A hypothetical dilemma?

Soul Winner

sink wrote: »

Throw a stone in the air and it falls to the ground, that is tangible evidence of gravity.

Is it though? All I see are the effects of an immaterial force we call gravity, but its effect on the stone are not tangible evidence that it exists. If I fill a balloon full of water and give it to someone who has never seen water and tell them that the balloon is tangible evidence that water exists, what do you think they'll want to do? Exactly, burst the balloon open and get at the actual water inside. Just because the water in the balloon is visible by its effects on the balloon is not tangible evidence that water exists, how does the person who has never seen water not know that it is not just apple juice?

sink

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes but at the singularity all the laws of physics disappear so how will you ever be able to test how it came into being? You will never ever ever ever be able to know by the scientific method.

The laws of physics don't break down, general relativity does but that's because general relativity does not perfectly describe gravity under all parameters and we know that it does not. Our current understanding of quantum mechanics on the other hand is quiet compatible with the singularity but it has some major holes that are unexplained, the LHC is hopefully going to help us find an explanation. It is not certain that science will be able to explain everything, the only thing that is certain is that theology and philosophy won't and if science can't determine the answers, without a superior method for gaining knowledge we will never know.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Is it though? All I see are the effects of an immaterial force we call gravity, but its effect on the stone are not tangible evidence that it exists. If I fill a balloon full of water and give it to someone who has never seen water and tell them that the balloon is tangible evidence that water exists, what do you think they'll want to do? Exactly, burst the balloon open and get at the actual water inside. Just because the water in the balloon is visible by its effects on the balloon is not tangible evidence that water exists, how does the person who has never seen water not know that it is not just apple juice?

It can be proven to be apple juice by looking at its chemical composition. Another way would be that apple juice is acidic and water is generally pH neutral

Gravity can be proven through repeatable experiments. Every single time you do one of these experiments you will get the same result bar a small margin of error. That is how things are "proven" in science. You give me an experiment that can be repeated by anyone at any time where the result of the experiment could only possibly come about if it was influenced by god and I might take a closer look

sink

Soul Winner wrote: »

Is it though? All I see are the effects of an immaterial force we call gravity, but its effect on the stone are not tangible evidence that it exists. If I fill a balloon full of water and give it to someone who has never seen water and tell them that the balloon is tangible evidence that water exists, what do you think they'll want to do? Exactly, burst the balloon open and get at the actual water inside. Just because the water in the balloon is visible by its effects on the balloon is not tangible evidence that water exists, how does the person who has never seen water not know that it is not just apple juice?

We don't know everything about gravity but we can determine many of it's attributes. Just as in your balloon analogy we can determine that the balloon is filled with a liquid of x density with a freezing point of y and an evaporation point of z and a viscosity of α, from that information we can postulate that it's water. However the existence of the liquid is never in any doubt, just as gravity is not in any doubt.

Ickle Magoo

Soul Winner wrote: »

How about the universe? The best scientific model that describes the origin of the universe is the standard big bang model. That model postulates that all matter, energy and even time itself came into existence from a nothingness state called 'the singularity' at a finite time in the past. Now you tell me how everything that now is can come from nothing and by nothing? Because if you are a proponent of that model and are an atheist then that is what you believe. That everything that now is, came from nothing and by nothing.

Oh, the onus is on me to find a scientific alternative to God creating the universe now? :rolleyes:

I have an inkling that the fantastic conditions required to create life on earth came about over millennia. That you could view the singularity as a zygote that despite all the odds eventually becomes a human. That if you throw 100 dice a billion times that eventually you will get 100 sixes. We have seen black holes, we have seen super novas, we have seen the birth of galaxies or infant galaxies, suns and stars. At no point have we seen any indication of the existence of God. Just because there is no scientific equation or table available to explain something at this point in time doesn't mean it will always be that way. Not so long ago we thought the world was flat & the sun was a God, after all.

I'm assuming things were made the same way that they've always been made, using a mixture of cells, organisms, elements, gases, etc. I don't know why a God would step in & suddenly create a million galaxies and on one lonely planet, create people. I don't know why the world would require gravity or atmosphere if it was specially designed by a God, wouldn't he just say we could live on earth & we would? I'm sure the big-bang theory makes as little sense to you as creationism does to me & raises as many questions.

I always try to follow a path of logic, that generally requires some kind of proof or methodology or reason, even within theories & likelihoods there is a basis in fact, a reason for that hypothesis being used or recognised above others, even when we're missing XYZ, we can't just ignore the A-W that we do know about. I can't tell you what existed prior to singularity but scientists are slowly plugging the gaps in our knowledge from a millisecond afterwards, right to the present day billions of years later while trying to work out a way of knowing for sure how the universe began. It's facinating, amazing and often on a scale well beyond my comprehension - but I still see no reason to have a God or think a God was involved.

Soul Winner

sink wrote: »

The laws of physics don't break down, general relativity does but that's because general relativity does not perfectly describe gravity under all parameters and we know that it does not. Our current understanding of quantum mechanics on the other hand is quiet compatible with the singularity but it has some major holes that are unexplained, the LHC is hopefully going to help us find an explanation. It is not certain that science will be able to explain everything, the only thing that is certain is that theology and philosophy won't and if science can't determine the answers, without a superior method for gaining knowledge we will never know.

I never said that the laws of physics break down, I said that they disappear, meaning that if you rewind the progress of the universe backwards like a movie then at some point (the singularity) they (the laws of physics) haven't yet come into existence. As far as we can extrapolate only after the Planck time 10-43 do the initial conditions and the finely tuned constants which govern our present laws of physics come into being. Before that nobody knows, nor can know. Hence the appeal of religion, because science will never know, all we can do is go by our intuitive beliefs systems be they right or wrong, but one thing is for sure, the scientific method as we know it today will always be incapable of furnishing us with the assurances we naturally crave in relation to the universe and what our place in it is. At least religion can throw some sort of light on those questions even though it is not verifiable by the scientific method.

Ickle Magoo

I don't think you can say science will never know - I don't know where science will be in a million years, do you?

If it isn't verifiable then it doesn't throw any light on the situation, it's just as plausible or implausible as any other theory that cannot be proven. That doesn't comfort me in any way, shape or form tbh - you could exchange pre-singularity with God or anything else. If we don't know then there's no reason to think it's "God" over "anything else".

Soul Winner

I'm hitting the hey now lads, really tired. Nice thrashing things out with yous. I respect your positions and what you think but don't hold too fast to the tangible, someday it might all just disappear as quickly as it came into being. Talk to yous tomorrow please God :pac:

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Before that nobody knows, nor can know....
the scientific method as we know it today will always be incapable of furnishing us with the assurances we naturally crave in relation to the universe and what our place in it is.

150 years ago they said powered flight was impossible
100 years ago they said we'd never stop smallpox
80 years ago they said we'd never achieve space flight
30 years ago they couldn't have conceived of youtube
20 years ago they said we'd never clone a sheep
The human race has an ability to surprise itself. the brightest minds in the world are currently working on answering the question of how the universe came into being so unless you know something they don't, I'll leave them to their work

Soul Winner wrote: »

Hence the appeal of religion, because science will never know, all we can do is go by our intuitive beliefs systems be they right or wrong, but one thing is for sure, the scientific method as we know it today will always be incapable of furnishing us with the assurances we naturally crave in relation to the universe and what our place in it is. At least religion can throw some sort of light on those questions even though it is not verifiable by the scientific method.

That is a terrible, terrible reason to believe in something. You should believe in something because it can be shown to be true, not because it is impossible to show it not to be true. It is impossible to show that anything doesn't exist. Going by that logic you might as well believe in the flying spaghetti monster, or an impersonal creator who kicked the whole thing into motion but didn't interfere after that. Just because you have a question and someone claims to have an answer does not mean that they have the correct answer.

The logic of "I don't know so it must be God" has held the human race back throughout history. Once you attribute something to God you are conceding that it is beyond your comprehension and you give up trying to understand it, or worse you drill holes in people's heads to let the evil spirits out. It is only when we realise that something is not beyond our comprehension that advancements are made

pH

Soul Winner wrote: »

I never said that the laws of physics break down, I said that they disappear, meaning that if you rewind the progress of the universe backwards like a movie then at some point (the singularity) they (the laws of physics) haven't yet come into existence. As far as we can extrapolate only after the Planck time 10-43 do the initial conditions and the finely tuned constants which govern our present laws of physics come into being. Before that nobody knows, nor can know. Hence the appeal of religion, because science will never know, all we can do is go by our intuitive beliefs systems be they right or wrong,

So science isn't sure of what happened in the first 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 of a second - hence the appeal of religion?

but one thing is for sure, the scientific method as we know it today will always be incapable of furnishing us with the assurances we naturally crave in relation to the universe and what our place in it is. At least religion can throw some sort of light on those questions even though it is not verifiable by the scientific method.

You what? Random guesses, just-so stories and "wouldn't it be nice if it was that way" are throwing light on it?

OK-Cancel-Apply

B

Sure, we could keep going, but at what cost? The prevention of suffering is more important IMO than the continuation of the human race. If we'd live in a world where the weak and sick were just left on their own, then what's the point anyway?

Sam Vimes

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

B

Sure, we could keep going, but at what cost? The prevention of suffering is more important IMO than the continuation of the human race. If we'd live in a world where the weak and sick were just left on their own, then what's the point anyway?

But in this hypothetical situation that would never happen, if you don't leave the weak and sick they're going to die anyway and the only thing you can control is whether everyone else dies along with them

What's the point in trying to help someone if you know for a fact that, not only will you fail to help them but you'll also die in the process? You could compare it to mountain climbing and one of your friends falls off the mountain. You wouldn't jump down after him because there's nothing you can do to save him and there's nothing morally wrong with that

This is all hypothetical of course, a situation where we know for a fact that the human race will become extinct if we help the sick will never arise never arise

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

That tells me that there are some things in science that are assumed to be true without any proof whatsoever.

Well it shouldn't.

Einstein assumed the study of light based on Maxwell's equitations were true and then looked as how accurate his model was if he made this assumption (he didn't actually, but in the context of what you are saying its easier to phrase it that way). His model was accurate when tested against observations. This is evidence that the assumptions themselves were accurate. It is not though proof.

If Einstein assumed this about light and his model based on this assumption didn't work at all then he would know something is wrong about either his model or the assumption of light.

Einstein never tried to prove the light postulate. Instead he worked out very complex mathematical models of the universe that shouldn't work if this assumption was in error and looked at if they did work.

But more importantly scientists never simply assumed this variable (the speed of light) was true. No one is trusting that this variable is accurate. If it isn't accurate the models wouldn't match prediction.

Húrin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The logic of "I don't know so it must be God" has held the human race back throughout history. Once you attribute something to God you are conceding that it is beyond your comprehension and you give up trying to understand it, or worse you drill holes in people's heads to let the evil spirits out. It is only when we realise that something is not beyond our comprehension that advancements are made

Without religion there would be no science.

marco_polo

Húrin wrote: »

Without religion there would be no science.

Which particular aspect of the scientific method cannot function without it again?

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

Without religion there would be no science.

How's that then?

Sam Vimes

marco_polo wrote: »

Which particular aspect of the scientific method cannot function without it again?

I'm thinking he's going to refer to some early scientists and say how they were trying to prove religious things and then he's going to say that had these first guys not been there no one would ever have tried to solve any mysteries of the world and had religion not existed these early scientists wouldn't have had the same curiosity about the world and wouldn't have bothered

I could be wrong though.

robindch

Issa bit more subtle than that. The standard religious argument is that since all the early scientists were religious in one sense or another, that early science would not have arisen without religion. A similar argument states that since religion is "inspirational", that religion is therefore what provides the inspiration required to get people out there and working to understand the world.

Unfortunately, the arguments do not stand up to scrutiny at any level.

marco_polo

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm thinking he's going to refer to some early scientists and say how they were trying to prove religious things and then he's going to say that had these first guys not been there no one would ever have tried to solve any mysteries of the world and had religion not existed these early scientists wouldn't have had the same curiosity about the world and wouldn't have bothered

I could be wrong though.

My money is going on the early Universities were funded by religion angle.

robindch

marco_polo wrote: »

My money is going on the early Universities were funded by religion angle.

I believe that this was one of the reasons that Darwin never sought a university appointment -- at the time, you had to acquire a DD (Doctorate of Divinity, basically become a priest) before you could get tenure or any chance of a good job at a University in the UK.

Darwin had already tried and lost interest in becoming a clergyman earlier on in his career and I'd imagine that he'd no interest in wasting time later on at it, 'specially since he had enough cash from his connection to the Wedgewoods to fund his own private work.

kiffer

Put me down for a fiver on "many scientists were members of the clergy, if they weren't then they wouldn't have had the free time to wander around poking at the world, even if they were still curious enough to want to..."

Dades

marco_polo wrote: »

My money is going on the early Universities were funded by religion angle.

kiffer wrote: »

Put me down for a fiver on "many scientists were members of the clergy, if they weren't then they wouldn't have had the free time to wander around poking at the world, even if they were still curious enough to want to..."

I reckon this is the angle:

When people heard the explanations of the world given by religion, they thought: "Well that's horsecrap - there has to be a more realistic answer than that. Let examine the natural world and find out". And so science was born!

marti8

It'd be B. A society has a duty of care to her weakest members, no matter what the consequences. Sacrifice to help others is a noble endeavour, and I don't say that from any religious viewpoint, as I'm agnostic. Morality isn't confined to those of faith alone.

Also, science is changing, what was accepted as scientific fact yesterday isn't necessarily so today. We are discovering new "things" and re-evaluating established facts all the time. So, that scientific fact you speak of could "change".

Once upon a time when I was doing a community care course we were asked for our input on how to deal with the elderly. I suggested, partly to just get folks thinking and talking, that the State should have a facility to enable those who want to die with dignity to do so.....gasps, shock, horror met my suggestion, lol. But I would still believe that. But that does not mean I support eugenics because I don't.