I'm pretty tired of this line ...

Hivemind187

"Thats your truth and this is my truth!"

What complete and utter nonsense.

The truth is indisputable, immutable and fact. It is not subjective. It is not a metamorphic form of reality.

When I talk about evolution and the non-existance of god I get people telling me that god existing is "my truth", as if that is actually an argument and not some shallow, tenuous and broken logic.

You cannot choose the truth! The truth is fact! You cant present opinion as fact!!!

Please tell me that I am not the only one who is sick of hearing this drek?

ps.

Oh, and evolution is not an opinion it is a fact, it IS falsifiable and it is the TRUTH.

Zombrex

As we often have to remind people on the Creationists thread in the Christian forum

Truth is not a democracy

Zombrex

Hivemind187 wrote:

Oh, and evolution is not an opinion it is a fact, it IS falsifiable and it is the TRUTH.

Well as much as anything in science can be a "fact"

It is possible the evolution is completely wrong. But very unlikely.

5uspect

There an awful lot of word play in this whole area. The abuse of scientific terms in particular. The "Truth" of god as opposed to scientific "truths" etc. I find many arguments simply boil down to such nonsense.

This reminds me of Robins post yesterday (or was it today...) about ethos. Its just a dressed up word for religious discrimination.

Dave!

Now let's all start new threads about obvious truisms!

Crucifix

Jean-Luc Picard wrote:

The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth, whether it's scientific truth or historical truth or personal truth!

You said it big fella.

stevejazzx

theists are just like tom cruise in a few good men....

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Crucifix wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean-Luc Picard
The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth, whether it's scientific truth or historical truth or personal truth!
You said it big fella.

http://hjem.wanadoo.dk/~wan13237/darkmateria_the_picard_song.mp3

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote:

"Thats your truth and this is my truth!"

What complete and utter nonsense.

The truth is indisputable, immutable and fact. It is not subjective. It is not a metamorphic form of reality.

When I talk about evolution and the non-existance of god I get people telling me that god existing is "my truth", as if that is actually an argument and not some shallow, tenuous and broken logic.

You cannot choose the truth! The truth is fact! You cant present opinion as fact!!!

Please tell me that I am not the only one who is sick of hearing this drek?

ps.

Oh, and evolution is not an opinion it is a fact, it IS falsifiable and it is the TRUTH.

I think there is truth in mythos and truth in logos and they both have completly different meaning.
I am robbing this point from Karen Armstrong BTW.
Truth in mythos, people connecting to a myth and the myth has a real deep life changing meaning.
Truth in logos, an argument being logical valid and sound.

If you can get them to agree to that, would it bother you?

Evolution is not a fact, nor is Gravity, atomic theory or any scientific theory. There is no concept of "TRUTH" in the scientific method. You are actually using rhetoric there yourself in a rather an unscientific way.

im_invisible

i think its all got to do with the whole 'non overlapping magisteria' youve got your truth, the whole science, evolution, etc. thing. but thats not the whole story, there are things that science cant prove or disprove (in my opinion, anyway) so we've got the whole science/ evolution thing on our side, AND we believe there is something more aswell,

unless your talking about creationists, ...i dont really know what to say about them.

Fanny Cradock

Mordeth wrote:

http://hjem.wanadoo.dk/~wan13237/darkmateria_the_picard_song.mp3

Haha - that's great, but I could only manage to get through about 30 seconds of it.

Hivemind187

Tim Robbins wrote:

I think there is truth in mythos and truth in logos and they both have completly different meaning.
I am robbing this point from Karen Armstrong BTW.
Truth in mythos, people connecting to a myth and the myth has a real deep life changing meaning.
Truth in logos, an argument being logical valid and sound.

If you can get them to agree to that, would it bother you?

Evolution is not a fact, nor is Gravity, atomic theory or any scientific theory. There is no concept of "TRUTH" in the scientific method. You are actually using rhetoric there yourself in a rather an unscientific way.

Sorry, did you just claim that Gravity and Atomic Theory are not fact?

I could as easily make claims about the postman not existing and my letters appearing by magick everyday (I don't see it happening personally therefore, because I haven't measured it I could make this claim) but I don't. Because its total cods wallop.

Gravity is a measurable and falsifiable force (the very things required for scientific fact). The Atom, electrons, protons, neutrons, photons, muon, gluon's, quarks, etc ad nauseum are all quantifiable, measurable and falsifiable. These are both fact. Incontrovertible and incontestable in their existence to the point where even if we discovered that the laws of thermodynamics were to suddenly been dropped in favor of something else we would merely have to re-evaluate how we perceive them rather than say that they are not a fact.

The only reason that evolution is not called "the law of evolution" is because there is still a lot that needs to be understood and a lot of idiots still clamoring about dinosaurs being put here "to test our faith in god" (reference to the gaps in the fossil record).

Aside from this, when people talk about a myth affecting their lives it is ot a truth for them, this is just romantic language (and quite poor usage I might add), it is belief and a perception of reality in relation to them. This does emphatically not make it a truth.

When I say truth I mean truth. Actual truth. Not some airy fairy poetic meaning of "personal truth". You can have all the "personal truths" about gremlins and fairies that you want but it doesnt make it fact and it doesnt make it true.

The truth is what it is. It is fact. It is reality. It is the unbiased, cold, hard fact.

Any claim to the contrary is either romanticism, poor comprehension of the English language or wishful thinking

bonkey

Hivemind187 wrote:

"Thats your truth and this is my truth!"

What complete and utter nonsense.

The truth is indisputable, immutable and fact. It is not subjective. It is not a metamorphic form of reality.

Well, thats your truth

Oh, and evolution is not an opinion it is a fact, it IS falsifiable and it is the TRUTH.

Well, see, now....I disagree.

Science attempts to create falsifiable models which match observation.

This doesn't make it true.

We can say that the odds are vanishingly small that the universe is <insert-age-here> old, created to look exactly like one which would result from our scientific model of a big bang.

What we cannot say is that it didn't happen.

Why not? Because by definition science couldn't tell the difference between the two. If it could, then one wouldn't look exactly like the other.

So which is true? Science doesn't tell us. Logic doesn't tell us. They can be combined to give us what we believe to be a best guess....the most likely scenario, but thats the limit.

If you choose to look at that and say "What rot...these things are undeniably true and bonkey is just being pedantic", then thats your perogative. However, what you're then asserting is that there's my truth (which says the above is a valid argument), and your truth (which says that its not). Of course, that would mean that truth is, indeed, subjective.

Oh, and evolution is not an opinion it is a fact, it IS falsifiable and it is the TRUTH.

Nothing which is falsifiable can be a fact or unquestionably the truth. If it was, then it would be incapable of being false, which would mean it would be incapable of being falsifiable.

ETA:

While I agree with your basic "this statement bugs me" (which I didn't state), what bugs me almost as much is people overstating what science is and what it can achieve. Science does not define truth. If you believe otherwise, you're as guilty of having "your truth" as anyone else.

Hivemind187

im_invisible wrote:

i think its all got to do with the whole 'non overlapping magisteria' youve got your truth, the whole science, evolution, etc. thing. but thats not the whole story, there are things that science cant prove or disprove (in my opinion, anyway) so we've got the whole science/ evolution thing on our side, AND we believe there is something more aswell,

unless your talking about creationists, ...i dont really know what to say about them.

The problem here is that you are saying that in your opinion(sic) there are things that science cant explain. This is not a fact.

The fact is that science can, and will, eventually explain everything, given enough time. Its just that we havent explained it yet. Thats all.

Neither of these things change that the Truth for one person cannot be different to the truth of another person because the truth, by its very nature, is immutable. The truth IS. It is not a metaphysical or romantic theory. It is a fact, an explanation, a proof, a quantifiable entity.

... and creationists are little more than articulate and stubborn theists.

Hivemind187

bonkey wrote:

Well, thats your truth



Well, see, now....I disagree.

Science attempts to create falsifiable models which match observation.

This doesn't make it true.

We can say that the odds are vanishingly small that the universe is <insert-age-here> old, created to look exactly like one which would result from our scientific model of a big bang.

What we cannot say is that it didn't happen.

Why not? Because by definition science couldn't tell the difference between the two. If it could, then one wouldn't look exactly like the other.

So which is true? Science doesn't tell us. Logic doesn't tell us. They can be combined to give us what we believe to be a best guess....the most likely scenario, but thats the limit.

If you choose to look at that and say "What rot...these things are undeniably true and bonkey is just being pedantic", then thats your perogative. However, what you're then asserting is that there's my truth (which says the above is a valid argument), and your truth (which says that its not). Of course, that would mean that truth is, indeed, subjective.


Nothing which is falsifiable can be a fact or unquestionably the truth. If it was, then it would be incapable of being false, which would mean it would be incapable of being falsifiable.

ETA:

While I agree with your basic "this statement bugs me" (which I didn't state), what bugs me almost as much is people overstating what science is and what it can achieve. Science does not define truth. If you believe otherwise, you're as guilty of having "your truth" as anyone else.

I utterly disagree.

Firstly, I will correct you on the definition of falsifiability. For something to be falsifiable it doesnt mean that you make it false ... the point is to show that it would be false if under x circumstance you got a negative rather than a positive result.

There is no other rational, logical or feasible in which life can have come into being. Evolution by natural selection and slow mutation is the only possible method by which the world in which we live came about (excluding alien intervention and the hand of god).

You seem to believe that if something is falsifiable it means it is false when it means entirely the opposite (though I admit it is a lousy choice of words).

Secondly, you contend that the truth is subjective because science cannot show the truth. But the point is that science doesn't have to show the truth, it just shows fact, and it is fact that shows the truth.

People seem to be mis understanding what the truth is, as if you are judging the word from a religious position rather than a rational one.

Truth is not some "greater meaning" it is simply "what is" without glitz, without being sexed up. Truth is the existence of fact quantifying reality.

I dont mean "ultimate truth" or some quasi mystical drek, I mean the simple, real, unadulterated truth.

Personal truth is just a buzz word and term coined by theists with an agenda and tele-evangelists with a hungry wallet.

Scofflaw

Hivemind187 wrote:

The problem here is that you are saying that in your opinion(sic) there are things that science cant explain. This is not a fact.

The fact is that science can, and will, eventually explain everything, given enough time. Its just that we havent explained it yet. Thats all.

That's a belief, not a fact, any more than the contrary position is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote:

That's a belief, not a fact, any more than the contrary position is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

No, it is a fact. To say that science cannot explain something or give an answer for something is to suggest that something has no explanation or answer.

That is a belief, its not supported by rationality, by proof or even common sense and is accepted as just "being that way". The same belief and magical thinking that leads to daftisms (copyright Hivemind187) like "God is beyond understanding" or "he has a plan and works in mysterious ways".

Hiding yourself from the reality, harsh though it may be, is not fact or truth. It is falsehood and denial.

im_invisible

im just being silly now, but...

The fact is that science can, and will, eventually explain everything, given enough time. Its just that we havent explained it yet. Thats all

in your opinion, you dont know, how can you?

the Truth for one person cannot be different to the truth of another person because the truth, by its very nature, is immutable. The truth IS. It is not a metaphysical or romantic theory. It is a fact, an explanation, a proof, a quantifiable entity.

yes, the truth is the same for everyone, and yes it is a fact, but i dont see how it needs to be an explaination, maybe it just is, and im not sure that we can get to the deepest level of truth here on earth, (even if there is no afterlife)

Hivemind187

im_invisible wrote:

im just being silly now, but...
in your opinion, you dont know, how can you?


yes, the truth is the same for everyone, and yes it is a fact, but i dont see how it needs to be an explaination, maybe it just is, and im not sure that we can get to the deepest level of truth here on earth, (even if there is no afterlife)

My point is not about the meaning of "truth" rather I that I am tired of the pathetic use of "my truth your truth" as a valid argument to avoid the onus of proof.

Scofflaw

Hivemind187 wrote:

No, it is a fact. To say that science cannot explain something or give an answer for something is to suggest that something has no explanation or answer.

Is red or green a nicer colour? Is it more worthwhile for me to try to do good, or pursue my own advantage? Would I enjoy 300? Will it rain in Dalkey this day next year? Does the supernatural exist?

All of those have answers - yes/no answers. Science cannot answer any of them.

Science is a tool - a methodology for discovering truths. By virtue of its limitations (only naturalistic, objectively verifiable, explanations) it is a very good tool. By virtue of the same limitations, it cannot be used to answer certain questions. The questions are not less real because they do not have a scientific answer.

Hivemind187 wrote:

Hiding yourself from the reality, harsh though it may be, is not fact or truth. It is falsehood and denial.

Indeed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

Hivemind187 wrote:

Firstly, I will correct you on the definition of falsifiability. For something to be falsifiable it doesnt mean that you make it false ... the point is to show that it would be false if under x circumstance you got a negative rather than a positive result.

Yes. "If we observe X, then Y is falsified". However, for that to have 0 probability, you have to state that X cannot be observed. Were you to do that, then your test is no longer valid for falsification.

Secondly if you could state with certainty that X cannot be observed, then your assertion is in turn based on a non-falsifiable presumption, and is therefore non-scientific in nature.

There is no other rational, logical or feasible in which life can have come into being.

Thats your opinion. Its not a fact.

Evolution by natural selection and slow mutation is the only possible method by which the world in which we live came about (excluding alien intervention and the hand of god).

So you admit that there are other possibilities, however unlikely. Science doesn't care if you think something is rational, logical or feasible. Science deals in what is possible.

You seem to believe that if something is falsifiable it means it is false

No, I mean that something is falsifiable only if the possibility exists that it might be false. Once that possibility is removed, it is no longer falsifiable. Falsifiability excludes certainty. By definition.

As I said, one can argue that the chances of something being wrong are vanishingly small, and I've no disagreement with that, but that is still distinct from absolute certainty.

Secondly, you contend that the truth is subjective because science cannot show the truth.

No, I didn't. I said that my position is that science doesn't tell us the truth. For me, that position is a true representation of science.

But the point is that science doesn't have to show the truth, it just shows fact,

No, it doesn't. Science attempts to create predictive models based on observation.

The classic analagy for science is someone learning the game of chess by observation. At no time can that person make a definitive statement about what is and is not allowed. They never know that there isn't another special case that will overthrow their predictions.

You can say that pawns can only move one space at a time in a straight line, because you've never seen anything else. Then you see someone making a first move with a pawn and realise you were wrong, and that pawns can only move one space at a time in a straight line, except on their first move where they might move two. Then you see someone taking another piece with a pawn and realise you were wrong. Now you realise that pawns move one or two spaces forward on their first move, and one space forward thereafter unless capturing another piece which they do by moving diagonally onto the square that the piece-to-be-captured resides on. And then you watch hundreds or thousands of games and state for a fact that this is how pawns behave...only to find your wrong when someone makes an "en passant" move.

Now, I know the rules of chess, and I didn't learn them by observation, so I know when all options have been covered. But the "learn by observing" person cannot, and they will be surprised time after time after time, until eventually they can only say "this is how things behave, unless there's stuff I haven't seen yet which says otherwise".

We don't know the rules. We think we know a lot of the rules, but just like "en passant" in chess, we cannot rule out the possibility that our scientific pawns will suddenly do something that overturns assumptions we have made. And so, we accept that those assumptions are just that - assumptive. They are not certain. They may or may not be correct. We do not know.

People seem to be mis understanding what the truth is, as if you are judging the word from a religious position rather than a rational one.

I have no misunderstanding of what truth is. I've studied it from a mathematical perspective and learned that even there, its a very hard concept to truly pin down and understand despite appearing deceptively simple. Once you leave the world of mathematics - the only place where proof really means that something is unquestionably true - you get into really murky water.

Truth is not some "greater meaning" it is simply "what is" without glitz, without being sexed up.

Thats your truth.

Philosophers throughout the ages have wrestled with this very issue and have come to vastly differing understandings of what truth is. Its not a clearly-defined concept, no matter how you might think it is.

Truth is the existence of fact quantifying reality.

And if existence, fact and reality were clearly defined, that sentence would actually mean something.

However, existence itself is a metaphysical concept which science can't offer any exaplanation or comment on. Reality is - as best we can determine - entirely a subjective experience. Fact...well...fact is either what you think is certain, or what is certain regardless of whether you think otherwise (i.e. you've no way of knowing if something is fact or not, without resorting to subjective analysis).

I dont mean "ultimate truth" or some quasi mystical drek, I mean the simple, real, unadulterated truth.

Ah. You mean what you see as the truth. Your subjective opinion of what the truth is. The version you think is objectively the right one.

Personal truth is just a buzz word and term coined by theists with an agenda and tele-evangelists with a hungry wallet.

I think its a concept abused by such people, but as with many such things, they've taken a very valid concept and turned it to their advantage.

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote:

Is red or green a nicer colour? Is it more worthwhile for me to try to do good, or pursue my own advantage? Would I enjoy 300? Will it rain in Dalkey this day next year? Does the supernatural exist?

All of those have answers - yes/no answers. Science cannot answer any of them.

Science is a tool - a methodology for discovering truths. By virtue of its limitations (only naturalistic, objectively verifiable, explanations) it is a very good tool. By virtue of the same limitations, it cannot be used to answer certain questions. The questions are not less real because they do not have a scientific answer.



Indeed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm sorry. What was your point?

All of those things are either scientifically measurable and answerable "when will it rain (meterology and statistics), will I enjoy the 300 (statistics and psychology)" or they are opinions "which is a nicer color".

Science is a tool, one that can reveal information. Information is also a tool, one that allows us to understand the reality in which we live. Understanding is also a tool, when unbiased it allows us to understand the truth of reality.

You say it cant answer questions, but these questions you refer to are not questions so much as preferences. Science doesnt need to answer preferences.
Seriously ... what is your point?

Hivemind187

bonkey wrote:

Yes. "If we observe X, then Y is falsified". However, for that to have 0 probability, you have to state that X cannot be observed. Were you to do that, then your test is no longer valid for falsification.

Secondly if you could state with certainty that X cannot be observed, then your assertion is in turn based on a non-falsifiable presumption, and is therefore non-scientific in nature.


Thats your opinion. Its not a fact.


So you admit that there are other possibilities, however unlikely. Science doesn't care if you think something is rational, logical or feasible. Science deals in what is possible.


No, I mean that something is falsifiable only if the possibility exists that it might be false. Once that possibility is removed, it is no longer falsifiable. Falsifiability excludes certainty. By definition.

As I said, one can argue that the chances of something being wrong are vanishingly small, and I've no disagreement with that, but that is still distinct from absolute certainty.


No, I didn't. I said that my position is that science doesn't tell us the truth. For me, that position is a true representation of science.


No, it doesn't. Science attempts to create predictive models based on observation.

The classic analagy for science is someone learning the game of chess by observation. At no time can that person make a definitive statement about what is and is not allowed. They never know that there isn't another special case that will overthrow their predictions.

You can say that pawns can only move one space at a time in a straight line, because you've never seen anything else. Then you see someone making a first move with a pawn and realise you were wrong, and that pawns can only move one space at a time in a straight line, except on their first move where they might move two. Then you see someone taking another piece with a pawn and realise you were wrong. Now you realise that pawns move one or two spaces forward on their first move, and one space forward thereafter unless capturing another piece which they do by moving diagonally onto the square that the piece-to-be-captured resides on. And then you watch hundreds or thousands of games and state for a fact that this is how pawns behave...only to find your wrong when someone makes an "en passant" move.

Now, I know the rules of chess, and I didn't learn them by observation, so I know when all options have been covered. But the "learn by observing" person cannot, and they will be surprised time after time after time, until eventually they can only say "this is how things behave, unless there's stuff I haven't seen yet which says otherwise".

We don't know the rules. We think we know a lot of the rules, but just like "en passant" in chess, we cannot rule out the possibility that our scientific pawns will suddenly do something that overturns assumptions we have made. And so, we accept that those assumptions are just that - assumptive. They are not certain. They may or may not be correct. We do not know.


I have no misunderstanding of what truth is. I've studied it from a mathematical perspective and learned that even there, its a very hard concept to truly pin down and understand despite appearing deceptively simple. Once you leave the world of mathematics - the only place where proof really means that something is unquestionably true - you get into really murky water.


Thats your truth.

Philosophers throughout the ages have wrestled with this very issue and have come to vastly differing understandings of what truth is. Its not a clearly-defined concept, no matter how you might think it is.


And if existence, fact and reality were clearly defined, that sentence would actually mean something.

However, existence itself is a metaphysical concept which science can't offer any exaplanation or comment on. Reality is - as best we can determine - entirely a subjective experience. Fact...well...fact is either what you think is certain, or what is certain regardless of whether you think otherwise (i.e. you've no way of knowing if something is fact or not, without resorting to subjective analysis).


Ah. You mean what you see as the truth. Your subjective opinion of what the truth is. The version you think is objectively the right one.


I think its a concept abused by such people, but as with many such things, they've taken a very valid concept and turned it to their advantage.

Hmm, ok. Perhaps I misunderstood your position earlier.

However I cannot accept that there is a different "truth" for each person. Those are as subjective as you are claiming my assertions are.

I am not talking about some daft Plato like belief that their is the perfect ethereal something out there, just making a simple statement that "Thats your truth and this is my truth" is a flawed and dismissive form of argument is the debate over whether their is a god.

More than that it is incredibly stupid.

I agree that the term "truth" has been somewhat hijacked by the religious for their own ends and it is that very things that annoys me and was the subject of my original post.

Scofflaw

Hivemind187 wrote:

I'm sorry. What was your point?

To make the point that this assertion:

Hivemind187 wrote:

No, it is a fact. To say that science cannot explain something or give an answer for something is to suggest that something has no explanation or answer.

is false.

Hivemind187 wrote:

All of those things are either scientifically measurable and answerable "when will it rain (meterology and statistics), will I enjoy the 300 (statistics and psychology)" or they are opinions "which is a nicer color".

I didn't ask the first two questions:

Scofflaw wrote:

Is red or green a nicer colour? Is it more worthwhile for me to try to do good, or pursue my own advantage? Would I enjoy 300? Will it rain in Dalkey this day next year? Does the supernatural exist?

I asked whether I specifically would enjoy 300, which is not determinable, since it will reflect a lot more than just statistics and psychology. Depends on what will happen on the day, whether I'm ill, etc etc, none of which science can predict.

I asked whether it will rain in Dalkey this day next year, a question that cannot be answered by science, because too many variables are involved. As far as I am aware, the sensitivity to initial conditions (aka chaos) in the system makes such a prediction impossible. Despite this, it will either rain in Dalkey this day next year or not - but science cannot answer the question.

It remains the case, whether the answer to some of these questions are opinions or not, that "to say that science cannot explain something or give an answer for something is to suggest that something has no explanation or answer" is entirely false.

Your statement is too inclusive - and you have already started modifying it by outting 'opinion' into a separate category.

Hivemind187 wrote:

Science is a tool, one that can reveal information. Information is also a tool, one that allows us to understand the reality in which we live. Understanding is also a tool, when unbiased it allows us to understand the truth of reality.

You say it cant answer questions, but these questions you refer to are not questions so much as preferences. Science doesnt need to answer preferences.

You'll be telling me next that it doesn't need to address moral questions either. I didn't ask science to "answer" preferences, but to determine what my preferences are, which it can't do. I have also asked it to foretell the future, which it also cannot really do. Finally, I asked it to answer a moral/meaning question, which it can't even address.

You're welcome to simply dismiss such questions as meaningless, but you'll find as you grow up that they come up a lot more often than scientifically answerable questions - even for those of us who are scientists.

Hivemind187 wrote:

Seriously ... what is your point?

That you're wrong - but hey, it's clear from the aggressive answers that you're not going to change your devout belief in science, so, enjoy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote:

To make the point that this assertion:



is false.



I didn't ask the first two questions:



I asked whether I specifically would enjoy 300, which is not determinable, since it will reflect a lot more than just statistics and psychology. Depends on what will happen on the day, whether I'm ill, etc etc, none of which science can predict.

I asked whether it will rain in Dalkey this day next year, a question that cannot be answered by science, because too many variables are involved. As far as I am aware, the sensitivity to initial conditions (aka chaos) in the system makes such a prediction impossible. Despite this, it will either rain in Dalkey this day next year or not - but science cannot answer the question.

It remains the case, whether the answer to some of these questions are opinions or not, that "to say that science cannot explain something or give an answer for something is to suggest that something has no explanation or answer" is entirely false.

Your statement is too inclusive - and you have already started modifying it by outting 'opinion' into a separate category.



You'll be telling me next that it doesn't need to address moral questions either. I didn't ask science to "answer" preferences, but to determine what my preferences are, which it can't do. I have also asked it to foretell the future, which it also cannot really do. Finally, I asked it to answer a moral/meaning question, which it can't even address.

You're welcome to simply dismiss such questions as meaningless, but you'll find as you grow up that they come up a lot more often than scientifically answerable questions - even for those of us who are scientists.



That you're wrong - but hey, it's clear from the aggressive answers that you're not going to change your devout belief in science, so, enjoy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The questions are paraphrased for convenience. The essence of them was preserved.

You are arguing that science cannot explain something. If it exists, then it can be explained scientifically, whether the science exists to do so is another matter.

You claim that is impossible to scientifically predict whether you will enjoy the 300 but you are wrong. Provided that all the pertinent facts are observed then it is possible to predict such things.

You argue that it is impossible to predict whether it will rain in Dalkey next year but again, provided with enough information it IS possible.

I stand by my point that saying that something cannot be explained is implying that it has no explanation. That it is a question with no answer. This is a fallacy. Given enough facts and information there is an answer to everything.

I didnt say science couldnt deal with preferences, just that it doesnt need to. And no, science has no actual obligation beyond society and the individual to deal with moral questions either.

As for aggressive statements, hypocrisy is not a very attractive trait in anyone, especially a scientist. I have the right to demand an explanation to someone undermining my argument, if you choose to take "whats your point?" as being aggressive and in the same sentence make allusions to my age, needing to grow up and being uneducated then you are only further compounding your errors.

Scofflaw

Hivemind187 wrote:

You claim that is impossible to scientifically predict whether you will enjoy the 300 but you are wrong. Provided that all the pertinent facts are observed then it is possible to predict such things.

That one is possible, but the distance in advance that the question can be answered is so small as to make the answer almost meaningless.

Hivemind187 wrote:

You argue that it is impossible to predict whether it will rain in Dalkey next year but again, provided with enough information it IS possible.

That one actually isn't. AFAIK, the calculations required to actually make such a prediction require more than the universe contains to calculate with. There are always going to be certain problems of such a non-linear type.

Hivemind187 wrote:

I stand by my point that saying that something cannot be explained is implying that it has no explanation. That it is a question with no answer. This is a fallacy. Given enough facts and information there is an answer to everything.

I'm not sure that's even theoretically true - see non-P problems.

Hivemind187 wrote:

I didnt say science couldnt deal with preferences, just that it doesnt need to. And no, science has no actual obligation beyond society and the individual to deal with moral questions either.

So your claim would be better phrased as "to say that science cannot explain something or give an answer for something, which it has an obligation to answer is to suggest that something has no explanation or answer".

Since "obligation to answer" is a little subjective (who obliges science?), we might be better to use "should be scientifically explicable/answerable" instead - but I feel that may reduce your phrase to a tautology.

Hivemind187 wrote:

As for aggressive statements, hypocrisy is not a very attractive trait in anyone, especially a scientist. I have the right to demand an explanation to someone undermining my argument, if you choose to take "whats your point?" as being aggressive and in the same sentence make allusions to my age, needing to grow up and being uneducated then you are only further compounding your errors.

True. I regret those remarks, I retract those remarks, and I apologise for making them.

However, asking "what's your point?" is actually a snide way of saying I have no point, and repeating it twice was offensive. You also have no "right" to "demand" an explanation - you have the right to ask for one.

apologetically,
but also offended,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote:

Sorry, did you just claim that Gravity and Atomic Theory are not fact?

Correct. Gravity is theory. So it atomic theory. Newton original's explaination for Gravity was exceptionally accurate but was never fact, it was falsified by Einstein and now his theory is the best theory we have on Gravity and yet to be falsified.
If you don't mind me saying so, have a read of the scientific method.
Your lingo is all wrong.
You seemed to have a naieve understanding of the workings of science.
It's ironic hearing you giving out about other people misusing words when that is exactly what you are doing. Pot, Kettle and black come to mind.
Here are some links, I recommend reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Philosophy_of_Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

bonkey

Hivemind187 wrote:

Provided that all the pertinent facts are observed then it is possible to predict such things.

The conclusion here is based on the unproven asumption that its a deterministic system.

Quantum effects, as best we can determine, are non-deterministic. Unless our scientific model is wrong (which it may well be), it would be impossible to observe all pertinent facts.

You argue that it is impossible to predict whether it will rain in Dalkey next year but again, provided with enough information it IS possible.

Again, based on an unproven assumption that the system is entirely deterministic. The sum effect of such tiny and apparently insignificant factors as how each person in the world moves over the coming year may well have an effect.

Thus, unless human behaviour in its entirety is deterministic, there is no way we can conclude that the weather is in turn deterministic....unless we can show that the model of weather patterns is entirely seperated from such "butterfly in China" effects. This, while possible, is contrary to the current scientific understanding.

So, is human behaviour deterministic? Current scientific thinking (as opposed to theory) says that it may be, but if it is, its beyond our capability to determine. Theory says that - once again - quantum effects mean that the system cannot be deterministic in nature.

Given enough facts and information there is an answer to everything.

Untrue.

I would suggest you read up on Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem if you're not familiar with it, as it suggests that you are incorrect.

The (apparent) non-deterministic nature of Quantum uncertainty also suggests you are incorrect.

They're two might big opponents you're squaring yourself off against, taking a position that is contrary to some of the most fundamental positions in mathematics and physics.

Finally, surely you can see that you are still only expressing a belief about what might someday be possible...and are claiming that your belief is truth.

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote:

That one is possible, but the distance in advance that the question can be answered is so small as to make the answer almost meaningless.



That one actually isn't. AFAIK, the calculations required to actually make such a prediction require more than the universe contains to calculate with. There are always going to be certain problems of such a non-linear type.



I'm not sure that's even theoretically true - see non-P problems.



So your claim would be better phrased as "to say that science cannot explain something or give an answer for something, which it has an obligation to answer is to suggest that something has no explanation or answer".

Since "obligation to answer" is a little subjective (who obliges science?), we might be better to use "should be scientifically explicable/answerable" instead - but I feel that may reduce your phrase to a tautology.



True. I regret those remarks, I retract those remarks, and I apologise for making them.

However, asking "what's your point?" is actually a snide way of saying I have no point, and repeating it twice was offensive. You also have no "right" to "demand" an explanation - you have the right to ask for one.

apologetically,
but also offended,
Scofflaw

You said that it could not be predicted or answered by science. It can. You have admited as much yourself. Simply saying that we dont have the means to do so at the moment does not make my statement false.

As for non-P problems, as far as I know they are more to do with the argument over whether or not their is a god. God is a nonsense, a sociological construct, and it has nothign to do with my original point.

When I say "has no explanation" I mean just that. That there is no explanation discovered or discoverable for something - which by extention means that it has no substance to be observed, measured or quantified. Without substance, it cannot exist. At least not in our reality and franly I dont see how anyone can say that doesnt constitute a natural barrier.

An argument to the contrary is looking at the problem fro the wrong end of the telescope, it assumes that something exist that have no discoverable explanation and that this is a perfectly valid state to be in. It cant be.

My claim regarding the obligation of science is a little vague I admit, but frankly no more so than the subject of my original point.

Getting back to my original point though. The statement "That is your truth and this is my truth" is illogical and nonsensical. The truth is. It is not mutable. Once percieved, the idea of the truth or the comprehension of same may be skewed by the beholder, but this does not change its substance.

I realise that this is getting into the quantum now and I will get the uncertainty principal thrown at me but the OP was not about physics, it was about the illogical and redundant argument used by theists who cannot provide a decent, constructive, rebuttle to explanations of reality like evolution, the laws of gravity and thermo dynamics, physics, logic and reason.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

I realise that this is getting into the quantum now and I will get the uncertainty principal thrown at me but the OP was not about physics, it was about the illogical and redundant argument used by theists who cannot provide a decent, constructive, rebuttle to explanations of reality like evolution, the laws of gravity and thermo dynamics, physics, logic and reason.

Why would a theist want to rebut the law of gravity?

PDN

PDN wrote:

Why would a theist want to rebut the law of gravity?

It's not gravity, it's intelligent falling!

Tar.Aldarion

It is surprising when I run into people that don't believe in gravity, hence soon getting my new tshirt:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/science/65a4/zoom/

Hivemind187

bonkey wrote:

The conclusion here is based on the unproven asumption that its a deterministic system.

Quantum effects, as best we can determine, are non-deterministic. Unless our scientific model is wrong (which it may well be), it would be impossible to observe all pertinent facts.


Again, based on an unproven assumption that the system is entirely deterministic. The sum effect of such tiny and apparently insignificant factors as how each person in the world moves over the coming year may well have an effect.

Thus, unless human behaviour in its entirety is deterministic, there is no way we can conclude that the weather is in turn deterministic....unless we can show that the model of weather patterns is entirely seperated from such "butterfly in China" effects. This, while possible, is contrary to the current scientific understanding.

So, is human behaviour deterministic? Current scientific thinking (as opposed to theory) says that it may be, but if it is, its beyond our capability to determine. Theory says that - once again - quantum effects mean that the system cannot be deterministic in nature.


Untrue.

I would suggest you read up on Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem if you're not familiar with it, as it suggests that you are incorrect.

The (apparent) non-deterministic nature of Quantum uncertainty also suggests you are incorrect.

They're two might big opponents you're squaring yourself off against, taking a position that is contrary to some of the most fundamental positions in mathematics and physics.

Finally, surely you can see that you are still only expressing a belief about what might someday be possible...and are claiming that your belief is truth.

Unfortunately, I am not a physicist, nor, strictly speaking, an educated man.

However.

The argument that these things cannot be predicted would appear to be flawed in terms of causality. The position you take is also flawed because you are assuming that we havent the required information to work oout what will happen. My point is that given that information, it is possible to work out what will happen.

I'm not saying that we have the abilty to do so now, but given enough time, enough resources and enough information it is possible. This is not a belief, it is a statement of statisitcal fact.

For example, the weather effects.

If you have sufficient information regarding the movement of atmospheric molecules, surface temperature, topography, solar radiation etc then it is possible to predict the effects that this will have on the weather.

The same applies to cognitive and emotional responses. Given enough information about a persons psychology, biology and history then it is possible to predict what he will enjoy and not enjoy.

Assuming that the big bang is the source of all matter and energy in the universe (which is the genereal consensus), then if you can measure and chart the information at that point you can say that everything is pre determined and therefore deterministic.

However, all of this is an entirely different argument to the original post which is that the use of the term "Truth" to describe a persons belief is nonsense. That there is the truth, which is the existance of measureable facts and concrete explanations of how the mechnanisms work etc and that using the the dismissive nonsense of "This is MY truth and its different to YOUR truth" is no more relevant or usefull than "singing la la la" (to quote Aristotle)

Hivemind187

bluewolf wrote:

It's not gravity, it's intelligent falling!

No its not!!!

God is pushing some things down and holding other things up. He pushes down the things he doesnt like and the lifts the things he does like.

Only he gets bored and is a little clumsy so he tends to drop most thigns from time to time.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

Why would a theist want to rebut the law of gravity?

You know. I actually have no idea. But then I have no idea why they like to refute evolution in favor of intelligent deisgn either.

If I had to guess I'd say its to do with Angels. Biologically speaking, in order for them to fly with teh wings they are often dipicted with they would need 6foot thick chest muscles to achieve enough lift against tte earths gravity.

joe_chicken

bonkey wrote:

Quantum effects, as best we can determine, are non-deterministic.

That's a great line.

Truth is an over-used under-estimated word.
Non of us can define it fully.

Atheists asserting objective truth is what annoys me the most

*ducks*

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

You know. I actually have no idea. But then I have no idea why they like to refute evolution in favor of intelligent deisgn either.

If I had to guess I'd say its to do with Angels. Biologically speaking, in order for them to fly with teh wings they are often dipicted with they would need 6foot thick chest muscles to achieve enough lift against tte earths gravity.

I'm interested in this. (Not the humorous silliness about angels) Have you really encountered a theist who wanted to rebut the law of gravity? I've never heard of such a thing. Were they a normal kind of theist (Christian, muslim, hindu etc) or some kind of Star Trek/UFO freak? They weren't composed of straw by any chance?

Crucifix

Hivemind187 wrote:

The argument that these things cannot be predicted would appear to be flawed in terms of causality. The position you take is also flawed because you are assuming that we havent the required information to work oout what will happen. My point is that given that information, it is possible to work out what will happen.

To sum it up quickly Scientific determinism is basically "If you had all the info and all the laws, you could predict the future". But in quantum mechanics there are interactions for which we can only predict the probabilities of various outcomes, and never actually know which will occur.
Heisenberg uncertainty was also a problem, as it means it's impossible to really have all the info, or at least, for all that info to be 100% accurate.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

I'm interested in this. (Not the humorous silliness about angels) Have you really encountered a theist who wanted to rebut the law of gravity? I've never heard of such a thing. Were they a normal kind of theist (Christian, muslim, hindu etc) or some kind of Star Trek/UFO freak? They weren't composed of straw by any chance?

I have encountered folk who claim that gravity is a whim of god subject to change at a given moment. In other words it is not the mass of an object warping the fabric of space and causing stuff to fall towards it but the desire of god that these things be closer together.

Its actually difficult to think that way.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

I have encountered folk who claim that gravity is a whim of god subject to change at a given moment. In other words it is not the mass of an object warping the fabric of space and causing stuff to fall towards it but the desire of god that these things be closer together.

Its actually difficult to think that way.

Ah, now that is a very different matter. It sounds like you have encountered someone who says that gravity is part of the way in which God upholds and governs the universe. Then they stated (probably, I would guess, in the context of whether miracles occur?) that God is able, if He chooses, to suspend the law of gravity so that a man, for example, could walk on water. (The validity of that claim would be a subject for another thread, possibly the one that discusses whether magic is simply undiscovered technology?)

If so, then the second sentence of your quote is in error. A theist making such a claim would not be rebutting the law of gravity, nor would they be disputing that the mass of an object warps the fabric of space and causes stuff to fall towards it. They would simply be stating that an omnipotent God can, at a time and place of His choosing, cause the mass of an object to have a different effect and so not cause stuff to fall toward it.

I guess, if you approach the subject with a lot of preconceived notions and a lack of an inquiring spirit, it would be difficult to think in such a way.

PDN

PDN wrote:

I'm interested in this. (Not the humorous silliness about angels) Have you really encountered a theist who wanted to rebut the law of gravity? I've never heard of such a thing. Were they a normal kind of theist (Christian, muslim, hindu etc) or some kind of Star Trek/UFO freak? They weren't composed of straw by any chance?

My bf has baptist friends who insist that not every two particles are the same "how do you know they are? have you checked them all? the speed of light ISNT constant! It's god pushing them all around individually"
so yeah, I would say it's entirely possible...

5uspect

Hivemind187 wrote:

Getting back to my original point though. The statement "That is your truth and this is my truth" is illogical and nonsensical. The truth is. It is not mutable. Once percieved, the idea of the truth or the comprehension of same may be skewed by the beholder, but this does not change its substance.

I realise that this is getting into the quantum now and I will get the uncertainty principal thrown at me but the OP was not about physics, it was about the illogical and redundant argument used by theists who cannot provide a decent, constructive, rebuttle to explanations of reality like evolution, the laws of gravity and thermo dynamics, physics, logic and reason.

Scientific truth is updated and replaced all the time. Newton was simply wrong. Einstein was less wrong, etc etc. However for me as an Engineer Newton was correct enough for pretty much everything I need to do. My "truth" is indeed very different to that of a physicist or cosmologist.

Maybe this also applies to theists. I can justify my version of truth to a pretty good extent, where as a theist must go always with faith (unless your a creationist who makes evidence up). It is often argued that all science also rests on a faith position also and as a result is no better than religion.

I don't think this is a fair point tho, at least there is a continued endeavourer to eliminate all possible uncertainties in science, where as religion seems to wallow in mystery. Also this is where the likes of quantum theory come in for fire as they seem to perpetuate the mystical nature of things.

Essentially no single religion can say its the one true religion, they're all the same (no matter how the try to show otherwise). And you're right they cannot provide a proper explaination of why they're even on the right track, never mind attempting to undermine science.

But ultimately scientific ideas. theories and hypothesizes are the product of human brains as models of what we observe. Stating them as absolute truth is also a faith position. Every single bit of science has the potential to be totally wrong.

5uspect

PDN wrote:

A theist making such a claim would not be rebutting the law of gravity, nor would they be disputing that the mass of an object warps the fabric of space and causes stuff to fall towards it. They would simply be stating that an omnipotent God can, at a time and place of His choosing, cause the mass of an object to have a different effect and so not cause stuff to fall toward it.

Back to the game of chess analogy (Karl Popper said this first I think). Say your watching a game of chess for the first time and you can only see a small part of the board, say 4 squares. You will pretty quickly figure out most of the moves. But suddenly a knight throws you for six! What just happened there?!

The theist says that god (the player) is moving the pieces.
The scientist says that our theory is wrong and goes back to the drawing board.

The theist in postulating a prime mover, or a creator in this situation jumps the gun and takes the analogy too far. he explains the observation in a wholly untestable manner with a significantly more complex explaination, that doesn't even seem to require explaination.

The scientist, attempts to understand the observation by assuming as little as possible without having to invoke massive gaping holes in the theory that cannot be filled.

PDN

5uspect wrote:

Back to the game of chess analogy (Karl Popper said this first I think). Say your watching a game of chess for the first time and you can only see a small part of the board, say 4 squares. You will pretty quickly figure out most of the moves. But suddenly a knight throws you for six! What just happened there?!

The theist says that god (the player) is moving the pieces.
The scientist says that our theory is wrong and goes back to the drawing board.

The theist in postulating a prime mover, or a creator in this situation jumps the gun and takes the analogy too far. he explains the observation in a wholly untestable manner with a significantly more complex explaination, that doesn't even seem to require explaination.

The scientist, attempts to understand the observation by assuming as little as possible without having to invoke massive gaping holes in the theory that cannot be filled.

Or he denies that the knight ever moved at all, because it contradicted his notion of what has already been 'proved' about the moves of chess. Then anyone who claims they saw the knight move is dismissed as a religious nut.

PDN

PDN wrote:

Or he denies that the knight ever moved at all, because it contradicted his notion of what has already been 'proved' about the moves of chess. Then anyone who claims they saw the knight move is dismissed as a religious nut.

No, then he gets labelled as a nut and no scientist listens to him.

5uspect

I'm not saying the system is perfect but to say that religious beliefs reflect the Knight is a bit of a stretch.

And even if a prime mover was discovered (making him a natural occurrence BTW) how would that validate any religion?

bonkey

Hivemind187, to Scofflaw wrote:

You said that it could not be predicted or answered by science. It can.

Science says otherwise.

Hivemind187, to bonkey wrote:

Unfortunately, I am not a physicist, nor, strictly speaking, an educated man.

However.

The argument that these things cannot be predicted would appear to be flawed in terms of causality.

No, its not. Modern physics has already determined that the so-called laws of causality are not aboslute.

My point is that given that information, it is possible to work out what will hapen.

And I'm telling you that you are wrong, in that there are situations where this cannot hold true, effectively because the information cannot be known. This is what a non-deterministic system is by definition - a system where (certain) things cannot be determined with certainty.

I'm not saying that we have the abilty to do so now, but given enough time, enough resources and enough information it is possible. This is not a belief, it is a statement of statisitcal fact.

You're wrong. Pleading that you're not that educated on the areas of physics and mathematics that falsify your claim doesn't stop it being falsified.

If you have sufficient information regarding the movement of atmospheric molecules, surface temperature, topography, solar radiation etc then it is possible to predict the effects that this will have on the weather.

The same applies to cognitive and emotional responses. Given enough information about a persons psychology, biology and history then it is possible to predict what he will enjoy and not enjoy.

Unless when you get to that level, quantum effects come in to play - which they do. And, as I said, quantum effects, as best we can determine, are non-deterministic. They include a degree of randomness that we currently believe is inherent and unavoidable.

To put that into clearer english...you are right in that you need to look closer and closer and closer, and were it possible to accumulate all of that information, you'd have a far more accurate model than at present. But, as you look closer, you eventually get to a point where the information you seek cannot be determined. It is the inbuilt "uncertainty" of quantum mechanics and until and unless we can show otherwise it will ultimately constrain the accuracy of any model.

You are basically saying that its theoretically possible to know this stuff, and thus to determine things, even though science says otherwise.

I, in response, would say that this is - at its very core - a non-scientific position in that it is non-falsifiable (you can always say that science is wrong, and that some time in the future it will be possible) and that it flies in the face of what it is trying to support - the "truth" of science.

Science might someday show that this universe is a deterministic system. It might someday show that it is non-deterministic. In this latter case, then your basic "knowing everything is possible" argument is wrong. We have no way of knowing...so your assertion is wrong in that we can only say it might be possible.

Assuming that the big bang is the source of all matter and energy in the universe (which is the genereal consensus), then if you can measure and chart the information at that point you can say that everything is pre determined and therefore deterministic.

Again, you're working under some misconceptions.

As best we can tell, the conditions at the big bang were so extreme that "simple" concepts like causality ceased to have meaning. Effect could come before cause. Determinism was a no-no. As best we can tell, Determinism is still a no-no.

You can repeat your insistence otherwise all you like, but what you're essentially doing is rejecting science out of hand, because you hold something else to be true. Does that remind you of anything?

However, all of this is an entirely different argument to the original post which is that the use of the term "Truth" to describe a persons belief is nonsense.

Its not an entirely different argument...as I've just shown. You are rejecting science out of hand to hold your position to be true.

From a strict perspective, a lot of what you hold to be true is as much non-sense as what it is you're attacking. Its probably "less wrong", but just like Newton's "Laws", its still wrong.

If truth is an absolute, as you maintain, then you don't have it any more then they do. (Nor do I, nor does Scofflaw, nor does the Young Earth Creationist).

So by what right do you get to call their views non-sensical, but object when they do the same in return?

I maintain that no view is absolutely correct, and that we adopt positions based on their usefulness.

For the layman on the street, it doesn't actually matter if modern science offers a more accurate representation of things then religion. What matters to them is that - on one hand - they gain benefits of other people holding science to be true, whilst - on the other hand - they gain a different set of benefits for what they hold to be true.

If faith is a core of someone's being, then it may be that the distress caused by accepting certain scientific theories is outweighted by any personal benefit it will give them. So they hold what truths are most useful to them. What is useful to you is clearly different to what is useful to me, although perhaps not as wildly divergent as what is useful to either of us and what is useful to a Young Earth Creationist.

That there is the truth, which is the existance of measureable facts and concrete explanations of how the mechnanisms work etc

Thats your truth, not mine.

and that using the the dismissive nonsense of "This is MY truth and its different to YOUR truth" is no more relevant or usefull than "singing la la la"

I, and others, are telling you that your understanding of science and the implications of current scientific knowledge is (somewhat) flawed. In the face of this, you have accepted that you're not a physicist, but continue to argue about what your truth is even though it differs to that of the physicists.

So are you not doing exactly what it is that bugs you? Holding your truth to be true, despite it being at odds with the very thing (science) you claim should be underpinning what truth really is?

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

Ah, now that is a very different matter. It sounds like you have encountered someone who says that gravity is part of the way in which God upholds and governs the universe. Then they stated (probably, I would guess, in the context of whether miracles occur?) that God is able, if He chooses, to suspend the law of gravity so that a man, for example, could walk on water. (The validity of that claim would be a subject for another thread, possibly the one that discusses whether magic is simply undiscovered technology?)

If so, then the second sentence of your quote is in error. A theist making such a claim would not be rebutting the law of gravity, nor would they be disputing that the mass of an object warps the fabric of space and causes stuff to fall towards it. They would simply be stating that an omnipotent God can, at a time and place of His choosing, cause the mass of an object to have a different effect and so not cause stuff to fall toward it.

I guess, if you approach the subject with a lot of preconceived notions and a lack of an inquiring spirit, it would be difficult to think in such a way.

Well, was calling me a closed minded pillock really necessary?

But as far as it goes, the folks I was talking to seemed pretty sure that everyone from Newton to Einstein was wrong. But you should know that it was part of a casual conversation. I didnt get into a huge debate over it.

joe_chicken

What bonkey said!

(great post by the way!)

Hivemind187

bonkey wrote:

Science says otherwise.



No, its not. Modern physics has already determined that the so-called laws of causality are not aboslute.



And I'm telling you that you are wrong, in that there are situations where this cannot hold true, effectively because the information cannot be known. This is what a non-deterministic system is by definition - a system where (certain) things cannot be determined with certainty.


You're wrong. Pleading that you're not that educated on the areas of physics and mathematics that falsify your claim doesn't stop it being falsified.


Unless when you get to that level, quantum effects come in to play - which they do. And, as I said, quantum effects, as best we can determine, are non-deterministic. They include a degree of randomness that we currently believe is inherent and unavoidable.

To put that into clearer english...you are right in that you need to look closer and closer and closer, and were it possible to accumulate all of that information, you'd have a far more accurate model than at present. But, as you look closer, you eventually get to a point where the information you seek cannot be determined. It is the inbuilt "uncertainty" of quantum mechanics and until and unless we can show otherwise it will ultimately constrain the accuracy of any model.

You are basically saying that its theoretically possible to know this stuff, and thus to determine things, even though science says otherwise.

I, in response, would say that this is - at its very core - a non-scientific position in that it is non-falsifiable (you can always say that science is wrong, and that some time in the future it will be possible) and that it flies in the face of what it is trying to support - the "truth" of science.

Science might someday show that this universe is a deterministic system. It might someday show that it is non-deterministic. In this latter case, then your basic "knowing everything is possible" argument is wrong. We have no way of knowing...so your assertion is wrong in that we can only say it might be possible.


Again, you're working under some misconceptions.

As best we can tell, the conditions at the big bang were so extreme that "simple" concepts like causality ceased to have meaning. Effect could come before cause. Determinism was a no-no. As best we can tell, Determinism is still a no-no.

You can repeat your insistence otherwise all you like, but what you're essentially doing is rejecting science out of hand, because you hold something else to be true. Does that remind you of anything?


Its not an entirely different argument...as I've just shown. You are rejecting science out of hand to hold your position to be true.

From a strict perspective, a lot of what you hold to be true is as much non-sense as what it is you're attacking. Its probably "less wrong", but just like Newton's "Laws", its still wrong.

If truth is an absolute, as you maintain, then you don't have it any more then they do. (Nor do I, nor does Scofflaw, nor does the Young Earth Creationist).

So by what right do you get to call their views non-sensical, but object when they do the same in return?

I maintain that no view is absolutely correct, and that we adopt positions based on their usefulness.

For the layman on the street, it doesn't actually matter if modern science offers a more accurate representation of things then religion. What matters to them is that - on one hand - they gain benefits of other people holding science to be true, whilst - on the other hand - they gain a different set of benefits for what they hold to be true.

If faith is a core of someone's being, then it may be that the distress caused by accepting certain scientific theories is outweighted by any personal benefit it will give them. So they hold what truths are most useful to them. What is useful to you is clearly different to what is useful to me, although perhaps not as wildly divergent as what is useful to either of us and what is useful to a Young Earth Creationist.


Thats your truth, not mine.


I, and others, are telling you that your understanding of science and the implications of current scientific knowledge is (somewhat) flawed. In the face of this, you have accepted that you're not a physicist, but continue to argue about what your truth is even though it differs to that of the physicists.

So are you not doing exactly what it is that bugs you? Holding your truth to be true, despite it being at odds with the very thing (science) you claim should be underpinning what truth really is?

Ok, I cant argue with most of that.

It still doesnt change my original point.

The my truth your ruth thing is utter garbage. The truth can only have a single definition. Thats the point of truth.

I am not talking about "My" truth because I dont have a "my" truth. I was talking about "the" truth. I object to people invoking this concept of "truth" as a way of justifying a redudant argument for which they have no other way of defending save to dismiss all questions and challenges out of hand.

Thats all that the "my truth" arguement does and thats why I object to it.

All quantum theory, chaos theory, Newtons Laws etc aside at the root of everything there is its substance and form. There are its mechanics and its explanation. Those are the truth because they are the constituents of reality. Dismissing these (eventual facts and laws since they cannot be explained etc presently) by using the argument that "God" is another truth, an over riding and pervasive one that is the explanation for everything, is incredibly lazy and useless rationale.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote:

Ok, I cant argue with most of that.

It still doesnt change my original point.

The my truth your ruth thing is utter garbage. The truth can only have a single definition. Thats the point of truth.

I think the issue is, some Christians say:
"I have found the truth", they are using the definite English article i.e. "the", but that's grammatically incorrect, "the" truth to what?
They could say use the indefinite English article:
"I have found a truth" that would be ok.