13
   

Religon Or Science ?

 
 
HeroicOvenmitt
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 02:38 pm
@spendius,
when we 'labeled' it has nothing to do with it.
Something happened at the what we call the start of what we call the universe. using what we call science and what we call logic, we can see that what we call the big bang is well backed with what we call evidence.

My point is that your point is an argument of semantics. Whether we label the big bang or not is irrelevant to the actual event of the big bang. we could call it a ham sandwich and it would still be the origin of the universe.

I still see no evidence for your arguments. Therefore I am assuming that semantics is all you can offer and anyone who understands the difference between semantics and logic will see that your rebuttal has no value and did not answer anything that was asked.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 03:27 pm
@HeroicOvenmitt,
HeroicOvenmitt wrote:
If we accept the Law of Causality, a supernatural force(and therefore creator) is demanded.

What is this "law of causality" of which you speak?
HeroicOvenmitt
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 03:31 pm
@joefromchicago,
The Law of Causality says that in the natural world(the universe) every effect has a cause. Natural or intelligent. It is what the scientific method we learn in elementary school is based on.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 03:53 pm
@HeroicOvenmitt,
There are plenty of other theories of how the universe came to be, the shape and what not, if you had only botherd to search for it.

GTR hasn't yet fully explained all aspects of what it describes, such as basic gravity, and plenty other things.

You may ask youself why we have build this huge and expensive LHC, because we doesn't yet fully understand quantum theory.

You seem young and very likely to jump to conclusions, without the slightest sense of critisism.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 03:56 pm
@HeroicOvenmitt,
No, that is not "the very definition of atheist." That is one definition, and the one which is convenient to your thesis.

Quote:
Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists. (emphasis added)


The qutoe above is from the Wikipedia article on atheism.

Quote:
There are two in-use definitions of the word 'atheist':

1.) A person who lacks belief in a god or gods. People who use this definition categorize atheists as either negative (or implicit or weak) atheists or positive (or explicit or strong) atheists. Negative atheists, while they don't believe in a god, do not positively assert that no gods exist. Positive atheists, however, do.

2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist.

Those who consider themselves atheists (who are usually positive atheists) tend to define 'atheist' using the former definition, and those who believe in a god or gods tend to define 'atheist' using the latter. In both cases, this seems to be a demagogic practice intended to classify either as many or as few people as atheists as possible. Negative atheists are usually referred to as agnostics.


The above quote is from the Urban Dictionary definition of atheist. In particular, see the first definition given above.

So, in fact, you are willfully ignoring a very plausible, and common definition of atheist.

Your remark about Einstein is ipse dixit, you provide no evidence for your claim.

Your remark about Stephen Hawking is ipse dixit, you provide no evidence for your claim.

I am asserting that you have provided no evidence for the good and sufficient reason that you have not provided any evidence. The fact that you have said a thing does not constitute evidence. Once again, you make a claim, and you therefore have the obligation to provide proof for your claim. No one is obliged to disprove your claims. Therefore, i accuse you once again of making unfounded claims.

And i have not claimed that you are wrong (with the exception of that nonsense about the definition of atheist, for which i have provided evidence above). I have simply pointed out that you have not provided any evidence for your claims. Unless and until you provide that evidence, there is no reason to assume that you are right.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 04:03 pm
@HeroicOvenmitt,
HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

The Law of Causality says that in the natural world(the universe) every effect has a cause. Natural or intelligent. It is what the scientific method we learn in elementary school is based on.

Really? Who formulated that law? Is it true empirically or logically?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 04:11 pm
@HeroicOvenmitt,
I'm fully aware of the nature of the argument.

The point I was making is the one in the last paragraph. That what we call things has evolutionary adaptive power. Science has no way of showing that jumping into bed with it is useful to us whereas religion has been proven to have utility assuming you think that your life is better than that the Tierra del Fuegians were living when Fitzroy and then Darwin came across them.

Without the practical side there are only semantic games to play. Sophistry.
HeroicOvenmitt
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 04:19 pm
@joefromchicago,
Science cannot prove science. That is a circular argument.
When you look at it from a logical standpoint, it makes sense.
It is certainly well established in nature that nothing happens without a cause.

It is a self-evident principal in the universe that nothing happens without a cause. We know this because every event we observe can be traced back to a cause, all the way back to the Big Bang. Thus, the Law of Causality. It is a Law because it has been observed to be true in 100% of the cases. Were there an arguable exception, you might be able to shoot a hole in the law. or...
If there were some effect that was observed to not have a cause, it defies the natural laws and is therefore supernatural.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 04:26 pm
@HeroicOvenmitt,
Please spare us your massive talkative brain diariah, go somewhere else to some less intelligent crowd and try to seduce them with u'r endless nonsens and babble.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 04:48 pm
@HeroicOvenmitt,
HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

Science cannot prove science. That is a circular argument.

Nonsense. Scientific methods are used to prove scientific theories all the time.

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:
When you look at it from a logical standpoint, it makes sense.

So it's true logically.

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:
It is a self-evident principal in the universe that nothing happens without a cause. We know this because every event we observe can be traced back to a cause, all the way back to the Big Bang. Thus, the Law of Causality. It is a Law because it has been observed to be true in 100% of the cases. Were there an arguable exception, you might be able to shoot a hole in the law. or...

Oh, wait a minute -- it's true empirically.

Which is it?
HeroicOvenmitt
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 04:54 pm
@spendius,
I apologize if I misrepresented the motivations or general worldview of atheists.
It is hardly relevant to the matter, however, if you are willing to take an objective look at the evidence.
My quote of Einstein is a matter of public record at this point. It is readily available to anyone who wants to read it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudge_factor
I know Wikipedia is not the most reliable, but look at their sources if it is not enough to convince you.

"The Theory of Relativity has been confirmed numerous times. Those seeking to refute it are on the road to futility. Exceptions to the Law of Relativity have been discussed in the literature, but it is still considered to be the foundation of physics along with electromagnetism, mechanics, and gravity.

Einstein recognized that his biggest mistake was the cosmological constant, a fudge factor he introduced to explain the expansion of the universe. When presented with the idea of quantum physics, he replied, 'God doesn't play with dice.' "
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2458484/einstein_a_biographical_sketch.html

My quote of Hawkins is equally valid. It came from HIS book "A Brief History of Time."

I'll show you my evidence one more time. Keep in mind that it will only be as valid in your mind as science, logic, and philosophy. If you have no stomach for these things then please do not waste your time reading this.

Einstein's GTR has been proven accurate to 9 decimal places.
The GTR requires that there be an origin to the universe - a start.
Einstein himself was so biased against this idea, that he was willing to change his formula to eliminate the origin of the universe.
That was quickly detected(he divided by 0).
He made his life's ambition from that point on to 'know the mind of God' through science.
On top of the GTR's argument for the Big Bang(origin of the universe), it is also impossible that there WASN'T a start to the universe.
It is impossible to have an infinite number of finite things. Time is finite. So is space. Therefore it is impossible that time is infinite.
This should be obvious when you think about it. Saying the universe is infinite is saying there was an infinite number of days before today. That means we never would have gotten to today because you cannot traverse infinity.
Additionally the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics argue that if the universe WERE infinite, there would be no usable energy left in the universe. Simply put, there would be no stars, no heat, no light, no form of energy that is usable by nature or man.
Because of the above arguments, as well as the presence of Cosmic Background Radiation and great galaxy seeds consistent with the theory of the big bang, we can logically conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the universe started with a big bang.
Now that big bang - being the start of the universe - is also the start of all of the natural laws. The Law of Causality, the laws of physics, the limitations of space and time, etc.
Anything before the bang is not subject to these laws and is therefore infinite.
Again, the Law of Causality will tell us that the Big Bang - which is subject to the laws of nature - needs a cause.
That cause would be, by definition, supernatural. It could not have come from the natural world as it was what CREATED the natural world.
This cause would also have to be conscious and have chosen to create the world. Otherwise you are left with a what caused it to cause the universe conundrum.
So if we accept the Law of Causality as valid, the following argument is valid.

Everything in the universe has a cause.
The Big Bang is the start of the universe.
The Big Bang had a cause.

As the agnostic Astronomer and Cosmologist Robert Jastrow put it
"There is a kind of religion in science... every effect must have its cause, there is no First Cause... This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. As usual when faced with this trauma, the mind reacts by ignoring the implications - in science this is known as "refusing to speculate" - or trivializing the origin of the world by calling it the Big Bang, as if the Universe were a firecracker."

all of this is based on sound logic, good, verified, science, and well established principals of nature.

Now, feel free to continue to insult me and my methods, but know that this is all very well-founded stuff. If you're going to say it's wrong, then the burden of evidence is now on you to overturn the well-established facts and arguments I have put forth.
HeroicOvenmitt
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 04:56 pm
@joefromchicago,
Let me put my argument another way.
Using the scientific method to prove that the scientific method is right is circular.

Of course you use science to test a scientific hypothesis or theory.

And why should the law of Causality not be true both empirically and logically? I can see no reason that logic should interfere with an empirically verifiable fact.
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 05:16 pm
@HeroicOvenmitt,
HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

Let me put my argument another way.
Using the scientific method to prove that the scientific method is right is circular.

Of course you use science to test a scientific hypothesis or theory.

OK.

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:
And why should the law of Causality not be true both empirically and logically? I can see no reason that logic should interfere with an empirically verifiable fact.

Something can be true both logically and empirically. I just wanted to make sure I understood your argument.

Now, if the "law of causality" is only true empirically, then that's not a problem. After all, as Hume pointed out, just because all observed instances of an event were consistent in the past doesn't mean that the next event will be consistent. If all events have, in the past, been "caused" by something doesn't mean that every event must be caused by something. What you posit, then, is not something that is impossible, but rather something that is, at best, very unlikely.

On the other hand, if the "law of causality" is logically true, then that leads to an infinite regress, which constitutes a paradox, or a form of contradiction. Something can't be both logically true and contradictory, so either your "law of causality" can't be true logically or you have to resolve the paradox -- which you haven't done.

Now, it's true that you attempt to avoid the infinite regress by adverting to a supernatural entity which is not governed by the "law of causality." Of course, by doing so, you deny that the "law" applies in all instances, which contradicts both your claims that the "law" is empirically true and that it's logically true.
HeroicOvenmitt
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 05:19 pm
@joefromchicago,
I never claimed the Law of Causality to be applicable in ALL cases.
Only ALL cases in the natural universe. God, the creator of the universe, would be outside of the universe. This natural Law would have no authority.

I believe this resolves the paradox of which you speak.

In fact, for God to be bound by any laws would negate his infinite nature, rendering him not-god.

One of my favorite David Hume quotes is "I never asserted something so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause."
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 05:22 pm
@HeroicOvenmitt,
HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

I never claimed the Law of Causality to be applicable in ALL cases.
Only ALL cases in the natural universe.

How do you know that?

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:
God, the creator of the universe, would be outside of the universe. This natural Law would have no authority.

How do you know that?

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:
In fact, for God to be bound by any laws would negate his infinite nature, rendering him not-god.

Are you assuming god's existence?
HeroicOvenmitt
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 05:27 pm
@joefromchicago,
Again, it is a self-evident law of nature that nothing can happen without a cause.
If you have an example of something that happens to the contrary and proves the self-evident law wrong, please share. I am not asserting its accuracy on the grounds that it has never been proven wrong, but that it is self-evident.

How do we know every planet has gravity? Gravity is another self-evident law that I don't think anyone would question. The Law of Causality is no different.

What I refer to as God is a supernatural influence(be it the invisible pink unicorn, the force, a spaghetti monster or God is actually irrelevant).
A supernatural anything by definition is not bound by the natural world(even less so if it is what created the natural world)
As for assuming God's existence, I think I made a pretty solid case for that earlier.
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 06:13 pm
@HeroicOvenmitt,
Quote:
"There is a kind of religion in science... every effect must have its cause, there is no First Cause... This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. As usual when faced with this trauma, the mind reacts by ignoring the implications - in science this is known as "refusing to speculate" - or trivializing the origin of the world by calling it the Big Bang, as if the Universe were a firecracker."


I don't disagree with that.

Quote:
Everything in the universe has a cause.
The Big Bang is the start of the universe.
The Big Bang had a cause.


Therefore the cause of the Big Bang is a part of the universe and thus the Big Bang was not the start of the universe. We just say it was.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 06:20 pm
@HeroicOvenmitt,
Why don't you deal with the argument from utility? Are you a disinterested, disembodied spirit?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 06:33 pm
@HeroicOvenmitt,
HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

Again, it is a self-evident law of nature that nothing can happen without a cause.

I don't think that's very self-evident at all. But even if it's true, that just means that the big bang had a cause. It doesn't follow that the big bang had a supernatural cause. A scrupulous application of Ockham's Razor would suggest otherwise.

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:
If you have an example of something that happens to the contrary and proves the self-evident law wrong, please share. I am not asserting its accuracy on the grounds that it has never been proven wrong, but that it is self-evident.

Self-evident to you, perhaps.

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:
How do we know every planet has gravity? Gravity is another self-evident law that I don't think anyone would question. The Law of Causality is no different.

Gravity is certainly not self-evident. There's quite a bit of research going on right now into the nature of gravity.

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:
What I refer to as God is a supernatural influence(be it the invisible pink unicorn, the force, a spaghetti monster or God is actually irrelevant).
A supernatural anything by definition is not bound by the natural world(even less so if it is what created the natural world)

What sort of definition is that? Empirical or logical?

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:
As for assuming God's existence, I think I made a pretty solid case for that earlier.

I must have missed that.
HeroicOvenmitt
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 11:36 pm
@joefromchicago,
You agree that the universe had a cause, okay. So if the universe, which I am referring to as the natural world, had an external cause(as it could not be internal because it would have to exist to create itself, which is a clear logical impossibility). This external cause is by definition supernatural.

Supernatural is defined by Merriam-Webster as:
"of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe."
The cause is beyond the universe, therefore it is supernatural.

Yes, it is equally self-evident to gravity.
I believe your argument that it is not is based on the fact that we have not observed every single effect to see if it has a cause.
However, we have not observed every single planet to see if they have gravity.

We know that all people die. Or do we?
We have not witnessed all people die, yet we believe it to be true.

The reason for this, I believe, is that 100% of the observable evidence points toward the conclusion. So Causality is equally true to gravity and mortality. Do you question the belief in gravity or mortality? If so, can you provide evidence that these theories are invalid and propose a theory that better suits the available evidence?

"Gravity is certainly not self-evident. There's quite a bit of research going on right now into the nature of gravity."

What is not self-evident about gravity?

"What sort of definition is that? Empirical or logical?"
It is a literal definition.

As for my previous arguments, see this thread and feel free to hop in on it.
http://able2know.org/topic/151352-6

Additionally, thank you for being calm, reasonable, and not referring to my arguments as diarrhea or "bullshit science" as others have.
I will also add that if you prove something to the contrary of what I believe conclusively, then I will be inclined to believe whatever the best evidence suggests.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/30/2023 at 09:50:39