maadmax 0 #76 January 9, 2009 Not really. Scientists are basically "faithless" in terms of what they "believe" of science. Someone comes along who can prove that ether doesn't exist, they switch their fundamental understandings.Quote Science and technology is great and wonderful. The problem arises when some scientists take what they know and extrapolate it into saying, " this just happened by fortuitous chance, no god necessary". That conclusion is purely a faith based construct. Let the scientists thrive and prosper, but they should call their faith based conclusions for what they are, a religious expression of secular humanism. A religion. ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #77 January 9, 2009 >The problem arises when some scientists take what they know and extrapolate it >into saying, " this just happened by fortuitous chance, no god necessary". That's not a problem at all, and you do exactly the same thing. Millenia ago, man couldn't fly; the only people who could were gods. Nowadays we have Orville and Wilbur, and Boeing, and Pratt and Whitney, and Edel. You can strap on a thirty pound backpack, run down a hill and fly away. No god necessary. Likewise with evolution. We know how life evolves now; we can see it happen and measure the progress. We've seen new species evolve. We've seen gray wolves turn into chihuahuas, and cichlids turn into dozens of different fish. No god necessary. The problem arises (IMO) when someone says "well, since we can fly, and since we know how evolution works, that proves once and for all there's no god." That's not a valid conclusion. >Let the scientists thrive and prosper, but they should call their faith based >conclusions for what they are, a religious expression of secular humanism. A >religion. IMO, attitudes like that are the biggest problem when it comes to understanding the roles of science and religion in society. Science is science. Religion is religion. There is no problem with their coexistence - provided people understand the difference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andrewwhyte 1 #78 January 9, 2009 Oh Ya? Well how do you explain the Orange bowl last night. Clearly Florida won because Tebow prayed to Jaysus more than those Okie heathens. Oh sure you can delude yourself and say it was because he was a more talented QB, or that the Gators had a better game plan. That is just you relying your irrational faith in what you can see with your own eyes. I mean Tebow had John under one eye and 3:16 under the other. That is not random. Hmmph! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #79 January 9, 2009 Quote Stephen Hawking would disagree. The difference between science and religion is that one person doesn't decide the "truth." Scientists can and do disagree, and go on to debate, sometimes stooping to childish levels, but it's all about verifiable information. The Church excommunicates. In the older days (as well as certain parts of the world), they imprison and kill the heretics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites maadmax 0 #80 January 10, 2009 --That's not a problem at all, and you do exactly the same thing. Millenia ago, man couldn't fly; the only people who could were gods. Nowadays we have Orville and Wilbur, and Boeing, and Pratt and Whitney, and Edel. You can strap on a thirty pound backpack, run down a hill and fly away. No god necessary.Quote That is way to simplistic. There are a lot of physical laws that make flying possible. These laws had to come from somewhere, they just didn't fall out of the sky. ________________________________ ________________________________ --Likewise with evolution. We know how life evolves now; we can see it happen and measure the progress. We've seen new species evolve. We've seen gray wolves turn into chihuahuas, and cichlids turn into dozens of different fish. No god necessary.Quote Other than He set the whole process up in the first place. _________________________________ _________________________________ --The problem arises (IMO) when someone says "well, since we can fly, and since we know how evolution works, that proves once and for all there's no god." That's not a valid conclusion. >Let the scientists thrive and prosper, but they should call their faith based >conclusions for what they are, a religious expression of secular humanism. A >religion. --IMO, attitudes like that are the biggest problem when it comes to understanding the roles of science and religion in society. Science is science. Religion is religion. There is no problem with their coexistence - provided people understand the difference. I agree completely! ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites argyle 0 #81 January 10, 2009 Ok, here's some more fodder for the science guys. First, let me say that I have some pretty good credentials in physics, astronomy, engineering, and motorcycle mechanics. I say this just so you know where I'm coming from. Oh, and I'm a complete atheist. When we say that compared to ancient man, we now understand a certain law of nature, what do we mean? We mean that we observe some physical phenomenon, and then we come up with a way to predict what will happen next time under similar circumstances. For instance, using Newton's gravitation we can derive all of Kepler's laws for the orbits of the planets and explain falling skydivers very well. Knowing that the speed of light is constant relative to an observer, we can derive all of Einstein's special relativity. From this and a little quantum mechanics, you can understand how atoms and molecules work. To explain electromagnetism, we came up with the concept of fields and some cute equations that show how radio waves work. And on and on. We know quite a bit about how the physical world works. And, strangely enough, the ancients had most of it completely wrong. (For a really deep thinker, Aristotle had some goofy ideas, etc.) Now, using fancy theories with all their math, we can design airplanes and computers and suspension bridges, so we know it works. But does it EXPLAIN anything about the universe. I say no. We have some equation that says that an electron is held in a hydrogen atom with so much energy. We still don't know why. Having an equation is an explanation of the surface. We will never know what is under the surface. We will never know why the universe exists or why things work the way they do. As deep as our understanding goes, it eventually stops. There are questions that just cannot be asked. Maybe they have answers, but not to us on Earth. We can predict almost anything we can measure, but it's all empirical. At some level we run out of understanding. At some level, there are things that could be different, and we don't know why. (For example, saying that mass warps space and results in the appearance of gravity just peels one more layer of the onion.) So does all this science and engineering conflict with faith in a god? Not as far as I see. I have studied, taught, and worked with most of the hard sciences, and I cannot see where all these equations rule out god. Science has no comment about god. None at all, as long as he does not violate any laws. Stopping the Sun would be right out. Reading your mind, pretty doubtful. The problem that I have is that I also can see absolutely no reason to believe that there is a god. Those people who say "god does this, god does that, god is great, god creates, god destroys, god loves you....." have been sold a bill of goods (IMHO). But, still, I can't tell you why light always chases you at the speed of light. It just does. Art Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #82 January 10, 2009 >That is way to simplistic. There are a lot of physical laws that make >flying possible. These laws had to come from somewhere, they just didn't >fall out of the sky. Nope. The laws were always there. Someday we will discover more basic truths about the universe, perhaps laws that will allow faster than light travel, or that tell us how gravity propagates more accurately. God won't give them to us. We won't create them. We will just discover the laws that have always been part of the fabric of the universe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites deibido 0 #83 January 10, 2009 Quote We still don't know why. Outside of the human thirst for meaning, is there any why?"User assumes all risk" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites maadmax 0 #84 January 10, 2009 Nope. The laws were always there. Someday we will discover more basic truths about the universe, perhaps laws that will allow faster than light travel, or that tell us how gravity propagates more accurately. God won't give them to us. We won't create them. We will just discover the laws that have always been part of the fabric of the universe. Again, I am in complete agreement with what you are saying. But when have you ever seen fabric spontaneously create it self from nothing? ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites maadmax 0 #85 January 10, 2009 shucks, you were doing so well until you got to your conclusion paragraph. God exists, whether it is us creating our own little universes, or the God of science who created the universe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #86 January 10, 2009 Do you mean a descriptive or physically explicative “why,” meaning, or significance? Or do you mean a motivational, intentional, or rational-acting significance? I.e., what, if I read correctly, [deibido]’s response to you is asking. Quote Now, using fancy theories with all their math, we can design airplanes and computers and suspension bridges, so we know it works. But does it EXPLAIN anything about the universe. I say no. I don’t understand what you mean? Do macroscale explanations extend to astronomical limits? Those “fancy theories” explain observed physical behavior of the Universe. You gave a number of examples. So, yes a lot about the Universe is explained. Historically, has the approach generally been inductive? Yes, to some extent, largely because of limitations on human and machine capabilities for processing and capacity. Quote At some level, there are things that could be different, and we don't know why. (For example, saying that mass warps space and results in the appearance of gravity just peels one more layer of the onion.) And what is the origin of that observation of differences between our observations and theoretical (predictive) understandings? I assert the problem is ultimately our limit of resolution and capabilities. For example, Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) were theorized by an Indian physicist and Albert Einstein in the 1920s. Over 70 years later, Wolfgang Ketterle (MIT) and folsk at U Colorado/NIST Lab first experimentally demonstrated BECs. We didn’t change the Universe, the Universe didn’t change for us, but those theoretically-derived explanations by Bose and Einstein did describe phenomena that could not be experimentally demonstrated until long after both of their deaths. Quote We have some equation that says that an electron is held in a hydrogen atom with so much energy. We still don't know why. I think you’re referring to ionizing energy, yes? The general ‘why’ is electrostatics. Something like this. The specific why (on one level) is found in Schrödinger’s equations (time independent is the easiest to solve for H-atom). Depending on what you want to do (predict/explain/interpret) with that information there are other theoretical explanations (theory in the precise scientific meaning not the vernacular “speculative guess” usage) from VSEPR theory for explaining molecular geometries in covalently bonded molecules to quantum field theory (QFT) for sub-atomic behaviors. Underlying what you're asking are another couple questions that I find interesting spanning philosophy and neural science: Is it a human trait to try to find, discover, or assign meaning to things that just are? Why do we humans do that? ... & is there an underlying neuro-biochemical explanation? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #87 January 10, 2009 QuoteQuote We still don't know why. Outside of the human thirst for meaning, is there any why? Good question, imo, that gets to the core of a lot of the debate and differences. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #88 January 10, 2009 > But when have you ever seen fabric spontaneously create it self from > nothing? Literal fabric? Never. Bits and pieces? All the time; refer to the Casimir effect. If your position is "everything came from something and thus I will call that something God" that's fine. But you risk a gradual whittling away of your conception of God as we understand that more and more of the universe happened that way because it had to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites argyle 0 #89 January 11, 2009 QuoteDo you mean a descriptive or physically explicative “why,” meaning, or significance? Or do you mean a motivational, intentional, or rational-acting significance? I.e., what, if I read correctly, [deibido]’s response to you is asking. Neither. The "descriptive or physically explicative" explanation is what we do so well. I don't believe that there is a "motivational...." explanation. I am talking about the real 'why'. I suppose it's like asking where the universe came from. For example, we understand the forces that hold the solar system and galaxies together pretty well. The equation (Einstein's) has some geometry stuff on one side and the mass distribution on the other side. It gives us gravity, black holes, and the shape of the universe. If you read about how Einstein came up with it, as much as he wrote, it was his idea of logic, beauty, and simplicity. Bottom line is that it works as far as we can test it. So why do matter and geometry interact like this? This is the ultimate question. This is the 'why'. We just don't know. QuoteSo, yes a lot about the Universe is explained. Well, here it is. By 'explained', you mean you have an equation. Quantum mechanics is governed by Schroedinger's equation. Schroedinger and his buddies in the 20's just kept trying different modifications to known equations until they came up with something that worked. (He got there first.) Not only did they not understand the equation, but we still have trouble with what it all means. The equations work, but the 'why' is not even close. Quantum mechanics seems strange to us, yet it runs the universe. QuoteAnd what is the origin of that observation of differences between our observations and theoretical (predictive) understandings? I assert the problem is ultimately our limit of resolution and capabilities. Let's use your example of Bose-Einstein condensation. I am not talking about whether we can measure it or create it. The point is that the effect is due to the 'spin' of particles. Now, spin, is not really spin, but some property that was named spin when people first introduced it. The elementary particle guys have some good ideas, but still, 'why' do some particles have integer spin? Who knows? String theory is an attempt at getting deeper, but to me it looks contrived and way too complicated. QuoteI think you’re referring to ionizing energy, yes? The general ‘why’ is electrostatics. Ok, so here is a good example. (It's not static, but ok.) Classical electrostatics is just a formula which works. It doesn't 'explain' anything. Electrical force can be understood as an exchange of virtual photons which brings in quantum mechanics which brings in everything we know. Still, same ultimate questions. My point is philosophy, not engineering. The ancient could predict positions of the planets pretty well, but had no clue what they were looking at. We can create B-E condensates, but cannot explain why there are bosons. My favorite is still the one about light chasing you at the speed of light. That one fact is responsible for all of relativity, which ultimately is responsible for gravity and the universe. And yet, it is weird and did not have to be that way. Einstein wrote a lot about religion and god, but certainly did not believe in the god of our religions. I think his god was the place where the answers are kept. Sorry about the number of words here. Also sorry if this is too obtuse. Weather is bad. Art Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites argyle 0 #90 January 11, 2009 Quote We still don't know why. Outside of the human thirst for meaning, is there any why? Humans may thirst for the why, but the answer is there whether we get it or not. In some cases we humans can't handle the truth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites deibido 0 #91 January 11, 2009 Quote Humans may thirst for the why, but the answer is there whether we get it or not. You say "why does light chase us at the speed of light?", but does the light need a why? You can keep asking why to every answer, eventually you get back to the same point, "why is there anything instead of nothing?" "Searching for meaning is like riding an ox, in search of an ox." Quote In some cases we humans can't handle the truth. ________________________________________________ The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age. -H.P. Lovecraft "The Call of Cthulhu" _________________________________________________"User assumes all risk" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FallloutboyDAoC 0 #92 January 11, 2009 QuoteQuote Humans may thirst for the why, but the answer is there whether we get it or not. You say "why does light chase us at the speed of light?", but does the light need a why? You can keep asking why to every answer, eventually you get back to the same point, "why is there anything instead of nothing?" "Searching for meaning is like riding an ox, in search of an ox." Quote In some cases we humans can't handle the truth. ________________________________________________ The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age. -H.P. Lovecraft "The Call of Cthulhu" _________________________________________________ Thats the fun of science for me. If the truth was so insane it drove us mad, i think i'd still like to know. I definitely wouldn't want to stay in a state of ignorance just so i don't get scared. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GreyLake 0 #93 January 12, 2009 I was entirely dumbfounded as to whether or not God exists until I saw this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI I've never known anyone to articulate on these matters so simply and convincingly.Let's go to candy mountain. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites maadmax 0 #94 January 12, 2009 If your position is "everything came from something and thus I will call that something God" that's fine. But you risk a gradual whittling away of your conception of God as we understand that more and more of the universe happened that way because it had to. No whittling. God is the source of everything. Everything flows form God in its own unique way. And everything will return to God in its own unique way. ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #77 January 9, 2009 >The problem arises when some scientists take what they know and extrapolate it >into saying, " this just happened by fortuitous chance, no god necessary". That's not a problem at all, and you do exactly the same thing. Millenia ago, man couldn't fly; the only people who could were gods. Nowadays we have Orville and Wilbur, and Boeing, and Pratt and Whitney, and Edel. You can strap on a thirty pound backpack, run down a hill and fly away. No god necessary. Likewise with evolution. We know how life evolves now; we can see it happen and measure the progress. We've seen new species evolve. We've seen gray wolves turn into chihuahuas, and cichlids turn into dozens of different fish. No god necessary. The problem arises (IMO) when someone says "well, since we can fly, and since we know how evolution works, that proves once and for all there's no god." That's not a valid conclusion. >Let the scientists thrive and prosper, but they should call their faith based >conclusions for what they are, a religious expression of secular humanism. A >religion. IMO, attitudes like that are the biggest problem when it comes to understanding the roles of science and religion in society. Science is science. Religion is religion. There is no problem with their coexistence - provided people understand the difference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #78 January 9, 2009 Oh Ya? Well how do you explain the Orange bowl last night. Clearly Florida won because Tebow prayed to Jaysus more than those Okie heathens. Oh sure you can delude yourself and say it was because he was a more talented QB, or that the Gators had a better game plan. That is just you relying your irrational faith in what you can see with your own eyes. I mean Tebow had John under one eye and 3:16 under the other. That is not random. Hmmph! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #79 January 9, 2009 Quote Stephen Hawking would disagree. The difference between science and religion is that one person doesn't decide the "truth." Scientists can and do disagree, and go on to debate, sometimes stooping to childish levels, but it's all about verifiable information. The Church excommunicates. In the older days (as well as certain parts of the world), they imprison and kill the heretics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #80 January 10, 2009 --That's not a problem at all, and you do exactly the same thing. Millenia ago, man couldn't fly; the only people who could were gods. Nowadays we have Orville and Wilbur, and Boeing, and Pratt and Whitney, and Edel. You can strap on a thirty pound backpack, run down a hill and fly away. No god necessary.Quote That is way to simplistic. There are a lot of physical laws that make flying possible. These laws had to come from somewhere, they just didn't fall out of the sky. ________________________________ ________________________________ --Likewise with evolution. We know how life evolves now; we can see it happen and measure the progress. We've seen new species evolve. We've seen gray wolves turn into chihuahuas, and cichlids turn into dozens of different fish. No god necessary.Quote Other than He set the whole process up in the first place. _________________________________ _________________________________ --The problem arises (IMO) when someone says "well, since we can fly, and since we know how evolution works, that proves once and for all there's no god." That's not a valid conclusion. >Let the scientists thrive and prosper, but they should call their faith based >conclusions for what they are, a religious expression of secular humanism. A >religion. --IMO, attitudes like that are the biggest problem when it comes to understanding the roles of science and religion in society. Science is science. Religion is religion. There is no problem with their coexistence - provided people understand the difference. I agree completely! ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites argyle 0 #81 January 10, 2009 Ok, here's some more fodder for the science guys. First, let me say that I have some pretty good credentials in physics, astronomy, engineering, and motorcycle mechanics. I say this just so you know where I'm coming from. Oh, and I'm a complete atheist. When we say that compared to ancient man, we now understand a certain law of nature, what do we mean? We mean that we observe some physical phenomenon, and then we come up with a way to predict what will happen next time under similar circumstances. For instance, using Newton's gravitation we can derive all of Kepler's laws for the orbits of the planets and explain falling skydivers very well. Knowing that the speed of light is constant relative to an observer, we can derive all of Einstein's special relativity. From this and a little quantum mechanics, you can understand how atoms and molecules work. To explain electromagnetism, we came up with the concept of fields and some cute equations that show how radio waves work. And on and on. We know quite a bit about how the physical world works. And, strangely enough, the ancients had most of it completely wrong. (For a really deep thinker, Aristotle had some goofy ideas, etc.) Now, using fancy theories with all their math, we can design airplanes and computers and suspension bridges, so we know it works. But does it EXPLAIN anything about the universe. I say no. We have some equation that says that an electron is held in a hydrogen atom with so much energy. We still don't know why. Having an equation is an explanation of the surface. We will never know what is under the surface. We will never know why the universe exists or why things work the way they do. As deep as our understanding goes, it eventually stops. There are questions that just cannot be asked. Maybe they have answers, but not to us on Earth. We can predict almost anything we can measure, but it's all empirical. At some level we run out of understanding. At some level, there are things that could be different, and we don't know why. (For example, saying that mass warps space and results in the appearance of gravity just peels one more layer of the onion.) So does all this science and engineering conflict with faith in a god? Not as far as I see. I have studied, taught, and worked with most of the hard sciences, and I cannot see where all these equations rule out god. Science has no comment about god. None at all, as long as he does not violate any laws. Stopping the Sun would be right out. Reading your mind, pretty doubtful. The problem that I have is that I also can see absolutely no reason to believe that there is a god. Those people who say "god does this, god does that, god is great, god creates, god destroys, god loves you....." have been sold a bill of goods (IMHO). But, still, I can't tell you why light always chases you at the speed of light. It just does. Art Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #82 January 10, 2009 >That is way to simplistic. There are a lot of physical laws that make >flying possible. These laws had to come from somewhere, they just didn't >fall out of the sky. Nope. The laws were always there. Someday we will discover more basic truths about the universe, perhaps laws that will allow faster than light travel, or that tell us how gravity propagates more accurately. God won't give them to us. We won't create them. We will just discover the laws that have always been part of the fabric of the universe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites deibido 0 #83 January 10, 2009 Quote We still don't know why. Outside of the human thirst for meaning, is there any why?"User assumes all risk" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites maadmax 0 #84 January 10, 2009 Nope. The laws were always there. Someday we will discover more basic truths about the universe, perhaps laws that will allow faster than light travel, or that tell us how gravity propagates more accurately. God won't give them to us. We won't create them. We will just discover the laws that have always been part of the fabric of the universe. Again, I am in complete agreement with what you are saying. But when have you ever seen fabric spontaneously create it self from nothing? ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
argyle 0 #81 January 10, 2009 Ok, here's some more fodder for the science guys. First, let me say that I have some pretty good credentials in physics, astronomy, engineering, and motorcycle mechanics. I say this just so you know where I'm coming from. Oh, and I'm a complete atheist. When we say that compared to ancient man, we now understand a certain law of nature, what do we mean? We mean that we observe some physical phenomenon, and then we come up with a way to predict what will happen next time under similar circumstances. For instance, using Newton's gravitation we can derive all of Kepler's laws for the orbits of the planets and explain falling skydivers very well. Knowing that the speed of light is constant relative to an observer, we can derive all of Einstein's special relativity. From this and a little quantum mechanics, you can understand how atoms and molecules work. To explain electromagnetism, we came up with the concept of fields and some cute equations that show how radio waves work. And on and on. We know quite a bit about how the physical world works. And, strangely enough, the ancients had most of it completely wrong. (For a really deep thinker, Aristotle had some goofy ideas, etc.) Now, using fancy theories with all their math, we can design airplanes and computers and suspension bridges, so we know it works. But does it EXPLAIN anything about the universe. I say no. We have some equation that says that an electron is held in a hydrogen atom with so much energy. We still don't know why. Having an equation is an explanation of the surface. We will never know what is under the surface. We will never know why the universe exists or why things work the way they do. As deep as our understanding goes, it eventually stops. There are questions that just cannot be asked. Maybe they have answers, but not to us on Earth. We can predict almost anything we can measure, but it's all empirical. At some level we run out of understanding. At some level, there are things that could be different, and we don't know why. (For example, saying that mass warps space and results in the appearance of gravity just peels one more layer of the onion.) So does all this science and engineering conflict with faith in a god? Not as far as I see. I have studied, taught, and worked with most of the hard sciences, and I cannot see where all these equations rule out god. Science has no comment about god. None at all, as long as he does not violate any laws. Stopping the Sun would be right out. Reading your mind, pretty doubtful. The problem that I have is that I also can see absolutely no reason to believe that there is a god. Those people who say "god does this, god does that, god is great, god creates, god destroys, god loves you....." have been sold a bill of goods (IMHO). But, still, I can't tell you why light always chases you at the speed of light. It just does. Art Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #82 January 10, 2009 >That is way to simplistic. There are a lot of physical laws that make >flying possible. These laws had to come from somewhere, they just didn't >fall out of the sky. Nope. The laws were always there. Someday we will discover more basic truths about the universe, perhaps laws that will allow faster than light travel, or that tell us how gravity propagates more accurately. God won't give them to us. We won't create them. We will just discover the laws that have always been part of the fabric of the universe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deibido 0 #83 January 10, 2009 Quote We still don't know why. Outside of the human thirst for meaning, is there any why?"User assumes all risk" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #84 January 10, 2009 Nope. The laws were always there. Someday we will discover more basic truths about the universe, perhaps laws that will allow faster than light travel, or that tell us how gravity propagates more accurately. God won't give them to us. We won't create them. We will just discover the laws that have always been part of the fabric of the universe. Again, I am in complete agreement with what you are saying. But when have you ever seen fabric spontaneously create it self from nothing? ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #85 January 10, 2009 shucks, you were doing so well until you got to your conclusion paragraph. God exists, whether it is us creating our own little universes, or the God of science who created the universe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #86 January 10, 2009 Do you mean a descriptive or physically explicative “why,” meaning, or significance? Or do you mean a motivational, intentional, or rational-acting significance? I.e., what, if I read correctly, [deibido]’s response to you is asking. Quote Now, using fancy theories with all their math, we can design airplanes and computers and suspension bridges, so we know it works. But does it EXPLAIN anything about the universe. I say no. I don’t understand what you mean? Do macroscale explanations extend to astronomical limits? Those “fancy theories” explain observed physical behavior of the Universe. You gave a number of examples. So, yes a lot about the Universe is explained. Historically, has the approach generally been inductive? Yes, to some extent, largely because of limitations on human and machine capabilities for processing and capacity. Quote At some level, there are things that could be different, and we don't know why. (For example, saying that mass warps space and results in the appearance of gravity just peels one more layer of the onion.) And what is the origin of that observation of differences between our observations and theoretical (predictive) understandings? I assert the problem is ultimately our limit of resolution and capabilities. For example, Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) were theorized by an Indian physicist and Albert Einstein in the 1920s. Over 70 years later, Wolfgang Ketterle (MIT) and folsk at U Colorado/NIST Lab first experimentally demonstrated BECs. We didn’t change the Universe, the Universe didn’t change for us, but those theoretically-derived explanations by Bose and Einstein did describe phenomena that could not be experimentally demonstrated until long after both of their deaths. Quote We have some equation that says that an electron is held in a hydrogen atom with so much energy. We still don't know why. I think you’re referring to ionizing energy, yes? The general ‘why’ is electrostatics. Something like this. The specific why (on one level) is found in Schrödinger’s equations (time independent is the easiest to solve for H-atom). Depending on what you want to do (predict/explain/interpret) with that information there are other theoretical explanations (theory in the precise scientific meaning not the vernacular “speculative guess” usage) from VSEPR theory for explaining molecular geometries in covalently bonded molecules to quantum field theory (QFT) for sub-atomic behaviors. Underlying what you're asking are another couple questions that I find interesting spanning philosophy and neural science: Is it a human trait to try to find, discover, or assign meaning to things that just are? Why do we humans do that? ... & is there an underlying neuro-biochemical explanation? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #87 January 10, 2009 QuoteQuote We still don't know why. Outside of the human thirst for meaning, is there any why? Good question, imo, that gets to the core of a lot of the debate and differences. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #88 January 10, 2009 > But when have you ever seen fabric spontaneously create it self from > nothing? Literal fabric? Never. Bits and pieces? All the time; refer to the Casimir effect. If your position is "everything came from something and thus I will call that something God" that's fine. But you risk a gradual whittling away of your conception of God as we understand that more and more of the universe happened that way because it had to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
argyle 0 #89 January 11, 2009 QuoteDo you mean a descriptive or physically explicative “why,” meaning, or significance? Or do you mean a motivational, intentional, or rational-acting significance? I.e., what, if I read correctly, [deibido]’s response to you is asking. Neither. The "descriptive or physically explicative" explanation is what we do so well. I don't believe that there is a "motivational...." explanation. I am talking about the real 'why'. I suppose it's like asking where the universe came from. For example, we understand the forces that hold the solar system and galaxies together pretty well. The equation (Einstein's) has some geometry stuff on one side and the mass distribution on the other side. It gives us gravity, black holes, and the shape of the universe. If you read about how Einstein came up with it, as much as he wrote, it was his idea of logic, beauty, and simplicity. Bottom line is that it works as far as we can test it. So why do matter and geometry interact like this? This is the ultimate question. This is the 'why'. We just don't know. QuoteSo, yes a lot about the Universe is explained. Well, here it is. By 'explained', you mean you have an equation. Quantum mechanics is governed by Schroedinger's equation. Schroedinger and his buddies in the 20's just kept trying different modifications to known equations until they came up with something that worked. (He got there first.) Not only did they not understand the equation, but we still have trouble with what it all means. The equations work, but the 'why' is not even close. Quantum mechanics seems strange to us, yet it runs the universe. QuoteAnd what is the origin of that observation of differences between our observations and theoretical (predictive) understandings? I assert the problem is ultimately our limit of resolution and capabilities. Let's use your example of Bose-Einstein condensation. I am not talking about whether we can measure it or create it. The point is that the effect is due to the 'spin' of particles. Now, spin, is not really spin, but some property that was named spin when people first introduced it. The elementary particle guys have some good ideas, but still, 'why' do some particles have integer spin? Who knows? String theory is an attempt at getting deeper, but to me it looks contrived and way too complicated. QuoteI think you’re referring to ionizing energy, yes? The general ‘why’ is electrostatics. Ok, so here is a good example. (It's not static, but ok.) Classical electrostatics is just a formula which works. It doesn't 'explain' anything. Electrical force can be understood as an exchange of virtual photons which brings in quantum mechanics which brings in everything we know. Still, same ultimate questions. My point is philosophy, not engineering. The ancient could predict positions of the planets pretty well, but had no clue what they were looking at. We can create B-E condensates, but cannot explain why there are bosons. My favorite is still the one about light chasing you at the speed of light. That one fact is responsible for all of relativity, which ultimately is responsible for gravity and the universe. And yet, it is weird and did not have to be that way. Einstein wrote a lot about religion and god, but certainly did not believe in the god of our religions. I think his god was the place where the answers are kept. Sorry about the number of words here. Also sorry if this is too obtuse. Weather is bad. Art Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
argyle 0 #90 January 11, 2009 Quote We still don't know why. Outside of the human thirst for meaning, is there any why? Humans may thirst for the why, but the answer is there whether we get it or not. In some cases we humans can't handle the truth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deibido 0 #91 January 11, 2009 Quote Humans may thirst for the why, but the answer is there whether we get it or not. You say "why does light chase us at the speed of light?", but does the light need a why? You can keep asking why to every answer, eventually you get back to the same point, "why is there anything instead of nothing?" "Searching for meaning is like riding an ox, in search of an ox." Quote In some cases we humans can't handle the truth. ________________________________________________ The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age. -H.P. Lovecraft "The Call of Cthulhu" _________________________________________________"User assumes all risk" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallloutboyDAoC 0 #92 January 11, 2009 QuoteQuote Humans may thirst for the why, but the answer is there whether we get it or not. You say "why does light chase us at the speed of light?", but does the light need a why? You can keep asking why to every answer, eventually you get back to the same point, "why is there anything instead of nothing?" "Searching for meaning is like riding an ox, in search of an ox." Quote In some cases we humans can't handle the truth. ________________________________________________ The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age. -H.P. Lovecraft "The Call of Cthulhu" _________________________________________________ Thats the fun of science for me. If the truth was so insane it drove us mad, i think i'd still like to know. I definitely wouldn't want to stay in a state of ignorance just so i don't get scared. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GreyLake 0 #93 January 12, 2009 I was entirely dumbfounded as to whether or not God exists until I saw this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI I've never known anyone to articulate on these matters so simply and convincingly.Let's go to candy mountain. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #94 January 12, 2009 If your position is "everything came from something and thus I will call that something God" that's fine. But you risk a gradual whittling away of your conception of God as we understand that more and more of the universe happened that way because it had to. No whittling. God is the source of everything. Everything flows form God in its own unique way. And everything will return to God in its own unique way. ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deibido 0 #95 January 12, 2009 Quote No whittling. God is the source of everything. Everything flows form God in its own unique way. And everything will return to God in its own unique way. The motion of the Way is to return; The use of the Way is to accept; All things come from the Way, And the Way comes from nothing."User assumes all risk" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #96 January 12, 2009 >No whittling. It's been going on for a long time. God once supported the heavens and created everything from formlessness. Now we know how the planets formed. God once created us from dust. Now we know that's not true - even IDers admit that some form of evolution got us here. This will continue in the future as we learn more about the natural world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #97 January 12, 2009 QuoteNow we know how the planets formed. No we don't. There's theories and inferences. QuoteGod once created us from dust. Now we know that's not true No we don't. And actually, the Bible says he created us in his image. There's no mention of creating us from dust in Genesis. Quote - even IDers admit that some form of evolution got us here. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. The first chapter of Genesis says all the creatures in the sea and air were created first. Then the land creatures. Then humans. Maybe evolution played a great role in that. Maybe it didn't. Evolution's existence is not mutally exclusive from God's existence. QuoteThis will continue in the future as we learn more about the natural world. Science doesn't explain away God. The percentage of religious people in the world does not decrease each year, even with the advent of new theories. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #98 January 12, 2009 >No we don't. There's theories and inferences. Sorry, should have said "we know the basic physical processes that created the planets, and they did not involve the earth being created before the rest of the universe." >There's no mention of creating us from dust in Genesis. Genesis 2:7 - "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." >That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. I agree! It is neither proof of his existence nor his absence. >The first chapter of Genesis says all the creatures in the sea and air were >created first. Then the land creatures. Then humans. Not quite accurate according to Genesis 2. It clearly lists the order. Garden of Eden first, then man, then trees, then cattle and all other animals, then woman. Now, you could argue all day over whether Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 is more accurate. But that's pointless; it's not a history or science book. >Maybe evolution played a great role in that. Maybe it didn't. Evolution's >existence is not mutally exclusive from God's existence. I agree there also. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #99 January 13, 2009 Quote Science doesn't explain away God. The percentage of religious people in the world does not decrease each year, even with the advent of new theories. Are you sure of this? I know very few people who attend church on Sundays. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #100 January 13, 2009 QuoteAgain, I do not think it fits Evolution, rather mutation. Same thing. Mutation + natural selection = evolution. I don't believe in Jeevus, or any so god that has been explained to me, you would have to be an idiot to believe that crap. That is not to say there is not a creator of some kind, I imagine a great flaming mass of energy in the middle of the universe, if there is a middle, but who really knows. I believe in evolution and that seemed straight forward untill I found out about 'Bacterial Flagellum' http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/irreducible_complexity_01.html These things go completely against darwins theory, but do not make God any more feasable. Quite, a complex conversation but simple in theory."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
