children (man).
God is not "supernatural", God is "super natural."
The so-called "god particle" will be interesting, if it exists and if they can show it and understand it. I look forward to reading more about the efforts they are making and their success (or not). Knowing such things can only make man smarter and more able to manipulate and control his environment -- hopefully to the betterment of all.
Ah, but many people use science to BELIEVE that we (man) have it all figured out.
And they are wrong. If they don't understand that at best they are engaged in "educated speculation" then they are deluding themselves. Now there is nothing wrong with engaging in the theoretical, so long as you understand that is what you are doing.
How many "big bang" documentaries do we now have on TV that do EVERYTHING they can to prove that a bunch of space dust bunched together and gave us the Universe and then we "evolved" from fish, apes or squirrels???
We do have a pretty good handle on what happened then, but that isn't creation. The singularity already existed prior to expansion. Explaining creation would be to answer the origin of the singularity. It really isn't very difficult to understand and explain the nature of the expansion of space from that singularity.
And we have a pretty comprehensive understanding of the evolution of life from the simple single cell stage. What we do not have is where did the first life form come from in the first place and how did THAT happen. Figuring out amphibians were the common ancestor of all land animals doesn't answer where life came from, it answers what happened to it AFTER the fact.
People put their "faith" in the ability of man to "explain" how everything was created (even though they have zero idea), but believing that there is a GOD that did it is just out of the question.
Some of you though have MUCH more faith than I could ever muster as a Christian. Good for you!
C4
Well we have a better than ZERO idea about most things, we just don't know everything. Currently science (talking about real science here) is our best method of attempting to answer those questions. It has replaced the older method of philosophy because it is a better method for seeking accurate answers.
Now I admit that many people go way out on that "limb of speculation" and "suggest" their ideas are some kind of proven reality, and I agree we need to see that for what it is. When you factor in "pop culture" motivations like TV shows designed to excite (History channel for example) it get's worse. I suspect you have the same misgivings about some religious types who don't correctly represent your ideas and start talking about UFOs in the Bible and stuff like that.
So, much to my chagrin, the science I have long believed capable of leading us towards some ultimate explanation of the universe (or multiverse) might leave me in the same boat as the "true believers," i.e. having to accept an explanation lacking evidence and supported only by belief.
Interesting, no?
I think they are simply going to prove that they can't find the particle. They will then pat themselves on the back ( and rightly so for having he brain power to even prove they were wrong in hypothesis. ), then start over looking in a different manner. It's human nature.
This guy is really good at explaining in simple terms what they are doing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIg1Vh7uPyw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GrqMCz_vnA&feature=related
It's actually fascinating how they can do this but..... I don't expect a human to figure where what we call our universe, came from.
As a "person of faith", I find the scientific pursuit of knowledge fascinating and inspiring. That same God who created man, gave man a brain and commanded him to use it.
I applaud efforts to better understand and explain how things work. It just gives us a glimpse at God's awesomeness in having all knowledge and knowing how to manipulate things to effect His plans for His children (man).
God is not "supernatural", God is "super natural."
The so-called "god particle" will be interesting, if it exists and if they can show it and understand it. I look forward to reading more about the efforts they are making and their success (or not). Knowing such things can only make man smarter and more able to manipulate and control his environment -- hopefully to the betterment of all.
Agree. Science is fascinating and I enjoy everything about it.
C4
And they are wrong. If they don't understand that at best they are engaged in "educated speculation" then they are deluding themselves. Now there is nothing wrong with engaging in the theoretical, so long as you understand that is what you are doing.
We do have a pretty good handle on what happened then, but that isn't creation. The singularity already existed prior to expansion. Explaining creation would be to answer the origin of the singularity. It really isn't very difficult to understand and explain the nature of the expansion of space from that singularity.
And we have a pretty comprehensive understanding of the evolution of life from the simple single cell stage. What we do not have is where did the first life form come from in the first place and how did THAT happen. Figuring out amphibians were the common ancestor of all land animals doesn't answer where life came from, it answers what happened to it AFTER the fact.
Well we have a better than ZERO idea about most things, we just don't know everything. Currently science (talking about real science here) is our best method of attempting to answer those questions. It has replaced the older method of philosophy because it is a better method for seeking accurate answers.
Now I admit that many people go way out on that "limb of speculation" and "suggest" their ideas are some kind of proven reality, and I agree we need to see that for what it is. When you factor in "pop culture" motivations like TV shows designed to excite (History channel for example) it get's worse. I suspect you have the same misgivings about some religious types who don't correctly represent your ideas and start talking about UFOs in the Bible and stuff like that.
In regards to evolution, I 100% believe in the fact that animals and such CAN AND DO evolve. I also believe that GOD created evolution in the first place.
Some of you have so much faith in evolution and some form of big bang theory, that your faith is WAY stronger than what most Christians have (FYI). Good for you!
C4
It's actually fascinating how they can do this but..... I don't expect a human to figure where what we call our universe, came from.
I think what will eventually happen, is that Scientists will be faced with the un-explainable. Meaning that they will realize that there is NO scientific way to explain how the Universe was created and how we came to be on this planet.
I look forward to this day as it will shatter everyones ego's and humble them before an almighty GOD!
C4
In regards to evolution, I 100% believe in the fact that animals and such CAN AND DO evolve. I also believe that GOD created evolution in the first place.
And there is nothing in science that PROVES you are wrong. And I have no objection to such an idea.
Some of you have so much faith in evolution and some form of big bang theory, that your faith is WAY stronger than what most Christians have (FYI). Good for you!
C4
But I'm not accepting those ideas on faith. I'm accepting them because of evidence in the fossil record, mitochondrial DNA and other genetic evidence regarding evolution and spectral doppler observations regarding the big bang. Prior to that observation of an expanding universe, most people (including scientists) simply assumed a steady state infinite universe.
Now if your point is I have faith in the evidence, then yes I do. And if our observed evidence isn't reliable enough to place our faith in, then we probably can't know ANYTHING for sure as TomMcC has suggested on the other thread. I don't happen to accept that premise.
I think what will eventually happen, is that Scientists will be faced with the un-explainable. Meaning that they will realize that there is NO scientific way to explain how the Universe was created and how we came to be on this planet.
I look forward to this day as it will shatter everyones ego's and humble them before an almighty GOD!
C4
We are pretty much there now.
Currently science has NO proven model of how the first life form came about and we cannot duplicate the event regardless of our knowledge of amino acids, etc.
Currently science has NO proven model of where the original pure energy of the Big Bang singularity came from and we cannot reproduce the creation of that energy from nothing.
And the people who believe they know are either...
A. Theorizing at best or speculating at worst.
B. Wrong and ignorant of that fact.
If we answered either of these questions it would be the greatest scientific achievement in the course of human history. The reality is it is extremely likely we will never be able to answer either question. But we like to try to find those answers and currently science is the best method available to "attempt" to find those answers.
And lacking such discovery, if in the meantime people choose to believe in some form of religious creationism, science lacks the evidence to say they are wrong.
But by the same token...IF we someday discover the missing part of our equation which allows "organic goo" to produce "simple life" that will be a most significant event.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-14-11, 15:20
The major issue I have with getting all the particles together in the 'clock work' universe and having a Grand Unified theory that links the four forces and explains everything is where does that leave free will?
Outside of any kind of divine discussion of 'free will', if you have a formula that describes all interactions, that ties the quantum to the atomic to the molecular to the nano to the micro to the macro, and determines all trajectories- where does that leave free will?
If you meet the guy who finds the God Particle and you sucker punch him, shouldn't he have seen it coming?
I have an idea for a SNL skit where God sits down Adam and Eve and starts to explain the origins of the singularity and quantum mechanics- and they are just not getting it. God, dumbs it down and dumbs it down till he finally loses it and God goes "In the beginning....."
I think there is a reason that everytime we get to smaller and smaller particles that even more zoos of particles fall out. There is no real answer in the end. These are just models after all of increasing complexity to explain what we observe and we'll always observe another level.
Either that or we will get to the bottom of everything and the physist will realize that the universe shouldn't exist- and POP this singularity collapses on itself.
Moose-Knuckle
12-14-11, 15:42
The theory of everything, string theory, et al I eat this shit up.
Thanks for sharing the link HOP.
For some reason the more I learn about particle physics, astrophysics, theoretical physics, experimental/applied physics, quantum physics/quantum mechanics the more philosophical in nature I become.
Calling Dr. Manhattan. :D
Whoa, whoa, whoa......... thread's adrift.:D
montanadave
12-14-11, 15:53
Whoa, whoa, whoa......... thread's adrift.:D
No need to panic. Since the dawn of time, the moment when the singularity birthed this universe, every nanosecond, every subatomic interaction, every breath and every thought have led to this thread being right here and right now. We're right where were supposed to be. :happy:
Or, as those of faith might allow, God is in His heaven and all is right with the world. :meeting:
Until the mods step in. :lol:
I have faith the universe is based on scientific principles, no matter how small our comprehension and that God has perfect comprehension and command of those principles and created our universe using them. If I am right, I will find out someday. If I'm wrong, I'll never know
I have faith the universe is based on scientific principles, no matter how small our comprehension and that God has perfect comprehension and command of those principles and created our universe using them. If I am right, I will find out someday. IF I'm wrong, I'll never know
Right. The issue with being a Christian and being wrong about GOD and the issue with being a non-Christian and being wrong has two totally different outcomes. :help:
C4
Whoa, whoa, whoa......... thread's adrift.:D
Yes it is. I'm done. Thanx to the science minded giving input.
Reagans Rascals
12-14-11, 16:07
The major issue I have with getting all the particles together in the 'clock work' universe and having a Grand Unified theory that links the four forces and explains everything is where does that leave free will?
Outside of any kind of divine discussion of 'free will', if you have a formula that describes all interactions, that ties the quantum to the atomic to the molecular to the nano to the micro to the macro, and determines all trajectories- where does that leave free will?
This is not the purpose of the "grand unified theory." It will not explain every single energy conversion in the entire world, or every single particle trajectory. It will not give us an easy formula to plug into an iPhone app and say if I fart in Tokyo tomorrow at this point in time, after eating this type of food, will there be a shift in the winds in Milwaukee? and if so by what degree?
Or if this and this happens, this person will go on a shooting spree.
It's simply striving to somewhat further understand things like gravity, or transport phenomena or even quantum jumps. So further down the road, we can try and manipulate these things for a gain, much like we have all but concretely figured out fluid dynamics and were thus able to make a heavier-than-air object fly.
Free will is completely independent of any of this, because in the end, the number of variables involved in the hypothetical equation that would try to explain the human "will", would be so vast, it would be infinite. Also, mediums change when observed. So it would not be possible to accurately measure every single variable to develop an accurate enough model to predict human behavior.
The Higgs would simply help to explain why things have matter, why objects stay together and not fly apart. If it does not exist, we are left with things we cannot fathom, dark matter and dark energies, things that are not within the 2% of the "visible universe".
Either way, its just simply something to do for people who enjoy high energy particle physics. Free will is and forever will be safe.
the old why climb that mountain, because its there kinda thing.....
I agree. I don't see how a unifying theory negates our free agency. I also do not think that even if we do prove the existence of this particle that it will answer our questions. In the fall out of such proof will lay the path leading to other explorations
Just a Jarhead
12-14-11, 16:24
I have an idea for a SNL skit where God sits down Adam and Eve and starts to explain the origins of the singularity and quantum mechanics- and they are just not getting it. God, dumbs it down and dumbs it down till he finally loses it and God goes "In the beginning....."
Hilarious. You should develop that and send it to them.
This is not the purpose of the "grand unified theory." It will not explain every single energy conversion in the entire world, or every single particle trajectory. It will not give us an easy formula to plug into an iPhone app and say if I fart in Tokyo tomorrow at this point in time, after eating this type of food, will there be a shift in the winds in Milwaukee? and if so by what degree?
Or if this and this happens, this person will go on a shooting spree.
It's simply striving to somewhat further understand things like gravity, or transport phenomena or even quantum jumps. So further down the road, we can try and manipulate these things for a gain, much like we have all but concretely figured out fluid dynamics and were thus able to make a heavier-than-air object fly.
Free will is completely independent of any of this, because in the end, the number of variables involved in the hypothetical equation that would try to explain the human "will", would be so vast, it would be infinite. Also, mediums change when observed. So it would not be possible to accurately measure every single variable to develop an accurate enough model to predict human behavior.
The Higgs would simply help to explain why things have matter, why objects stay together and not fly apart. If it does not exist, we are left with things we cannot fathom, dark matter and dark energies, things that are not within the 2% of the "visible universe".
Either way, its just simply something to do for people who enjoy high energy particle physics. Free will is and forever will be safe.
the old why climb that mountain, because its there kinda thing.....
Well said. Just as discovering gravity didn't let us build a gun to create black holes the HB particle isn't going to be a world ender.
No need to panic. Since the dawn of time, the moment when the singularity birthed this universe, every nanosecond, every subatomic interaction, every breath and every thought have led to this thread being right here and right now. We're right where were supposed to be. :happy:
Or, as those of faith might allow, God is in His heaven and all is right with the world. :meeting:
Until the mods step in. :lol:
And all thanks to Big Purple Kid and his wonderfully vivid imagination.
:D
Yes it is. I'm done. Thanx to the science minded giving input.
Sorry if I'm one who is partially responsible. Seems any big bang, evolution or related scientific topic invites this kind of alternate discussion.
If it makes you feel better, I very much enjoyed the original topic. It is quite interesting.
montanadave
12-15-11, 20:35
Brian Greene, author and professor of math and physics at Columbia University, has an Op-Ed piece in yesterday's NYT which gives some background on the hunt for the Higg's Boson and the fascination it holds for physicists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/opinion/waiting-for-the-higgs-particle.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
I read his book “the elegant universe”. It was a very good book; I just wish I could understand half of it.:D
Heavy Metal
12-15-11, 21:13
Its not a molecule. Molecuels are made of Atoms. Particles are smaller than Atoms.
A very key difference between a scientific belief and a religious belief is that when credible evidence is presented to the contrary, a scientist will consider, concede, and move on whereas a religious person will cling to all previous belief as being, 'correct' due to, 'faith'.
No intellectually honest scientist would ever do the same as a religious zealot (cling to beliefs even when proven unfounded). Also, people of religion are often contrary to proper science for a vital reason:
-Scientific method involves forming a hypothesis, and then trying to disprove it. The method of religion is, 'I know the answer, so let me try to find a mechanism and model that fits my preconceived notion(s)'
See the difference? Speaking in general terms, the religious answer is not for the inquisitive.
So while one may offhandedly say that, 'Evolution requires the same leap of faith as creationism' it's not quite the same. One believes in Natural Selection because of evidence A, B, and C, and another believes in creationism because someone raised them to not question the, 'because I told you so' line.
Now certainly it's not all pat dry like that but I think I've made my point. If we go further I'll invoke the FSM model of the universe :cool:
A very key difference between a scientific belief and a religious belief is that when credible evidence is presented to the contrary, a scientist will consider, concede, and move on whereas a religious person will cling to all previous belief as being, 'correct' due to, 'faith'.
No intellectually honest scientist would ever do the same as a religious zealot (cling to beliefs even when proven unfounded). Also, people of religion are often contrary to proper science for a vital reason:
-Scientific method involves forming a hypothesis, and then trying to disprove it. The method of religion is, 'I know the answer, so let me try to find a mechanism and model that fits my preconceived notion(s)'
See the difference? Speaking in general terms, the religious answer is not for the inquisitive.
So while one may offhandedly say that, 'Evolution requires the same leap of faith as creationism' it's not quite the same. One believes in Natural Selection because of evidence A, B, and C, and another believes in creationism because someone raised them to not question the, 'because I told you so' line.
Now certainly it's not all pat dry like that but I think I've made my point. If we go further I'll invoke the FSM model of the universe :cool:
What you describe isn't the difference between scientific belief and religious belief. It describes human nature regardless of their views.
While I raised my sons to have faith in the gospel, they were also taught to test what they learned. If they simply accepted what they were told by others, it's not their knowledge, it's not their faith. Knowledge and faith are tools. One cannot understand a tool until it's put to the test by using it
Just a Jarhead
12-16-11, 05:09
A very key difference between a scientific belief and a religious belief is that when credible evidence is presented to the contrary, a scientist will consider, concede, and move on whereas a religious person will cling to all previous belief as being, 'correct' due to, 'faith'.
No intellectually honest scientist would ever do the same as a religious zealot (cling to beliefs even when proven unfounded). Also, people of religion are often contrary to proper science for a vital reason:
-Scientific method involves forming a hypothesis, and then trying to disprove it. The method of religion is, 'I know the answer, so let me try to find a mechanism and model that fits my preconceived notion(s)'
See the difference? Speaking in general terms, the religious answer is not for the inquisitive.
So while one may offhandedly say that, 'Evolution requires the same leap of faith as creationism' it's not quite the same. One believes in Natural Selection because of evidence A, B, and C, and another believes in creationism because someone raised them to not question the, 'because I told you so' line.
Now certainly it's not all pat dry like that but I think I've made my point. If we go further I'll invoke the FSM model of the universe :cool:
Can you provide an example of something that was proven wrong and religious zealots clung too despite knowing it was wrong? If you're referring to evolution, you're going to open up a whole other discussion http://www.godandscience.org/cgi-bin/fmsearch/fms_fmsearch2.cgi Anything other than evolution you can point to? Because that's about as settled as man made global warming (we force feed a generation of kids that they came from knuckle dragging apes instead of a personal creator with a soul and we wonder why we have a society of young people that act like animals? That they kill and have no regard for life whatsoever? I'm sure no correlation at all..none at all. You may have come from an ape..I didn't)
Science is continually wrong, back tracking, amending. I'm not saying science hasn't made magnificent contributions but it has a history of being continually wrong. From Copernicus to every science minded person stating the world was flat yet Columbus (an ardent biblical scholar) insisted is was round due to Isaiah 40:22 "it is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth" written around 7th/8th century B.C. Pretty forward thinking if you ask me. To what they know or knew about the universe...continually wrong, back tracking or amendning
Just recently Einsteins Theory of Relativity is seriously being called into question and highly suspected as being wrong or deeply flawed. For years scientist believed that inside a vacuum nothing was faster than the speed of light. Now that science may be shot to hell, something that most believed was irrefutable, science gospel and supposedly settled science also! until recently http://news.discovery.com/space/faster-speed-of-light-110922.html
e=mc2 not true? holy shit batman, say it isn't so!
I will add there there has never been one archeological find that called into question any biblical story. In fact so many recent finds in the 20th century support the stories.http://www.google.com/search?q=archeological+finds+support+the+bible&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8&rlz=1I7GGLL_en
King David's Palace found? http://www.google.com/search?q=King+David%27s+home+found&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8&rlz=1I7GGLL_en
Science is awesome, I love it & God the ultimate scientist. If there's ever a conflict or dispute, I'll believe the God of the bible every time before I believe a human scientist. Those who put their trust 100% in science will always be sorely disappointed. That's not the case in reverse. And you're incorrigible because you don't learn from the history of this and continue to base your faith 100% in science and man despite having been burnt time and time again!
See the difference? Speaking in general terms, the religious answer is not for the inquisitive. nothing could be further from the truth.
So while one may offhandedly say that, 'Evolution requires the same leap of faith as creationism' it's not quite the same. One believes in Natural Selection because of evidence A, B, and C, and another believes in creationism because someone raised them to not question the, 'because I told you so' line.
Once again B.S. Shows how little you know about us and what we believe and our methodologies for deriving at our beliefs. Much of it is indeed science based. We just don't gullibly believe everything the secular, humanist scientist (who are continually wrong) tell us. There's a whole science in why we don't buy evolution or feel it is unsettled and just a theory. http://www.google.com/search?q=scientist+against+evolution&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a & http://www.godandscience.org/cgi-bin/fmsearch/fms_fmsearch2.cgi (Enter search term evolution)
Not because of the "believe because I told you so line". Contrary to what you believe we're not all mindless brainwashed gullible idiots.
I encourage you to go here www.godandscience.org. Amazing science filled site.
So let's say they "prove" there is no GOD......how do you think the Islamist Terrorist are going to react to that news?
Littlelebowski
12-16-11, 07:25
A very key difference between a scientific belief and a religious belief is that when credible evidence is presented to the contrary, a scientist will consider, concede, and move on whereas a religious person will cling to all previous belief as being, 'correct' due to, 'faith'.
No intellectually honest scientist would ever do the same as a religious zealot (cling to beliefs even when proven unfounded). Also, people of religion are often contrary to proper science for a vital reason:
-Scientific method involves forming a hypothesis, and then trying to disprove it. The method of religion is, 'I know the answer, so let me try to find a mechanism and model that fits my preconceived notion(s)'
See the difference? Speaking in general terms, the religious answer is not for the inquisitive.
So while one may offhandedly say that, 'Evolution requires the same leap of faith as creationism' it's not quite the same. One believes in Natural Selection because of evidence A, B, and C, and another believes in creationism because someone raised them to not question the, 'because I told you so' line.
Now certainly it's not all pat dry like that but I think I've made my point. If we go further I'll invoke the FSM model of the universe :cool:
Ramen, brother.
montanadave
12-16-11, 08:02
The subtitle to Christopher Hitchens' bestseller God Is Not Great is How Religion Spoils Everything.
I don't know if I'd go quite that far, but I'll concede it generally spoils a good thread. :laugh:
I had the pleasure of hearing Mr. Hitchens speak last year. It was one of his last public speaking appearances and, while obviously struggling and limited by his esophageal cancer, his erudition and rhetorical skills were absolutely mesmerizing. Whether you agreed with his many and varied opinions, there was no denying his positions were substantive and articulately stated.
Christopher Hitchens died Thursday of complications from his cancer at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/arts/christopher-hitchens-is-dead-at-62-obituary.html?hp
I will miss his writing. RIP
Littlelebowski
12-16-11, 08:07
Well said, MD. Raise a glass of Johnny Walker tonight in his honor.
The point of science is to test its theories and disprove them if possible. The point of religion is to never question what is taught and to have faith in “something”. For instance, the “church” held the belief that the world was the center of the universe. When Galileo proved them wrong he was persecuted and placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life.
The only time a religion changes is when it has no choice and can’t suppress the scientific evidence proving them wrong.
I don’t see why people can’t appreciate the scientific achievement made from this instead turning this into a debate about religion.
Littlelebowski
12-16-11, 08:34
The point of science is to test its theories and disprove them if possible. The point of religion is to never question what is taught and to have faith in “something”. For instance, the “church” held the belief that the world was the center of the universe. When Galileo proved them wrong he was persecuted and placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life.
The only time a religion changes is when it has no choice and can’t suppress the scientific evidence proving them wrong.
I don’t see why people can’t appreciate the scientific achievement made from this instead turning this into a debate about religion.
Another very good statement in this thread. Well said.
Reagans Rascals
12-16-11, 08:35
Can you provide an example of something that was proven wrong and religious zealots clung too despite knowing it was wrong? If you're referring to evolution, you're going to open up a whole other discussion http://www.godandscience.org/cgi-bin/fmsearch/fms_fmsearch2.cgi Anything other than evolution you can point to? Because that's about as settled as man made global warming (we force feed a generation of kids that they came from knuckle dragging apes instead of a personal creator with a soul and we wonder why we have a society of young people that act like animals? That they kill and have no regard for life whatsoever? I'm sure no correlation at all..none at all. You may have come from an ape..I didn't)
Science is continually wrong, back tracking, amending. I'm not saying science hasn't made magnificent contributions but it has a history of being continually wrong. From Copernicus to every science minded person stating the world was flat yet Columbus (an ardent biblical scholar) insisted is was round due to Isaiah 40:22 "it is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth" written around 7th/8th century B.C. Pretty forward thinking if you ask me. To what they know or knew about the universe...continually wrong, back tracking or amendning
Just recently Einsteins Theory of Relativity is seriously being called into question and highly suspected as being wrong or deeply flawed. For years scientist believed that inside a vacuum nothing was faster than the speed of light. Now that science may be shot to hell, something that most believed was irrefutable, science gospel and supposedly settled science also! until recently http://news.discovery.com/space/faster-speed-of-light-110922.html
e=mc2 not true? holy shit batman, say it isn't so!
I will add there there has never been one archeological find that called into question any biblical story. In fact so many recent finds in the 20th century support the stories.http://www.google.com/search?q=archeological+finds+support+the+bible&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8&rlz=1I7GGLL_en
King David's Palace found? http://www.google.com/search?q=King+David%27s+home+found&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8&rlz=1I7GGLL_en
Science is awesome, I love it & God the ultimate scientist. If there's ever a conflict or dispute, I'll believe the God of the bible every time before I believe a human scientist. Those who put their trust 100% in science will always be sorely disappointed. That's not the case in reverse. And you're incorrigible because you don't learn from the history of this and continue to base your faith 100% in science and man despite having been burnt time and time again!
nothing could be further from the truth.
Once again B.S. Shows how little you know about us and what we believe and our methodologies for deriving at our beliefs. Much of it is indeed science based. We just don't gullibly believe everything the secular, humanist scientist (who are continually wrong) tell us. There's a whole science in why we don't buy evolution or feel it is unsettled and just a theory. http://www.google.com/search?q=scientist+against+evolution&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a & http://www.godandscience.org/cgi-bin/fmsearch/fms_fmsearch2.cgi
Not because of the "believe because I told you so line". Contrary to what you believe we're not all mindless brainwashed gullible idiots.
I encourage you to go here www.godandscience.com. Amazing science filled site.
Once again, no one is questioning God or his creative powers. Not one single person has stated that the purpose of science is to disprove God.... its purpose is to discover God and why we are here, not the opposite as those in clouded by religion so rigorously accuse it of.
The issue, once again for 57th time, is those that refute science because it questions what they have been told by other people, not specifically from God.
Man wrote the bible, Man preaches the gospel, Man created religion. Not one of those things is passed directly to YOU by God, you have been taught and informed by other people, who were themselves taught and informed by other people and so on.
Therefore, there is no chain of custody. You have no clue what has been added or detracted from what you have been told over the years. Or if there were hidden agendas or motives for the way some things transpired. Yet, you still continue to blindly follow it, 100% without question as to its worldly validity, that's called:
gul·li·ble
There is nothing wrong with believing in God, however, we all need to question the explanations passed down by human lips, not by God's.
I'm sure if a government agent came to your house and said you have to spread your cheeks and let him sniff your browneye right now because its what the government wants, you'd do it without question? Yeah ok, in that case I have a great beach front timeshare in Arizona you might be interested in. Simply because you question the motives and reasoning behind the Agents claims, doesn't mean you don't believe in the government..... same for God and those that claim to pass down his "will".
If you blindly follow preachers and books written thousands of years ago, never questioning their integrity, do you do the same for that man at your door at 11 pm, claiming he's from the power company and would like to take a look inside?
TRUST BUT VERIFY
Just a Jarhead
12-16-11, 09:07
The point of science is to test its theories and disprove them if possible. The point of religion is to never question what is taught and to have faith in “something”.
Completely untrue.
For instance, the “church” held the belief that the world was the center of the universe. When Galileo proved them wrong he was persecuted and placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life.
Ahh yes the Catholic Church and Pope Urban VIII. I certainly won't be defending the Catholic Church for one. There is much I disagree with there. I'm a reformed Catholic. Throughout the ages, we've had a 12 year old Pope whose father bought him the papal seat, multiple popes at once, Pope's imprisoned for rape & murder & yet Catholics are to believe the Pope is infallable? A study of the history of the papacy should dispel this belief for anyone!
And you're talking about heliocentrism (earth & planets revolve around the sun) and his dispute with Pope Urban VIII. This originally went back to Copernicus and the ideas contradicted the then-prevailing understanding of the Bible. In the King James Bible Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "[the Lord] Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."
I don’t see why people can’t appreciate the scientific achievement made from this instead turning this into a debate about religion.
For the record, this thread changed to religion long before I entered. I purposely waited after that last thread got locked. I'm as pure and innocent as the driven snow.
Reagans Rascals
12-16-11, 09:14
And you're talking about helicentrism (earth & planets revolve around the sun)
heliOcentric
Just a Jarhead
12-16-11, 09:19
Once again, no one is questioning God or his creative powers. Not one single person has stated that the purpose of science is to disprove God.... its purpose is to discover God and why we are here, not the opposite as those in clouded by religion so rigorously accuse it of.
The issue, once again for 57th time, is those that refute science because it questions what they have been told by other people, not specifically from God.
Man wrote the bible, Man preaches the gospel, Man created religion. Not one of those things is passed directly to YOU by God, you have been taught and informed by other people, who were themselves taught and informed by other people and so on.
Therefore, there is no chain of custody. You have no clue what has been added or detracted from what you have been told over the years. Or if there were hidden agendas or motives for the way some things transpired. Yet, you still continue to blindly follow it, 100% without question as to its worldly validity, that's called:
gul·li·ble
There is nothing wrong with believing in God, however, we all need to question the explanations passed down by human lips, not by God's.
I'm sure if a government agent came to your house and said you have to spread your cheeks and let him sniff your browneye right now because its what the government wants, you'd do it without question? Yeah ok, in that case I have a great beach front timeshare in Arizona you might be interested in. Simply because you question the motives and reasoning behind the Agents claims, doesn't mean you don't believe in the government..... same for God and those that claim to pass down his "will".
If you blindly follow preachers and books written thousands of years ago, never questioning their integrity, do you do the same for that man at your door at 11 pm, claiming he's from the power company and would like to take a look inside?
TRUST BUT VERIFY
I responded to Dave_M's ridiculous post and his post only. Not sure what the heck you're talking about here. But since we're at it;
Not one single person has stated that the purpose of science is to disprove GodI never said they did.
The issue, once again for 57th time, is those that refute science because it questions what they have been told by other people, not specifically from God.Of course we do if it is on conflict with the bible which we know from our STUDYING of it is the inerrant word of God. I thought I pointed out that science is continually wrong, no? Shall we discuss this further? Want more examples?
Man wrote the bible, Man preaches the gospel, Man created religion. Not one of those things is passed directly to YOU by God, you have been taught and informed by other people, who were themselves taught and informed by other people and so on.
Therefore, there is no chain of custody. You have no clue what has been added or detracted from what you have been told over the years. Or if there were hidden agendas or motives for the way some things transpired. Yet, you still continue to blindly follow it, 100% without question as to its worldly validity, that's called:
You believe this because you lack knowledge.
There is nothing wrong with believing in God, however, we all need to question the explanations passed down by human lips, not by God's. No argument here. God is not afraid of questions. He welcomes them. The more one questions and searches for truth, the more his word in the bible proves true.
Just a Jarhead
12-16-11, 09:21
heliOcentric
Yes typo, forgot the o. Thanks for the correction. And since we're correcting each other the belief is referred to as heliocentrism or heliocentricism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism
Reagans Rascals
12-16-11, 09:37
You believe this because you lack knowledge.
please elaborate on this.
the context of this entire argument is:
You are given a book, who's actual origins are unknown, of an unknown age, and written by an unknown number of people. Yet, because there has been a general consensus, passed down through the centuries, of unknown origin and age itself, once again from unknown contributors, that attempts to explain the book's origins, it is purely accepted as fact.
So once again, please explain the fallacy of my statement that there is no chain of custody with any of that.
So because someone wrote down, thousands of years ago, where something came from, and because other zealots such as yourself view them as fact ( because they are in favor of your pov) and in turn pass them on as concrete fact, that is considered knowledge?
Please tell me you are joking.
I can take a dump in a box and stamp it guaranteed, but at the end of the day all you'll have is a box of shit.
If this were a court, the entire breadth of your defense would not be admissible due to hearsay.
Simply reading books, written by other people, and talking with others with the same views as yourself, all the while attempting to prove your own argument is not considered "knowledge."
Accepting all the views in favor of your argument as fact, regardless of actual truth, is called naivety.
Reagans Rascals
12-16-11, 09:39
Yes typo, forgot the o. Thanks for the correction. And since we're correcting each other the belief is referred to as heliocentrism or heliocentricism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism
that is the belief, not the actual event itself, which would be referred to as a Heliocentric Model.
Adding the modifier "ism"... shows this fact.
You can't have a heliocentricism model.
but you get an A for effort for trying to "school" me
The point of science is to test its theories and disprove them if possible. The point of religion is to never question what is taught and to have faith in “something”. For instance, the “church” held the belief that the world was the center of the universe. When Galileo proved them wrong he was persecuted and placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life.
The only time a religion changes is when it has no choice and can’t suppress the scientific evidence proving them wrong.
I don’t see why people can’t appreciate the scientific achievement made from this instead turning this into a debate about religion.
As well said as I have ever read. Points to you sir.
Just a Jarhead
12-16-11, 10:51
Locking horns continually is exhausting for all involved and all reading. And I have no interest in exhausting any of us. We're obviously never going to convince each other of our point of view.
I was where many of you guys are at 20 some years ago. It took me a long time to get to where I am at and I honestly had a lot of the same questions and thoughts including one Steyr stated in that last thread, who wants to worship a god like Yahweh who seems evil and depraved. (not exactly the same words without looking but that was the jist) I felt the same way. So help me.
Many years later I have learned so much and I realize I couldn't have been any more wrong. If anyone is seriously looking for answers then I can only hope that you find what I did, along your journey. We Christians have known rock solidly who our God is for about 2000 years now. Many others have been searching for their god for 2000 years, and quite frankly, if the world is still here 2000 years from now, you/they'll still be searching and no closer to knowing who your god is than you/they are today. And I'll be the very first to admit that the worst enemy to Christianity over the years has been Christians themselves. But the faith itself is rock solid. And I agree, religions suck. Spirituality & Faith don't.
Most of the apostles were executed, beheaded, hung on a cross etc. Some 70 years after Christ crucifixion. You cannot get any 12 people to agree to a lie and hold fast to a lie, especially when threatened with execution. Yet none of them recanted. 70 years later they would have rather have been beheaded than refute what they knew to be true. Over 500 people testified to seeing Christ after he was crucified and rose on the 3rd day. When you study the bible and it's history, you'll see the miracle it is in of itself. I could go on and on. I can tell you til I'm blue in the face but until you study yourself, you'll never know.
I've pointed you in a good direction. A few of you will go there. Most won't. But that's the nature of the beast.
No hard feelings for any disagreements and I wish you all well!
Merry (or is it Happy) Festivus to you..LOL I had to throw that at ya. Seriously...Be well.
The point of science is to test its theories and disprove them if possible. The point of religion is to never question what is taught and to have faith in “something”. For instance, the “church” held the belief that the world was the center of the universe. When Galileo proved them wrong he was persecuted and placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life.
The only time a religion changes is when it has no choice and can’t suppress the scientific evidence proving them wrong.
I don’t see why people can’t appreciate the scientific achievement made from this instead turning this into a debate about religion.
Another very good statement in this thread. Well said.
As well said as I have ever read. Points to you sir.
"All religious people are stubborn and refuse to change their views when presented with the facts. Let's use an example citing an incident where someone in authority exercising unrighteous dominion fought to maintain their political control. Let's assert that this would never if people would just believe in science. Ignore the man behind the curtain of global warming."
I guess it's ok to preach that folks who believe in science are to stubborn to throw aside junk science even when presented facts to the otherwise.
The point of my sarcasm is that it's an individual choice how one reacts to "contradictory evidence", not whether one is "scientific" or "religious". The ironic part about the quotes I used is that it shows a point of view that's no different than the one it criticizes and shows no sign of testing the validity of the conclusion.
That's ok. It's much easier to have a blanket of preconceptions to throw over a group of people than it is to deal with them on an individual basis
I guess it's ok to preach that folks who believe in science are to stubborn to throw aside junk science even when presented facts to the otherwise.
And what exactly is your science background for the discussion?
What I find most odd and annoying is, people with little/no background for the M4 platform talking smack, will get corrected quickly by the BTDT crew
Those talking about X handgun, with very little/no real knowledge of the topic, no real background, etc, will get corrected and or, told to stay in their own lane
Those who talk about tactics, having no background, etc, will get hammered.
Make statements about "junk science" and such minus any real background for that discussion, perfectly OK...:rolleyes:
And it's not at all something limited to M4C, it's quite common where ever one goes.
There was no reason this thread should ever have had any discussion religion/God, as it was totally OT to the topic at hand, which (I'm guessing) some don't even understand/realize that. I think this already great forum would benefit from a dedicated section to religion if that's what some members want to discuss, and thus, mods could move to that section when the thread goes OT.
On science: This is probably the best vid I have seen that attempts to supply excellent info on science that most don't understand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro
It's for those who say something like "It's only a theory" and such, which exposes the fact they don't have the first clue about how science actually works...
BTW, one of my best buds is a born again Christian. We get along great, because his religion is his thing, and he knows my "thing" is objective science based knowledge. I have met his pastor, been in the prayer circle to bless his new house, and enjoyed as it's important to him, and we get along nicely as he know he's way out of his lane getting into any science based discussions.
He has "faith" and I don't. It's not rocket science.
In this case I consider my background to be more philosophical than scientific and from experience rather than formal training. My interaction with the physical world is technical as I am an aviation technician.
I do not dispute science works. The universe is based on the laws of science whether we grasp those laws or not. What I dispute is the assertion that a religious belief blinds a person. A religious belief no more blinds a person than does a scientific belief. Religious and scientific beliefs are not always at odds with each other. There are people who make science into their religion (as well as religion their science).
If one can use "junk religion" to make a point in this discussion, cannot another use "junk science"? Not that I think science is junk, I only brought it up to illustrate that point
A religious belief no more blinds a person than does a scientific belief.
Which again supports my statements above. Science is not based on a belief. There's no such thing as a "scientific belief"
Again, that vid might be very helpful to you if your actually interested in the topic on a macro scale.
Religious and scientific beliefs are not always at odds with each other. There are people who make science into their religion (as well as religion their science).
If one can use "junk religion" to make a point in this discussion, cannot another use "junk science"? Not that I think science is junk, I only brought it up to illustrate that point
Your comments simply tell me you are out of your lane for the discussion. It don't make you a bad person, just not a person qualified to comment on anything involving science.
I really like the SNL idea & find it kinda spot on...i'm one of the ding-dongs that think both science and faith coexist, but can't wrap my head completely around the vid or the ways of God. Both are fascinating.
I just kinda shrug off the frustrations and lean on scripture that tells me I'll get all the answers to my questions when I get to heaven. I also wish I could articulate my thoughts on the subjects better.
Although the faith vs science M4C horse is nothing but a big grease spot, it's nice to see both sides minding their manners for the most part.
My biggest dissappointment is watching religion get in the way of salvation. Christians really are their own worst enemy at times.
carry on...
Which again supports my statements above. Science is not based on a belief. There's no such thing as a "scientific belief"
Again, that vid might be very helpful to you if your actually interested in the topic on a macro scale.
Your comments simply tell me you are out of your lane for the discussion. It don't make you a bad person, just not a person qualified to comment on anything involving science.
I never claimed to be a scientist. I never claimed to be qualified to judge science or beliefs based on science. I have not veered out of my lane in that respect.
Whether or not science is based on a belief is not relevant to my point. My point is about people and their perceptions of what is truth. I don't know if you simply do not understand that or if you refuse to acknowledge it to belittle it. Be that as it may.
I believe there is a scientific belief. Not that I believe science or a certain field of science exists or does not exist as reality due to belief, but that people have beliefs based on their understanding and interpretation of science. Also, I used the term scientific belief because it had been used in this thread previously.
I do not judge your beliefs or conclusions no matter what they are based on. You have different experiences and interpretations and as a result, know things I do not.
What makes you qualified to judge how another's belief clouds their perception of truth? The assertion was made that religion insists we do not question what we are taught or the world around us. In fact, my religion teaches us quite the opposite. Do not trust what man teaches, for man is imperfect. Would I be out of my lane to tell you your belief about science limits your perception of God? Of course. Just you you are out of your lane with the assertion my religious beliefs- or anyone else's- limits my perception of science
Let me add that I find new discoveries fascinating and plenty of it is beyond my comprehension. So what if it is? It won't keep me from loving my family, going shooting with my friends or getting aircraft into the air in trade for beans and bullets
montanadave
12-16-11, 15:48
You cannot get any 12 people to agree to a lie and hold fast to a lie, especially when threatened with execution.
Seriously?
There seem to be a metric shit load of Islamic jihadists that meet that criteria.
People have been willing to die for crazy shit since day one.
Let me try this in a different way-
I challenge the assertion that religious beliefs makes it impossible for one to deal with science and question one's beliefs. I also challenge the assertion that, instead of accepting it as fact because some says it is so, challenging said assertion is "out of my lane" in a scientific discussion
I believe there is a scientific belief. Not that I believe science or a certain field of science exists or does not exist as reality due to belief, but that people have beliefs based on their understanding and interpretation of science. Also, I used the term scientific belief because it had been used in this thread previously.
The difference is, if a [presumably intellectually honest] scientist is given evidence to the contrary of his beliefs, he drops the old one and goes with the new one. Hence Jarhead's post about, 'science being proven wrong time and time again' or whatever. Just because we make new discoveries does not mean that science itself is fruitless or flawed; quite the contrary, it means that we continue to stand on the shoulders of giants instead of being automatons repeating the same things over and over.
Some consider blind faith to be a particularly desirable character trait; I view it as being audacious and unimaginative.
Can you provide an example of something that was proven wrong and religious zealots clung too despite knowing it was wrong?
The Earth being the center of the universe. I would also say traditional creationism and young Earth theory. Show me a Geologist who believes in young Earth theory and I’ll show you someone who has preconceived notions.
If you're referring to evolution, you're going to open up a whole other discussion http://www.godandscience.org/cgi-bin/fmsearch/fms_fmsearch2.cgi Anything other than evolution you can point to? Because that's about as settled as man made global warming (we force feed a generation of kids that they came from knuckle dragging apes instead of a personal creator with a soul and we wonder why we have a society of young people that act like animals? That they kill and have no regard for life whatsoever? I'm sure no correlation at all..none at all. You may have come from an ape..I didn't)
If you believe that Evolution doesn’t happen, even now when we have the ability to decode the DNA, I’ve literally got nothing for you. You will not change your mind.
Science is continually wrong, back tracking, amending. I'm not saying science hasn't made magnificent contributions but it has a history of being continually wrong.
That’s the nature of science. If someone is proven wrong, it’s corrected in the future by better scientists. Thank FSM that science is still continued to be proven wrong otherwise we’d still be treating weapons that inflicted damage instead of the wounds and performing bloodletting on a regular basis…
From Copernicus to every science minded person stating the world was flat yet Columbus (an ardent biblical scholar) insisted is was round due to Isaiah 40:22 "it is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth" written around 7th/8th century B.C. Pretty forward thinking if you ask me. To what they know or knew about the universe...continually wrong, back tracking or amendning
Totally incorrect. The concept of the spherical Earth dates back to around ~6k BCE. Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, and more all attested that the Earth was spherical.
Heck, Posidonius calculated the circumference of the [spherical] Earth at ~24,000 miles (very close to the actual circumference of 24,901 miles (also under a 1% error--pretty badass, considering)).
No, Columbus was not the first one by any means. Not even close.
Just recently Einsteins Theory of Relativity is seriously being called into question and highly suspected as being wrong or deeply flawed. For years scientist believed that inside a vacuum nothing was faster than the speed of light. Now that science may be shot to hell, something that most believed was irrefutable, science gospel and supposedly settled science also! until recently http://news.discovery.com/space/faster-speed-of-light-110922.html
e=mc2 not true? holy shit batman, say it isn't so!
This is the nature of science. Hell, one of the law’s of thermodynamics was very recently broken:
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/253194/20111121/let-light-scientists-create.htm
Something from nothing. Boom. I can’t wait for further developments. The difference between science and religion is that when something is discovered that goes against science at the time, science is amended. When something is discovered that goes against religion, it is considered heretical and is actively suppressed. Please tell me you can see the difference?
If there's ever a conflict or dispute, I'll believe the God of the bible every time before I believe a human scientist.
And thus is the crux of our disagreement. It doesn’t matter what evidence is presented because you’ll just believe religion anyway.
Once again B.S. Shows how little you know about us and what we believe and our methodologies for deriving at our beliefs.
One of my best friends is incredibly religious. Please don’t tell what I know and don’t know
Much of it is indeed science based.
When you have the conclusion before even tackling a problem—it isn’t science, it’s rhetoric.
We just don't gullibly believe everything the secular, humanist scientist (who are continually wrong) tell us. There's a whole science in why we don't buy evolution or feel it is unsettled and just a theory.
Full stop. You’ll never believe in Evolution regardless of what evidence is presented because you have, ‘faith’ in some old book. Show me real evidence of some kind of, ‘god’ or whatever and, unlike yourself, I’d actually listen.
The difference is, if a [presumably intellectually honest] scientist is given evidence to the contrary of his beliefs, he drops the old one and goes with the new one. Hence Jarhead's post about, 'science being proven wrong time and time again' or whatever. Just because we make new discoveries does not mean that science itself is fruitless or flawed; quite the contrary, it means that we continue to stand on the shoulders of giants instead of being automatons repeating the same things over and over.
Some consider blind faith to be a particularly desirable character trait; I view it as being audacious and unimaginative....
Did you read what I wrote? Why are you still stuck on this whole inflexibility of thinking for a religious person? I'm starting to feel as though your thinking has become fixated on this idea. Sheesh!
To heck with it. I'm going shooting tomorrow
on the basic level. Aren't we creating a tiny black hole? Not sure how I feel about that........................:blink:
Did you read what I wrote?
Indeed.
Why are you still stuck on this whole inflexibility of thinking for a religious person? I'm starting to feel as though your thinking has become fixated on this idea. Sheesh!
To heck with it. I'm going shooting tomorrow
Did we read different posts? Call it a different interpretation; though the majority of my post was directed towards Jarhead and not you.
I'm going shooting tomorrow as well! (Always good to focus on the things we have in common, haha)
on the basic level. Aren't we creating a tiny black hole? Not sure how I feel about that........................:blink:
If one knows nothing about black holes, the yes, be afraid. If one reads up on them.. then no, no it doesn't. I'm not a scientist but I'd call myself better read on the subject than most on this forum.
...Did we read different posts?...
Perhaps we did. Do you want to blame it on quantum physics and an errant alternate universe, or go with simple dyslexia?
I'm going shooting tomorrow as well! (Always good to focus on the things we have in common, haha)
You're not in Washington, are ya? I could use some help with that whole squaring up to the target thing
Reagans Rascals
12-17-11, 04:04
on the basic level. Aren't we creating a tiny black hole? Not sure how I feel about that........................:blink:
no.... they are accelerating particles at almost relativistic speeds, in opposite directions inside of a ring, and hoping for a collision. And once they collide, they sift through the pieces looking for evidence of particles such as the Higgs.
A black hole is a star that has begun to collapse on itself, and the process is unable to be thwarted because its own gravity is too strong to resist, and it just continues to collapse and increase its gravity, creating a cycle of infinite obesity.... its gravity gets stronger so it continues to collapse, as it eats more around it, making its gravity stronger, collapsing even more.... creating a loop of infinite time and infinite density... and it continues until there is nothing around it left to devour.... kind of like a fat woman at Golden Corral
it's called a black hole because the gravitational pull is so tremendous, the escape velocity is faster than the speed of light... therefore nothing can escape it....
a speck of infinite density.... a teaspoon of the matter from a black hole in theory could weigh more than 100 million tons
a star must be at least 3 solar masses IIRC to collapse past the neutron stage into a black hole.... 1 solar mass being equivalent to the mass of our own sun
a star must be at least 3 solar masses IIRC to collapse past the neutron stage into a black hole.... 1 solar mass being equivalent to the mass of our own sun
just FYI:
http://www.thestatecolumn.com/science/nasa-itsy-bitsy-black-hole-is-just-three-times-the-mass-of-the-sun/
I will say one more thing about religion. I grew up believing in god and continued to do so until my late 20’s and I have a brother with a masters in theology. So I completely understand religion and religious people. Nothing I say will change anybody’s mind so I will just not continue on that subject.
on the basic level. Aren't we creating a tiny black hole? Not sure how I feel about that........................:blink:
There was a weirdo that was claiming the CERN collider would create a black hole and destroy the world. He filed a lawsuit in federal court trying to stop it but the court rejected the case. It showed that he did not know much about science or the law. The CERN collider is in Switzerland.
Which again supports my statements above. Science is not based on a belief. There's no such thing as a "scientific belief"
I think the facts say otherwise. Scientists believe that their interpretations and understanding of the evidence are correct.
ETA: The have faith in the intellect of man.
This is not putting down science. It merely admits the fact that humans are not perfect and all-knowing, and may make mistakes in our interpretations and understanding of things. Something can be consistent with the data (as far as we have it), and still be wrong.
Something can be consistent with the data (as far as we have it), and still be wrong.
Certainly. This is why examples of weapon-treatment versus wound-treatment and bloodletting are particularly salient.
Allow me to explain:
There was this crazy idea that putting medical salves on a weapon that was used to inflict the injury instead of the wound itself would allow for faster healing.
They treated a number of people in the old way and others using the new method (salves on swords). Guess what? It worked. People that had treated weapons recovered and survived more than those with treated wounds. Proof, right? Unfortunately, (and I'm sure most here have already guessed it) it was invalid causation. The medical salves they used were so bacteria ridden (but they didn't know about that then) that treatments often caused or exacerbated infection. Simply put, untreating a wound was better than the treatment of the day.
Bloodletting has a similar history. Have a fever? You obviously have too much blood. I can prove it too. Let's drain some of your blood out and very quickly your body temperature will lower and your skin pales. Repeatable proof that fevers are caused by too much blood. Now, we view the practice as stupid and barbaric but, given the science of their day, it made perfect sense.
Of course many things we take as a given to be true will be proven untrue in the future, especially when it comes to medicine. That's the nature of science. Just because there are some things which, at the current time, cannot be explained by science as we know it, does not mean that it will never be explained or that it should be attributed to some deity.
The major issue I have with getting all the particles together in the 'clock work' universe and having a Grand Unified theory that links the four forces and explains everything is where does that leave free will?
Outside of any kind of divine discussion of 'free will', if you have a formula that describes all interactions, that ties the quantum to the atomic to the molecular to the nano to the micro to the macro, and determines all trajectories- where does that leave free will?
If you meet the guy who finds the God Particle and you sucker punch him, shouldn't he have seen it coming?
I have an idea for a SNL skit where God sits down Adam and Eve and starts to explain the origins of the singularity and quantum mechanics- and they are just not getting it. God, dumbs it down and dumbs it down till he finally loses it and God goes "In the beginning....."
I think there is a reason that everytime we get to smaller and smaller particles that even more zoos of particles fall out. There is no real answer in the end. These are just models after all of increasing complexity to explain what we observe and we'll always observe another level.
Either that or we will get to the bottom of everything and the physist will realize that the universe shouldn't exist- and POP this singularity collapses on itself.
you should read up on the uncertaintly principal.
In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states a fundamental limit on the accuracy with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known. In layman's terms, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be controlled, determined, or known.
Definitely leaves room for free will. the universe may be infinitely complex.
Beat me to answering with Heisenberg.
Which again supports my statements above. Science is not based on a belief. There's no such thing as a "scientific belief"
Again, that vid might be very helpful to you if your actually interested in the topic on a macro scale.
Your comments simply tell me you are out of your lane for the discussion. It don't make you a bad person, just not a person qualified to comment on anything involving science.
The first part of this statement is just not true. The two presuppositions of science as it is practiced today are both beliefs. Naturalism and uniformitarianism are the first principles of science today. They are believed not proven. There are problems with empiricism also. Science depends generally on empiricism. The question is can empiricism produce knowledge. Can you sense logic for instance. can you sense a sense. Can the proof for empiricism be put into a syllogism that would show that empiricism produces real knowledge, or is it just assumed (believed) to produce knowledge? Then there is the issue of what constitutes sufficient, and real evidence, and the assumptions (beliefs) involved there.
on the basic level. Aren't we creating a tiny black hole? Not sure how I feel about that........................:blink:
I thought that too until I remembered that we don't really know anything about black holes beyond their theoretical existence. Physicists speculate on what they may be, nothing more.
Reagans Rascals
12-17-11, 21:33
The first part of this statement is just not true. The two presuppositions of science as it is practiced today are both beliefs. Naturalism and uniformitarianism are the first principles of science today. They are believed not proven. There are problems with empiricism also. Science depends generally on empiricism. The question is can empiricism produce knowledge. Can you sense logic for instance. can you sense a sense. Can the proof for empiricism be put into a syllogism that would show that empiricism produces real knowledge, or is it just assumed (believed) to produce knowledge? Then there is the issue of what constitutes sufficient, and real evidence, and the assumptions (beliefs) involved there.
what are you even talking about.... I believe I'll be the first to invoke Occam's Razor here
do we all really need to continue a multi-page, multi-thread discussion as to what the purpose of science is, and what its foundations are based on
it is what it is.... plain and simple... science is mans way of attempting to provide answers, capable of being repeated, for questions posed, questions about anything and everything.
that's all there is to it... there's no need to read anymore into it... or to attack it from a religious point of view.... some believe in quantifiable answers, and science attempts this... as far as things can be quantified in our existence... not saying they are 100% absolutely proven facts... but I'll take an educated guess backed up by repeatable data over just blind faiths any day....
electricity is just a theory... it has never been proven... however; we've done pretty well with the theory so far
The first part of this statement is just not true. The two presuppositions of science as it is practiced today are both beliefs. Naturalism and uniformitarianism are the first principles of science today. They are believed not proven. There are problems with empiricism also. Science depends generally on empiricism. The question is can empiricism produce knowledge. Can you sense logic for instance. can you sense a sense. Can the proof for empiricism be put into a syllogism that would show that empiricism produces real knowledge, or is it just assumed (believed) to produce knowledge? Then there is the issue of what constitutes sufficient, and real evidence, and the assumptions (beliefs) involved there.
Science gave us the A-bomb. I “believe” if one explodes next to you that your “senses” will tell you your screwed.
montanadave
12-17-11, 23:18
C'mon, gentlemen, who ya gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes? :lol:
what are you even talking about.... I believe I'll be the first to invoke Occam's Razor here
do we all really need to continue a multi-page, multi-thread discussion as to what the purpose of science is, and what its foundations are based on
it is what it is.... plain and simple... science is mans way of attempting to provide answers, capable of being repeated, for questions posed, questions about anything and everything.
that's all there is to it... there's no need to read anymore into it... or to attack it from a religious point of view.... some believe in quantifiable answers, and science attempts this... as far as things can be quantified in our existence... not saying they are 100% absolutely proven facts... but I'll take an educated guess backed up by repeatable data over just blind faiths any day....
electricity is just a theory... it has never been proven... however; we've done pretty well with the theory so far
It's simple, science begins on the basis of 2 presuppositions....Naturalism, there is nothing but nature, and uniformitianism, all natural processes have always been the same throughout the history of nature. From these 2 BELIEFS, modern science proceeds. Empiricism deals with how science gains knowledge, through our senses. One of the problems of course is that not everything can be sensed. The assertion was that science today doesn't have beliefs, that is patently not true.
I've said nothing in this thread about religion, merely countered a false assertion about the nature of science. Almost all the Christians I know are not trying to rid the earth of science, but to weigh it's strengths and weaknesses, and come to a reasonable conclusion for it's place in their lives, and the life of this country. Can the same be said for modern science in it's relationship to religion?
My hope is that all Christians are already looking into or will someday look into the truthfulness or falseness of all things scientific less they be led astray. For the nonreligious, well after reading through these threads, I doubt seriously they care much what any Christian might say here.
I thought that too until I remembered that we don't really know anything about black holes beyond their theoretical existence. Physicists speculate on what they may be, nothing more.
So, are you postulating that black holes don't exist at all? If so, there is much evidence to the contrary.... Don't mistake, 'not proven' with, 'we know but don't entirely understand'. Those are two statements are -completely different- things entirely.
The first part of this statement is just not true.
Incorrect. The rest of the comments were in the realm of philosophy, not science.
I thought that too until I remembered that we don't really know anything about black holes beyond their theoretical existence. Physicists speculate on what they may be, nothing more.
There's nothing theoretical about their existence, their physical existence well established, including the massive one that sits in the middle of our own galaxy:
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/supermassive-black-hole-milky-way/6671
Various others now confirmed, and it's now thought at the center of all spiral galaxies sits a massive black hole.
Reagans Rascals
12-18-11, 08:41
There's nothing theoretical about their existence, their physical existence well established, including the massive one that sits in the middle of our own galaxy:
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/supermassive-black-hole-milky-way/6671
Various others now confirmed, and it's now thought at the center of all spiral galaxies sits a massive black hole.
not to mention naked singularities, and black holes not within galactic boundaries
I wish they weren't called black holes.... the name itself just lends itself to massive uneducated speculation and redundant drunk speak
If they were simply referred to as " Gravitational Structures of Infinite Density"... I think they would be less likely to conjure images of time travel and worm holes and planets being devoured.... by those not in the know...
and perhaps in the end it would have saved us from indigestion inducing movies starring Laurence Fishburne.....
Incorrect. The rest of the comments were in the realm of philosophy, not science.
Another not true statement
Naturalism, and uniformitarism have become essential parts of the definition of science since the 1800's that to deny these assumptions is to deny science itself. To interpret whatever evidence for whatever theory in a way that denies these two assumptions is to immediately be branded "not a real scientist". Take for instance interpreting evidence for the life, or physical sciences in a way that might point to a designer, and this most of the time by a non-Christian, and they are immediately accused of smuggling Christian supernaturalism into their thinking.
Take for instance interpreting evidence for the life, or physical sciences in a way that might point to a designer, and this most of the time by a non-Christian, and they are immediately accused of smuggling Christian supernaturalism into their thinking.
Plenty of precedence for that accusation.
There's nothing theoretical about their existence, their physical existence well established, including the massive one that sits in the middle of our own galaxy.
Yes, the one of many we know absolutely nothing about whatsoever. We speculate that nearly infinite amounts of matter can be condensed into an atomic sized spec, one that can seize and obliterate even light, but have no tangible basis to verify it.
Plenty of precedence for that accusation.
And the intelligent design "scientists" would deny strongly that that's what they are up to, but how could you possible trust some so call scientist that denies in some way the pure orthodoxy of naturalism.
Reagans Rascals
12-18-11, 22:22
Yes, the one of many we know absolutely nothing about whatsoever. We speculate that nearly infinite amounts of matter can be condensed into an atomic sized spec, one that can seize and obliterate even light, but have no tangible basis to verify it.
we have mathematics... that's fairly tangible
I think we all need to remember just how young our technology really is... we've only had the ability to even compute these type of things for less than 60 years...
we have mathematics... that's fairly tangible
Actually, Mathematics is pretty intangible. And basically exists as an intellectual exercise at self-consistent systems.
This is not panning math. I quite like it, though am not good at it. But Math itself is the one "hard" "science" that is not hard at all.
Actually, Mathematics is pretty intangible. And basically exists as an intellectual exercise at self-consistent systems.
This is not panning math. I quite like it, though am not good at it. But Math itself is the one "hard" "science" that is not hard at all.
While math is not yet complete, true, disavowing math has been a mistake made many times in the past.
While math is not yet complete, true, disavowing math has been a mistake made many times in the past.
Who is disavowing math?
I was a math major for a short while and worked on a math minor (did not finish it as I had to return to my job after my leave was up and so just ended up finishing the major due to this time constraint).
Math is awesome.
I was merely noting that in reality it is an intellectual exercise on self-consistent systems, and not a "science" based on empirical data or observation and experimentation.
Observation and experimentation almost always proves the math is correct. And when it doesn’t its most likely a mistake by the person doing the math.
Observation and experimentation almost always proves the math is correct. And when it doesn’t its most likely a mistake by the person doing the math.
In terms of my comments on math, the above is false. Math, as a field itself, does not depend on or use observation and experimentation. Math is an abstract self-consistent system.
However, math is used in other fields as an applied tool, where the products of mathematical computations are used to show things in those other fields, and those are backed-up by observation and experimentation.
I’m talking about math when used in physics. Physicists expect to fine the Higgs Boson because the mathematical computations say there should be one. This is why physicists are so sure that one will be found, because in the past the math has proven right. If one is not found then more than likely it’s because technology is lacking.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.