Faith and science
-
No
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
Well, don't leave me hanging.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
OK - you've been hanging long enough. The difference in believing in some supernatural creator who spends his time checking out what folk are doing, making up floods and performing the odd miracle, and sorting the good from the bad so they can be rewarded or punished, and having some common sense, is manifest. Science is based upon the processes which give reproducible results. Because there are, unfortunately, people who are dumb, have a vested interest or possibly both, even such evidence can be ignored, skewed or (at times) faked - but hence peer reviewing of scientific papers. (I'd march down the GW path here if I didn't think it would just serve to dilute the issues at hand) Many a psychic has been proven to be a charlatan - with real hard evidence showing how they fooled their punters; yet fools continue to hold onto their beliefs despite this real scientific evidence to the contrary. So we have to deal with both scientific evidence and the willingness to accept that evidence. Unfortunately, human nature seems to be that, once something has been believed, it is very difficult to dissuade people, even when showing that the 'facts' on which their belief was built is erroneous. What evidence is there for a god? None. At. All. Earlier civilizations believed in various deities - yet those 'christian' god believers would say they were wrong - but the evidence of a god that they had was equally as strong as the evidence of any 'one true god' (i.e. there was none) The only thing that points to the existence of a deity is the existence of anything at all - but the obvious circular reference applies there - so the instantaneous creation of a single deity is equally as likely as the instantaneous creation of anything else - including a deity-free universe or 40 billion gods. So the point is, I guess, that scientific ideas, while they may be modified over time, are supported by reproducible and calculatable processes. So eht current ideas are accepted (I refrain from using the word belief) and used with consistent results. Evidence of a God is certainly not reproducible (because there isn't any) That's the point.
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
OK - you've been hanging long enough. The difference in believing in some supernatural creator who spends his time checking out what folk are doing, making up floods and performing the odd miracle, and sorting the good from the bad so they can be rewarded or punished, and having some common sense, is manifest. Science is based upon the processes which give reproducible results. Because there are, unfortunately, people who are dumb, have a vested interest or possibly both, even such evidence can be ignored, skewed or (at times) faked - but hence peer reviewing of scientific papers. (I'd march down the GW path here if I didn't think it would just serve to dilute the issues at hand) Many a psychic has been proven to be a charlatan - with real hard evidence showing how they fooled their punters; yet fools continue to hold onto their beliefs despite this real scientific evidence to the contrary. So we have to deal with both scientific evidence and the willingness to accept that evidence. Unfortunately, human nature seems to be that, once something has been believed, it is very difficult to dissuade people, even when showing that the 'facts' on which their belief was built is erroneous. What evidence is there for a god? None. At. All. Earlier civilizations believed in various deities - yet those 'christian' god believers would say they were wrong - but the evidence of a god that they had was equally as strong as the evidence of any 'one true god' (i.e. there was none) The only thing that points to the existence of a deity is the existence of anything at all - but the obvious circular reference applies there - so the instantaneous creation of a single deity is equally as likely as the instantaneous creation of anything else - including a deity-free universe or 40 billion gods. So the point is, I guess, that scientific ideas, while they may be modified over time, are supported by reproducible and calculatable processes. So eht current ideas are accepted (I refrain from using the word belief) and used with consistent results. Evidence of a God is certainly not reproducible (because there isn't any) That's the point.
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
Quote:
What evidence is there for a god? None. At. All.
Not true at all. Everything is evidence. You yourself are evidence. Answer this, in the court of law how many witnesses does it take to establish something as truth?
Quote:
so the instantaneous creation of a single deity is equally
That's because it wasn't instantaneous. The problem with your argument (and you all have the same argument) is you are essentially saying, "I don't understand it therefore it must not exist." That's quite juvenile. The path to understanding has been laid out for 1000s of years yet you refuse to test it and instead lazily claim it must not be true.
Quote:
are supported by reproducible and calculatable processes.
So is God. If I do good, I feel good. If I do bad, I feel bad. And where does this come from? And why? And who defined good? And who defined bad? Etc, etc. Yes, there IS a chemical process but why?
Quote:
Evidence of a God is certainly not reproducible
Of course it is. But you won't be able to use a voltmeter or a microscope to prove it. Just because science does not understand it does not mean it does not exist. It's foolish to believe that science is the only source of truth.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
What evidence is there for a god? None. At. All.
Not true at all. Everything is evidence. You yourself are evidence. Answer this, in the court of law how many witnesses does it take to establish something as truth?
Quote:
so the instantaneous creation of a single deity is equally
That's because it wasn't instantaneous. The problem with your argument (and you all have the same argument) is you are essentially saying, "I don't understand it therefore it must not exist." That's quite juvenile. The path to understanding has been laid out for 1000s of years yet you refuse to test it and instead lazily claim it must not be true.
Quote:
are supported by reproducible and calculatable processes.
So is God. If I do good, I feel good. If I do bad, I feel bad. And where does this come from? And why? And who defined good? And who defined bad? Etc, etc. Yes, there IS a chemical process but why?
Quote:
Evidence of a God is certainly not reproducible
Of course it is. But you won't be able to use a voltmeter or a microscope to prove it. Just because science does not understand it does not mean it does not exist. It's foolish to believe that science is the only source of truth.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
Everything is evidence. You yourself are evidence.
You could equally as well say that everything, myself included, is evidence of the great Ak-Kabar, maser of the Snake kingdom, whose slimy bile clots to make man.
RyanDev wrote:
Answer this, in the court of law how many witnesses does it take to establish something as truth?
Well, one set of witnesses saying one thing, and another saying the opposite, would lead to an unknown situation, not proof.
RyanDev wrote:
That's because it wasn't instantaneous.
what? Took seven days, did it?
RyanDev wrote:
"I don't understand it therefore it must not exist."
That is entirely wrong. I'm not saying that at all, I don't think that at all. I am saying I have seen no evidence of God, I have seen plenty of evidence of there being no god, of charlatans saying they believe in a god who don't and I have no doubt at all that large number of people think there must be a god for EXACTLY the argument you are saying I put forward - i.e. they don't understand something so it must be divine.
RyanDev wrote:
The path to understanding has been laid out for 1000s of years yet you refuse to test it and instead lazily claim it must not be true.
I honestly do not understand what you are saying here/
RyanDev wrote:
So is God. If I do good, I feel good. If I do bad, I feel bad. And where does this come from? And why? And who defined good? And who defined bad? Etc, etc. Yes, there IS a chemical process but why?
Well, at the risk of patronising you, evolution has a lot to do with it. Nobody 'defined' good - indeed different people would define good differently. Some people believe that adultery is wrong, and the stoning to death of an adulterous woman is good, and I guess they feel good after doing it. These people believe in god and believe they are doing good The chemical processes involved (generally) in feeling good lie in the evolutionary process; by feeling good about, say, pleasing the tribe leader, your life would tend to be longer, and your offspring more numerous. (of course evolutionary speaking it goes way beck before then) As a simple example, many people feel nauseous if they see
-
RyanDev wrote:
Everything is evidence. You yourself are evidence.
You could equally as well say that everything, myself included, is evidence of the great Ak-Kabar, maser of the Snake kingdom, whose slimy bile clots to make man.
RyanDev wrote:
Answer this, in the court of law how many witnesses does it take to establish something as truth?
Well, one set of witnesses saying one thing, and another saying the opposite, would lead to an unknown situation, not proof.
RyanDev wrote:
That's because it wasn't instantaneous.
what? Took seven days, did it?
RyanDev wrote:
"I don't understand it therefore it must not exist."
That is entirely wrong. I'm not saying that at all, I don't think that at all. I am saying I have seen no evidence of God, I have seen plenty of evidence of there being no god, of charlatans saying they believe in a god who don't and I have no doubt at all that large number of people think there must be a god for EXACTLY the argument you are saying I put forward - i.e. they don't understand something so it must be divine.
RyanDev wrote:
The path to understanding has been laid out for 1000s of years yet you refuse to test it and instead lazily claim it must not be true.
I honestly do not understand what you are saying here/
RyanDev wrote:
So is God. If I do good, I feel good. If I do bad, I feel bad. And where does this come from? And why? And who defined good? And who defined bad? Etc, etc. Yes, there IS a chemical process but why?
Well, at the risk of patronising you, evolution has a lot to do with it. Nobody 'defined' good - indeed different people would define good differently. Some people believe that adultery is wrong, and the stoning to death of an adulterous woman is good, and I guess they feel good after doing it. These people believe in god and believe they are doing good The chemical processes involved (generally) in feeling good lie in the evolutionary process; by feeling good about, say, pleasing the tribe leader, your life would tend to be longer, and your offspring more numerous. (of course evolutionary speaking it goes way beck before then) As a simple example, many people feel nauseous if they see
Quote:
You could equally as well say that everything, myself included, is evidence of the great Ak-Kabar,
Yes, exactly. Or that everything is evidence of a big bang. So, why do you believe big bang over the other options?
Quote:
Well, one set of witnesses saying one thing, and another saying the opposite, would lead to an unknown situation, not proof.
Perhaps. However, there are people saying they have seen God. There is not a single person who can prove He does not exist.
Quote:
I honestly do not understand what you are saying here/
It's like a seed. You plant it and then if you nourish it, it will grow and produce fruit. A desire to know the truth is a seed. Planting it and nourishing it is to do what Christ taught. The fruit will be knowledge that He is real. That's an oversimplification but the way to know if God exists or not has been around for 1000s of years and has been proven by millions, perhaps billions of people. That's a little bit more than 2 witnesses that the law requires to establish something as truth.
Quote:
in feeling good lie in the evolutionary process; by feeling good about, say, pleasing the tribe leader, your life would tend to be longer
But that's a selfish act and in turn will not make you feel good. What about taking a box off of a truck? If I am stealing it I feel bad (assuming I am not past feeling) but if I am helping someone move I feel good? How could evolution create that? And why out of the millions upon millions of species are we the only ones like that? Evolution and randomness cannot create that.
Quote:
and failing to produce any.
I explained the process. It's similar to wind. You can't see it or touch it or even taste it or hear it but you can see evidence of it. The difference is with wind, you don't have to make any effort to notice the effects. However, with God, the analogy holds true but you have to make an effort, you have to test it and nourish the seed. My point is you sit there and don't test the religious process and only have faith in the scientific process.
Quote:
I'm afraid there isn't a god.
Then I dare you to prove it. Of course you can't. It's just a belief that you have. The pr
-
Quote:
You could equally as well say that everything, myself included, is evidence of the great Ak-Kabar,
Yes, exactly. Or that everything is evidence of a big bang. So, why do you believe big bang over the other options?
Quote:
Well, one set of witnesses saying one thing, and another saying the opposite, would lead to an unknown situation, not proof.
Perhaps. However, there are people saying they have seen God. There is not a single person who can prove He does not exist.
Quote:
I honestly do not understand what you are saying here/
It's like a seed. You plant it and then if you nourish it, it will grow and produce fruit. A desire to know the truth is a seed. Planting it and nourishing it is to do what Christ taught. The fruit will be knowledge that He is real. That's an oversimplification but the way to know if God exists or not has been around for 1000s of years and has been proven by millions, perhaps billions of people. That's a little bit more than 2 witnesses that the law requires to establish something as truth.
Quote:
in feeling good lie in the evolutionary process; by feeling good about, say, pleasing the tribe leader, your life would tend to be longer
But that's a selfish act and in turn will not make you feel good. What about taking a box off of a truck? If I am stealing it I feel bad (assuming I am not past feeling) but if I am helping someone move I feel good? How could evolution create that? And why out of the millions upon millions of species are we the only ones like that? Evolution and randomness cannot create that.
Quote:
and failing to produce any.
I explained the process. It's similar to wind. You can't see it or touch it or even taste it or hear it but you can see evidence of it. The difference is with wind, you don't have to make any effort to notice the effects. However, with God, the analogy holds true but you have to make an effort, you have to test it and nourish the seed. My point is you sit there and don't test the religious process and only have faith in the scientific process.
Quote:
I'm afraid there isn't a god.
Then I dare you to prove it. Of course you can't. It's just a belief that you have. The pr
RyanDev wrote:
So, why do you believe big bang over the other options?
Well, because there is ample evidence to support the theory; in fact I am not convinced of the big bang, but such things as the background radiation, the expansion of the universe etc. concur with such an event. There is no such evidence to support the theory that god just upped and created everything.
RyanDev wrote:
However, there are people saying they have seen God. There is not a single person who can prove He does not exist.
Sure. There are also lots of people saying they have been abducted by aliens - should I believe little green men are visiting too? Their evidence is exactly as believable as those that claim to see / talk to god (although talking to god is obviously easy - its those that claim to be answered that are at best mistaken) And of course you cannot prove that anything doesn't exist. That doesn't mean it is any more likely that it does. I could say that unicorns exist; I could claim to have seen one; that does not mean they are likely to exist.
RyanDev wrote:
It's like a seed. You plant it and then if you nourish it, it will grow and produce fruit. A desire to know the truth is a seed. Planting it and nourishing it is to do what Christ taught. The fruit will be knowledge that He is real.
Hey. don't go all whacky on me now - that's pure religion-speak and means nothing.
RyanDev wrote:
the way to know if God exists or not has been around for 1000s of years and has been proven by millions
But what of all the other billions of people who have (and do_ believe in other deities? Do you not see that they are equally likely to be right as you? Why should your belief be any more valid than anyone else's? Are they all mistaken and you're not?
RyanDev wrote:
That's a little bit more than 2 witnesses that the law requires to establish something as truth.
INAL - but see my comment regarding little green men.
RyanDev wrote:
But that's a selfish act and in turn will not make you feel good.
Not at all! Pleasing the tribe leader isn't selfish. I'm not talking about someone thinking "Aha! I will give a gift tot eh tribe leader so I will have one of his ha
-
RyanDev wrote:
So, why do you believe big bang over the other options?
Well, because there is ample evidence to support the theory; in fact I am not convinced of the big bang, but such things as the background radiation, the expansion of the universe etc. concur with such an event. There is no such evidence to support the theory that god just upped and created everything.
RyanDev wrote:
However, there are people saying they have seen God. There is not a single person who can prove He does not exist.
Sure. There are also lots of people saying they have been abducted by aliens - should I believe little green men are visiting too? Their evidence is exactly as believable as those that claim to see / talk to god (although talking to god is obviously easy - its those that claim to be answered that are at best mistaken) And of course you cannot prove that anything doesn't exist. That doesn't mean it is any more likely that it does. I could say that unicorns exist; I could claim to have seen one; that does not mean they are likely to exist.
RyanDev wrote:
It's like a seed. You plant it and then if you nourish it, it will grow and produce fruit. A desire to know the truth is a seed. Planting it and nourishing it is to do what Christ taught. The fruit will be knowledge that He is real.
Hey. don't go all whacky on me now - that's pure religion-speak and means nothing.
RyanDev wrote:
the way to know if God exists or not has been around for 1000s of years and has been proven by millions
But what of all the other billions of people who have (and do_ believe in other deities? Do you not see that they are equally likely to be right as you? Why should your belief be any more valid than anyone else's? Are they all mistaken and you're not?
RyanDev wrote:
That's a little bit more than 2 witnesses that the law requires to establish something as truth.
INAL - but see my comment regarding little green men.
RyanDev wrote:
But that's a selfish act and in turn will not make you feel good.
Not at all! Pleasing the tribe leader isn't selfish. I'm not talking about someone thinking "Aha! I will give a gift tot eh tribe leader so I will have one of his ha
Quote:
There is no such evidence to support the theory that god just upped and created everything.
Sure there is. 1. It's impossible for randomness to create what we have today. It can't be done. 2. We have historical records 1000s of years old claiming that they have seen God and that God has told them He created the earth and have seen visions of its creation. 3. We have people alive today who have claimed to know God.
Quote:
and means nothing.
Let me understand this. I give you a process for how to know if God exists and without even trying it you dismiss it purely on prejudicial basis? In that case, what's the point? If you're too closed-minded this will never go anywhere.
Quote:
But what of all the other billions of people who have
That's my point. They know there is a God. Even Einstein knew there had to be one. Just because people don't agree on the nature of God does not take away from the fact that they know there is one.
Quote:
Well you know at the time whether you are stealing or helping.
Of course. And why aren't any other species of the billions like that? How can randomness produce 1 in billions like us? And where did that come from? Evolution? Evolution can't cause that emotion.
Quote:
well, we're not[^], for starters and evolution and randomness can create exactly that.
No it can't. If you believe it, can you prove it? In your own words instead of linking to the internet?
Quote:
But you can define it, predict it, measure it.
As you can with God. Where's the problem?
Quote:
What does that even mean?
Well, I already explained it so I am guessing you are being purposely obtuse. To nourish means to do. As Christ said, if anyone wants to know whether His doctrine is real or not, do it.
Quote:
but it is you who are blinded by that belief to the facts
If it were a fact that God did not exist you would be able to prove it. Therefore, it's not a fact. On the other hand, there is a process you can follow to know if He exists and you refuse to test it. That's on you.
There are only 10
-
Quote:
There is no such evidence to support the theory that god just upped and created everything.
Sure there is. 1. It's impossible for randomness to create what we have today. It can't be done. 2. We have historical records 1000s of years old claiming that they have seen God and that God has told them He created the earth and have seen visions of its creation. 3. We have people alive today who have claimed to know God.
Quote:
and means nothing.
Let me understand this. I give you a process for how to know if God exists and without even trying it you dismiss it purely on prejudicial basis? In that case, what's the point? If you're too closed-minded this will never go anywhere.
Quote:
But what of all the other billions of people who have
That's my point. They know there is a God. Even Einstein knew there had to be one. Just because people don't agree on the nature of God does not take away from the fact that they know there is one.
Quote:
Well you know at the time whether you are stealing or helping.
Of course. And why aren't any other species of the billions like that? How can randomness produce 1 in billions like us? And where did that come from? Evolution? Evolution can't cause that emotion.
Quote:
well, we're not[^], for starters and evolution and randomness can create exactly that.
No it can't. If you believe it, can you prove it? In your own words instead of linking to the internet?
Quote:
But you can define it, predict it, measure it.
As you can with God. Where's the problem?
Quote:
What does that even mean?
Well, I already explained it so I am guessing you are being purposely obtuse. To nourish means to do. As Christ said, if anyone wants to know whether His doctrine is real or not, do it.
Quote:
but it is you who are blinded by that belief to the facts
If it were a fact that God did not exist you would be able to prove it. Therefore, it's not a fact. On the other hand, there is a process you can follow to know if He exists and you refuse to test it. That's on you.
There are only 10
RyanDev wrote:
1. It's impossible for randomness to create what we have today. It can't be done.
Pure randomness, no - but I feel you have a misunderstanding of evolution end physical laws.
RyanDev wrote:
2. We have historical records 1000s of years old claiming that they have seen God and that God has told them He created the earth and have seen visions of its creation
and we have many, many records of those that knew the Sun God made the earth, or some other devine being - yet you choose to believe in a sub set.
RyanDev wrote:
We have people alive today who have claimed to know God.
We also have people who claim to be psychics, claim to have been abducted by aliens etc. etc. etc.
RyanDev wrote:
Even Einstein knew there had to be one.
The same Einstein who said " I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it"
RyanDev wrote:
And why aren't any other species of the billions like that?
Many species cooperate. Monkeys groom one another, for example, bees feed their queen and protect the nest.
RyanDev wrote:
How can randomness produce 1 in billions like us? And where did that come from? Evolution? Evolution can't cause that emotion.
Yes it can. Of course it can. Bodies have feedback from their inputs - at is simplest animals feel pain when things threaten to damage them, and feel pleasure when (for example) eating - as this is doing good. Mother birds regurgitate food for their offspring - this allows the offspring to grow; the chemical processes that have evolved in the mother bird's brain make it 'feel good' when regurgitating for its chicks. There are as many examples as there are creatures - and they ahve all evolved - they haven't just been 'made up' by some deity.
RyanDev wrote:
If you believe it, can you prove it? In your own words instead of linking to the internet?
Well, proving evolution is hard given the time-scales involved, but surely you can look at the
-
Sure, but what 1,000 men call evidence and one man says is not, one can see that, in all probability, the one is a dick head. And I would argue that evidence is evidence - whether you choose to use that evidence as support for an argument or simply refute it is up to the individual, but surely then it is up to all parties to show why they think that evidence is acceptable or not. Examples: Most people agree fossils are evidence of animals long since extinct. Some argue that they were 'put there by god' or are simply not as old as others would have it. Most people believe man travelled to and walked on the moon, evidence being the number of people seeing it, evidence such as moon rocks, etc. Some argue it was all one big hoax. If one was to point out lines of electricity pylons strung across the land in the far future, and suggest that they were used for carrying electricity from place to place, a naysayer could easily say that that wasn't so - but without an alternate viable theory it's just dis-belief.
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
_Maxxx_ wrote:
what 1,000 men call evidence and one man says is not, one can see that, in all probability, the one is a dick head.
Take Galileo and that new fangled heliocentrism theory of his. Some people just don't have a clue. :rolleyes:
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
_Maxxx_ wrote:
what 1,000 men call evidence and one man says is not, one can see that, in all probability, the one is a dick head.
Take Galileo and that new fangled heliocentrism theory of his. Some people just don't have a clue. :rolleyes:
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
_Maxxx_ wrote:
The key here is in the word 'evidence'
Evidence can be very subjective. The inquisitors had evidence of their own. By 1615 Galileo's writings on heliocentrism had been submitted to the Roman Inquisition, and his efforts to interpret scripture seen as a violation of the Council of Trent. :doh:
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
_Maxxx_ wrote:
The key here is in the word 'evidence'
Evidence can be very subjective. The inquisitors had evidence of their own. By 1615 Galileo's writings on heliocentrism had been submitted to the Roman Inquisition, and his efforts to interpret scripture seen as a violation of the Council of Trent. :doh:
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopesJimmyRopes wrote:
Evidence can be very subjective.
Only by those with IQs approximating their shoe size and religious types, so it doesn't count. I don't believe the reason for the church's opposition to Galileo was anyting to do with evidence but all to do with the fact that they'd said the earth was the centre of the universe and didn't want anyone contradicting it - i.e. it was a matter of faith/
-
JimmyRopes wrote:
Evidence can be very subjective.
Only by those with IQs approximating their shoe size and religious types, so it doesn't count. I don't believe the reason for the church's opposition to Galileo was anyting to do with evidence but all to do with the fact that they'd said the earth was the centre of the universe and didn't want anyone contradicting it - i.e. it was a matter of faith/
_Maxxx_ wrote:
I don't believe the reason for the church's opposition to Galileo was anyting to do with evidence but all to do with the fact that they'd said the earth was the centre of the universe and didn't want anyone contradicting it - i.e. it was a matter of faith
Sometimes science is just a matter of faith. Take for instance bloodletting. It survived for 3000 years until it was debunked in the 19th century. There are many examples of so called science that have succumbed to more modern theory. That is how science progresses. New technology comes along and new theories are developed. All with scientific evidence to back them up. Then new technology comes along and new theories are developed. All with scientific evidence to back them up. Then new technology comes along and new theories are developed. All with scientific evidence to back them up. I think you can see where I am going with this. What is evidence today often turns out to be quaint folklore as new technologies come along that allow for a more complete understanding of the physical properties of a phenomenon. Niels Bohr developed a quaint theory about the particle nature of the electron. Wolfgang Pauli comes along and defines the wave function (state function) of a particle. Louis de Broglie later developed a theory about the wave nature of an electron whereby an electron can reside anywhere in an atom, including the nucleus. But this goes against Bohr theory that prohibits an electron to exist in the nucleus. Was believing Bohr's theory a matter of faith, or was it a belief based on the evidence of the day?
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
kmote00 wrote:
Is it rational to believe something that you have literally no way to prove?
First humans are not rational - not a single one of them. Second logic is based on beliefs. Both implicitly and explicitly. Explicitly it via assumptions although the vast majority of people believe those completely. Implicitly it comes from failure to recognize that accepting logic itself is a belief and one that cannot be proven.
kmote00 wrote:
So the obvious question for the astronomer in this distant future is simply...
Hypothetically of course it would be more realistic to consider if the question would even be relevant given that humans might no longer exist, and very likely the Earth will not and most definitely will not exist as it does now.
jschell wrote:
very likely the Earth will not and most definitely will not exist as it does now
The Sun does not have enough mass to explode as a supernova. Instead it will exit the main sequence in approximately 5.4 billion years and start to turn into a red giant. It is calculated that the Sun will become sufficiently large to engulf the current orbits of the solar system's inner planets, possibly including Earth.
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
_Maxxx_ wrote:
I don't believe the reason for the church's opposition to Galileo was anyting to do with evidence but all to do with the fact that they'd said the earth was the centre of the universe and didn't want anyone contradicting it - i.e. it was a matter of faith
Sometimes science is just a matter of faith. Take for instance bloodletting. It survived for 3000 years until it was debunked in the 19th century. There are many examples of so called science that have succumbed to more modern theory. That is how science progresses. New technology comes along and new theories are developed. All with scientific evidence to back them up. Then new technology comes along and new theories are developed. All with scientific evidence to back them up. Then new technology comes along and new theories are developed. All with scientific evidence to back them up. I think you can see where I am going with this. What is evidence today often turns out to be quaint folklore as new technologies come along that allow for a more complete understanding of the physical properties of a phenomenon. Niels Bohr developed a quaint theory about the particle nature of the electron. Wolfgang Pauli comes along and defines the wave function (state function) of a particle. Louis de Broglie later developed a theory about the wave nature of an electron whereby an electron can reside anywhere in an atom, including the nucleus. But this goes against Bohr theory that prohibits an electron to exist in the nucleus. Was believing Bohr's theory a matter of faith, or was it a belief based on the evidence of the day?
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopesJimmyRopes wrote:
Was believing Bohr's theory a matter of faith, or was it a belief based on the evidence of the day
I think people generally accepted the theory due to its ability to explain phenomena - so the accepted it based upon evidence. Outside the scientific community many , I guess, would accept what they were told by those more knowledgeable and one could say that that is belief as a matter of faith. And the thing that reads slightly wrong in your post is the 'new technologies ... new theories' generally speaking theories don't just pop up out of new technology or new information, they evolve. previous theories tend to be found to be right 'under some circumstances' or (as you allude to) given the current knowledge. We still use Newtonian physics every day, for example, even though the equations are measurably wrong at relativistic speeds.
-
JimmyRopes wrote:
Was believing Bohr's theory a matter of faith, or was it a belief based on the evidence of the day
I think people generally accepted the theory due to its ability to explain phenomena - so the accepted it based upon evidence. Outside the scientific community many , I guess, would accept what they were told by those more knowledgeable and one could say that that is belief as a matter of faith. And the thing that reads slightly wrong in your post is the 'new technologies ... new theories' generally speaking theories don't just pop up out of new technology or new information, they evolve. previous theories tend to be found to be right 'under some circumstances' or (as you allude to) given the current knowledge. We still use Newtonian physics every day, for example, even though the equations are measurably wrong at relativistic speeds.
_Maxxx_ wrote:
And the thing that reads slightly wrong in your post is the 'new technologies ... new theories' generally speaking theories don't just pop up out of new technology or new information, they evolve.
I agree, to a certain extent that theories evolve in some cases where there is a firm basis of the theory in the current understanding. In other cases they are shattered by new technology allowing for some new insight into the nature of a phenomenon.
_Maxxx_ wrote:
We still use Newtonian physics every day, for example, even though the equations are measurably wrong at relativistic speeds.
A good example of what you are saying "previous theories tend to be found to be right 'under some circumstances'". Another example might be metallurgy. Some techniques practiced today date back to the bronze age. They are most likely founded in some underlying truth about the composition of metal and likely to change only in application -- new type of furnace as opposed to an open hearth and bellows to excite material at a molecular level -- as technology progresses. Thank you for a well thought interesting discussion into the nature of belief.
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
_Maxxx_ wrote:
And the thing that reads slightly wrong in your post is the 'new technologies ... new theories' generally speaking theories don't just pop up out of new technology or new information, they evolve.
I agree, to a certain extent that theories evolve in some cases where there is a firm basis of the theory in the current understanding. In other cases they are shattered by new technology allowing for some new insight into the nature of a phenomenon.
_Maxxx_ wrote:
We still use Newtonian physics every day, for example, even though the equations are measurably wrong at relativistic speeds.
A good example of what you are saying "previous theories tend to be found to be right 'under some circumstances'". Another example might be metallurgy. Some techniques practiced today date back to the bronze age. They are most likely founded in some underlying truth about the composition of metal and likely to change only in application -- new type of furnace as opposed to an open hearth and bellows to excite material at a molecular level -- as technology progresses. Thank you for a well thought interesting discussion into the nature of belief.
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
JimmyRopes wrote:
Thank you for a well thought interesting discussion into the nature of belief.
Hey - I think this might be the first thread that didn't end in insults, you plonker. Damn! :)
_Maxxx_ wrote:
Hey - I think this might be the first thread that didn't end in insults, you plonker.
Damn!
:)Yes I forgot this was the back room you sheep shagger. :-D Actually, I did forget it was the back room. It reminded me of discussions we used to have in the lounge before the righteous bigots avengers got an abuse icon to click whenever a discussion didn't adhere to their very limited world view. Ah, the bad old days.
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes