Author Topic: Faith within Science ... Really?  (Read 2784 times)

Offline Aupmanyav

Re: Faith within Science ... Really?
« Reply #15 on: December 31, 2013, 08:15:54 AM »
Quote from: "frosty"
Don't you realize how hypocritical that is, that you are allowed to hold an extreme conviction without absolute evidence and yet you don't like it when Atheists can hold a conviction with absolute evidence?
Frosty, were you replying to my post. If you were, I would say 'absolute evidence' is a misnomer. Do we have 'absolute evidence' that a teapot is not circling around the globe, perhaps left there by the sky-daddy. However, I have already mentioned that if science comes up with something new, I would change my views accordingly.
"Brahma Satyam Jagan-mithya" (Brahman is the truth, the observed is an illusion)
"Sarve Khalu Idam Brahma" (All this here is Brahman)

Re: Faith within Science ... Really?
« Reply #16 on: December 31, 2013, 08:57:45 AM »
Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"
The mere inability to measure a detail, e.g. the position vs. speed of a particle, can't undermine determinism.

It bloody well can.

Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"
It only means you're not in a position to measure both. Additionally, some scientists say that they are very close to circumventing this limitation.

[Citation Needed]
Winner of WitchSabrinas Best Advice Award 2012


We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real
tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. -Plato

Offline frosty

Re: Faith within Science ... Really?
« Reply #17 on: December 31, 2013, 04:29:07 PM »
Quote from: "Aupmanyav"
Quote from: "frosty"
Don't you realize how hypocritical that is, that you are allowed to hold an extreme conviction without absolute evidence and yet you don't like it when Atheists can hold a conviction with absolute evidence?
Frosty, were you replying to my post. If you were, I would say 'absolute evidence' is a misnomer. Do we have 'absolute evidence' that a teapot is not circling around the globe, perhaps left there by the sky-daddy. However, I have already mentioned that if science comes up with something new, I would change my views accordingly.

Uhhh..... no I was not replying to you at all. I was replying to the OP in the context of the bold words he added before he copypasta'd the article. I thought you were a staunch Atheist anyhow?

Re: Faith within Science ... Really?
« Reply #18 on: December 31, 2013, 09:41:11 PM »

Offline AllPurposeAtheist

Re: Faith within Science ... Really?
« Reply #19 on: December 31, 2013, 09:57:45 PM »
Quote from: "aitm"
Oh yeah? Well when the zombies attack you'll be the first fuck we throw at em....useless fuck. So there!
Tossing him in a church probably won't prevent stupidity.. :-$
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Offline Aupmanyav

Re: Faith within Science ... Really?
« Reply #20 on: January 03, 2014, 09:32:22 AM »
Quote from: "frosty"
I thought you were a staunch Atheist anyhow?
That is right, in spite of hundreds if not thousands of Gods and Goddesses in Hinduism.
"Brahma Satyam Jagan-mithya" (Brahman is the truth, the observed is an illusion)
"Sarve Khalu Idam Brahma" (All this here is Brahman)

Re: Faith within Science ... Really?
« Reply #21 on: January 03, 2014, 11:17:57 AM »
>  By the end of the 19th century, it appeared to nearly everyone that Classical Mechanics was absolutely true.

Not true.  There was evidence even then that classical mechanics was incomplete.  The planet Mercury orbits so close to the sun that the space it travels through is warped by the sun's gravitational field.  It was known that the orbit of Mercury deviated slightly from that predicted by classical mechanics.  So they at least had an inkling that there was more going on.

Today, the media are at least partly responsible.  Everyone wants certainty.  Remember the lines from the song:

When I was a boy, world was better spot.
What was so, was so; what was not, was not.
Now I am a man; world have changed a lot.
Some things nearly so; others nearly not.

The media seek out quotes that represent certainty, because it sells commercial time.  And sometimes, scientists over-sell their conclusions, in hopes of fame and fortune.  Scientists are, after all, people.

> What is worthy of serious attention is that the universe greatly exceeds human comprehension. The elegance and mathematical beauty of the laws that govern it virtually shout "intelligence!" at everyone who thinks about it. The most reasonable and responsible conclusion to draw is that the universe was created by that supreme intelligence. It's a fairly short step from there to the inference that God cares about the universe and the rational beings who inhabit it.

That is a totally unwarranted conclusion.  Just because there are things that we can't comprehend at the moment doesn't imply an intelligent creator.  Just a century ago, we had no idea what made the sun shine.  That didn't mean a god did it.  Through the process of science, that assumes materialism, we have learned not only what makes the sun shine, but we can duplicate it.  The fact that some suns explode, taking their planets and all life thereon with them, indicates that either the universe wasn't designed, or it was incredibly badly designed.

Think about it.  If your god really cared about people, why would he make tidal waves that kill hundreds of thousands, including women, children, and babies?  Why would horrible diseases ravage the population?  Why would some starve while others feast?  If I were God, I would fix that.  I seem to be more caring than your god.

Frank

Re: Faith within Science ... Really?
« Reply #22 on: January 05, 2014, 01:23:00 AM »
Quote from: "Jason78"
Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"
The mere inability to measure a detail, e.g. the position vs. speed of a particle, can't undermine determinism.

It bloody well can.
I specifically meant that the inability to measure something doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't work in a cause-effect manner. What else are you taking from that statement?

Quote from: "Jason78"
Quote from: "SkepticOfMyOwnMind"
It only means you're not in a position to measure both. Additionally, some scientists say that they are very close to circumventing this limitation.

[Citation Needed]
Citations:
I did say circumventing, not disproving. Admittedly, I should have used the word circumvented.
I first assume that knowledge is not inherently connected to anything but its physical structure and physical processes that interact with the container of knowledge.

This means that "knowledge" could be an inaccurate term, describing a much more complex system.
This means that the difference between humans and machines could be completely irrelevant for the area of artificial intelligence.
This means that anything we consider true, even our most precious notions, can always be wrong.

Re: Faith within Science ... Really?
« Reply #23 on: November 27, 2016, 12:05:51 PM »
This isnt about the mere inabilyty to measure but about the ontological properties of these particles.

Gerard
The Historical Atlas of Europe
But as man exists in nature, I am not authorized to say that his formation, is above the power of nature.
Paul Henri Thiry Baron d' Holbach, (1723-1789)

Re: Faith within Science ... Really?
« Reply #24 on: November 27, 2016, 12:55:28 PM »
HOLY NECRO BATMAN!
Some people need to be beaten with a smart stick.

Kein Mehrheit Fur Die Mitleid!

Kein Mitlied F�r Die Mehrheit!

Offline Baruch

Re: Faith within Science ... Really?
« Reply #25 on: November 27, 2016, 08:16:01 PM »
This isnt about the mere inabilyty to measure but about the ontological properties of these particles.

Gerard

What is an ontology?  That is from philosophy, not physics.
שלום

Offline Cavebear

Re: Faith within Science ... Really?
« Reply #26 on: November 28, 2016, 01:10:40 AM »
Let's see.  In ancient times, we assumed that lightning and other natural events were caused by a deity.  We learned different.  We have passed all that superstitious nonsense now.  Is there some reason that things we don't undertand now must therefore be caused by a deity?  Of course not. 

We will learn and dismiss all the deity-explanations one by one as we advance as humans.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!  b 1950

Offline Baruch

Re: Faith within Science ... Really?
« Reply #27 on: November 28, 2016, 07:06:33 AM »
Science advances, people do not.  See destruction of Library of Alexandria.
שלום