scientific proof of god

bonkey · 08-11-2005 1:27pm

Wicknight wrote:

I agree .. sorry I should have phrased my sentence as a "valid scientific idea", rather than simply a valid idea. Like you say, the validity of ID lies outside of a class room.

You mean the validity of ID lies outside of a science classroom

The main weapon ID proponents really have is the claim that science seeks to mischaracterise it. Lets not help them in that regard

jc

Zombrex · 08-11-2005 1:32pm

bonkey wrote:

You mean the validity of ID lies outside of a science classroom

jc

LOL .. i give up ... i need a speech writer ..

bonkey · 09-11-2005 10:14am

As an interesting and timely addendum....

Yesterday, the Kansas board of education decided to allow materials which challenge the status of evolution to be taught in science class. In short, they have OKed the teachnig of ID.

How did the resolve the question of whether or not ID was a scientific subject matter?

Simple. They redefined what they understand the word "science" to mean.

Bravo.

jc

Zombrex · 09-11-2005 10:25am

bonkey wrote:

As an interesting and timely addendum....

Yesterday, the Kansas board of education decided to allow materials which challenge the status of evolution to be taught in science class. In short, they have OKed the teachnig of ID.

How did the resolve the question of whether or not ID was a scientific subject matter?

Simple. They redefined what they understand the word "science" to mean.

Bravo.

jc

LOL ... why didn't we think of that before ...

sci·ence Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.
What the Bible says

Problem solved, ID is now not anti-science

GuanYin · 09-11-2005 12:06pm

bonkey wrote:

As an interesting and timely addendum....

Yesterday, the Kansas board of education decided to allow materials which challenge the status of evolution to be taught in science class. In short, they have OKed the teachnig of ID.

How did the resolve the question of whether or not ID was a scientific subject matter?

Simple. They redefined what they understand the word "science" to mean.

Bravo.

jc

Well thats not entirely accurate, they specified that scientific definition was no longer restricted to "natural explanations", which is not strictly changing the definition rather than the provisions of the definintion.

Its a terrible result, but some hope can be taken in the result in Dover, Pennsylvania, where 8 school board members who implimented the proposal of teaching ID to 9th grade students(who just happened to be republican, although I'm sure thats just coincidence

) were voted out.

It just goes to show the distinct separation between the north and south still exists. But to my mind, the whole ID thing has gone political now and common sense no longer applies.

bonkey · 09-11-2005 12:57pm

psi wrote:

Well thats not entirely accurate,

How so?

they specified that scientific definition was no longer restricted to "natural explanations", which is not strictly changing the definition rather than the provisions of the definintion.

The result of which is that saying something is "scientific" today in the state of Kansas has a different implication or meaning to what it meant yesterday.

There are things which are classifiable in Kansas today as science which were not classifiable as such yesterday.

In short, they changed the meaning as it applies in Kansas.

What will be interesting is to see what happens when they realise that their "oh-so-clever" solution will open them to lawsuits from both genuine and crank groups seeking to have other theories accepted as scientific and therefore on the curriculum on the grounds that they meet the new requirements as equally as ID does.

I would imagine the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (no, I"m not making it up. google). will be among the fore-runners.

Over on slashdot, someone has also pointed out that this may potentially mean that graduates of Kansas high schools will no longer be able to use their science qualifications to get into University of California (Berkeley), as it does not give credit for HS biology courses which teach ID.

Its a terrible result, but some hope can be taken in the result in Dover, Pennsylvania, where 8 school board members who implimented the proposal of teaching ID to 9th grade students(who just happened to be republican, although I'm sure thats just coincidence ) were voted out.

It depends on who/what they're replaced by. Its only a good sign if the new 8 are willing to reverse the decision. There will be plenty of ID supporters who have enough faith in their scientism that they'll happily put their beliefs first and career second if they can be reasonably sure their successor (should their support cost their job) won't reverse their decision.

Just on Dover though...that was another case where the definition of science (or the understanding of same) was altered to permit ID. During cross-examination, the person responsible (IIRC) for the redefinition was forced to admit that astrology met his definition of science.

It just goes to show the distinct separation between the north and south still exists.

Isn't Kansas in the middle?

But to my mind, the whole ID thing has gone political now and common sense no longer applies.

You'd have to go a long way back to find a time when ID wasn't political, if indeed that was ever the case. I'm also not sure common sense ever applied to this issue.

jc

GuanYin · 09-11-2005 1:29pm

bonkey wrote:

How so?

The result of which is that saying something is "scientific" today in the state of Kansas has a different implication or meaning to what it meant yesterday.

There are things which are classifiable in Kansas today as science which were not classifiable as such yesterday.

In short, they changed the meaning as it applies in Kansas.

While I'm not defending the decision, I will say that one could argue that science changes the provisions of a definition regularly, without actually changing the definitions.

Oh sure, journos will report that science has "redefined what it means to........" (insert whatever) but usually this means nothing more than opening the door a little to include a previous unknown cell type, or species or reaction or whatever. Its not quite re-defining, Science is still science, it has just become more political.

By removing the word "natural" from the provisions of science, they have however, opened a can of worms. Because now every pseudoscientist ghosthunter, psychic etc will feel that they are entitled to their slice of the pie. It will be interesting to see how this pans out, and whether it works its way up to educational grant allocations.

What will be interesting is to see what happens when they realise that their "oh-so-clever" solution will open them to lawsuits from both genuine and crank groups seeking to have other theories accepted as scientific and therefore on the curriculum on the grounds that they meet the new requirements as equally as ID does.

Like I said, I reckon the real backlash will come when someone tries to get an educational scientific funding body to help them fly over the rainbow.

I would imagine the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (no, I"m not making it up. google). will be among the fore-runners.

I reckon the lollypop guild of munchkin land might be first in line!

Over on slashdot, someone has also pointed out that this may potentially mean that graduates of Kansas high schools will no longer be able to use their science qualifications to get into University of California (Berkeley), as it does not give credit for HS biology courses which teach ID.

That *is* another big concern. I can actually see that as the way forward, restricting the accreditation of ID orientated courses. However, at the end of the day, the student suffers here and thats not productive to anyone.

It depends on who/what they're replaced by. Its only a good sign if the new 8 are willing to reverse the decision. There will be plenty of ID supporters who have enough faith in their scientism that they'll happily put their beliefs first and career second if they can be reasonably sure their successor (should their support cost their job) won't reverse their decision.

Oh don't worry the 8 are apparently liberal democrats who openly oppose ID.

Just on Dover though...that was another case where the definition of science (or the understanding of same) was altered to permit ID. During cross-examination, the person responsible (IIRC) for the redefinition was forced to admit that astrology met his definition of science.

As too did parapsychology if memory serves - I guess if it was good enough for Egon, Ray and Peter. Look, I'm not saying that any of this is good (I'm very opposed to ID being taught in US schools), however, I do think its being handled the wrong way by just about everyone.

Intelligent Designer knows (;)) I'm the last person in the world to preach about the folly of rushing in hotheaded to defend views, but unfortunately, this approach on both sides has gotten us to this point. Right now, someone needs to look at what the students want and make a case for whats best for them.

Isn't Kansas in the middle?

No, its the very north of "Jesusland"

You'd have to go a long way back to find a time when ID wasn't political, if indeed that was ever the case. I'm also not sure common sense ever applied to this issue.

Well it depends on what level of politics. I still believe that although this debate was raging for decades in one form or another, it only really made any progress one way or another when the conservative republicans took power in Washington.

Before that it was probably still salvagable and some common sense could have been applied. However, now its a national issue represented by high powered politicians, noone is going to back down and lose face

GuanYin · 09-11-2005 1:38pm

bonkey wrote:

I would imagine the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (no, I"m not making it up. google). will be among the fore-runners.

ROFLOL

ARRRRRRR, I BE Converted ARRRRRRRRR!!!!!

Zombrex · 09-11-2005 1:51pm

Well I am all on for the teaching of the connection between global warming and the steady decline of pirates ... but thats just common sense, and unlike ID is actually backed up by hard statistical evidence...

bonkey · 09-11-2005 2:18pm

psi wrote:

While I'm not defending the decision, I will say that one could argue that science changes the provisions of a definition regularly, without actually changing the definitions.

OK. I see the distinction you're making. Its important to remember though that science does this when it is provided with sufficient evidence both that the existing provisions/definition are/is incorrect, and that the new proposal is an improvement.

In effect, it follows the scientific method in order to make these changes.

The Kansas Board of Education, on the other hand, changed the definition (or provisions thereof) because, well, they disagreed with what the implications of that definition were. They most certainly did not employ any scientific methodology to reach their conclusions regarding the need for redefinition/reprovisioning.

The argument presented has generally been "but evolutionary theory has flaws". OK - they can show this side of things. No argument there - there are unresolved issues. However, the scientific conclusion would be to decide that evolutionary theory should have these flaws/failings/gaps pointed out. There is nothing rational or scientific (old or new definition/provisions) about concluding that because evolutionary theory still has these issues that this means some other concept is the valid, competing, scientific theory which should be taught.

Oh don't worry the 8 are apparently liberal democrats who openly oppose ID.

Yeah, after your comment I went and found some more info. Looks promising, I must say...especially considering that it was found that one of the outgoing 8 had once tried to get creationism on the school curriculum, and subsequently he received least votes. Sure - correlation and causation aren't the same thing (as I'm always quick to point out - but there would appear to be evidence suggesting correlation here.

Look, I'm not saying that any of this is good (I'm very opposed to ID being taught in US schools), however, I do think its being handled the wrong way by just about everyone.

I dunno. I guess it depends on what you see as the issue. Personally, my concern is the denigration of science. After that, I honestly couldn't care less. I don't mind if the US decides "this isn't science, but we'll allow it anyway", or if it decides to allow it in social studies, or somewhere else. My objection is to the ridiculous undermining of the basic concept of what science is because nothing good can come of it.

Right now, someone needs to look at what the students want and make a case for whats best for them.

What they want and whats best for them are two seperate subjective viewpoints, neither of which I believe have been neglected by either side. Both sides will insist they are looking out for what is best for the students, and will have no problem trotting out students (like they do scientists) to affirm their claims. No matter who comes out on top, they will claim its a popular victory and ultimately what is best for the students.

Me, I don't care about the students as much as I care about the subject. I'm looking out for what I see as being best for science, because that it what is under attack. It might be under attack for tangential reasons, but I'm personally only interested in the protection of science.

As I said earlier in this thread, the concept of God or an Intelligent Designer doesn't make me uncomfortable at all. Its the suggestion that such ideas are scientific that are anathema to me.

jc

bonkey · 09-11-2005 2:20pm

Wicknight wrote:

Well I am all on for the teaching of the connection between global warming and the steady decline of pirates ... but thats just common sense, and unlike ID is actually backed up by hard statistical evidence...

Wait a sec.

There's a pirate in that Flying Spaghetti Monster picture.

It's all beginning to make sense now.

jc

GuanYin · 09-11-2005 2:38pm

bonkey wrote:

The argument presented has generally been "but evolutionary theory has flaws". OK - they can show this side of things. No argument there - there are unresolved issues. However, the scientific conclusion would be to decide that evolutionary theory should have these flaws/failings/gaps pointed out. There is nothing rational or scientific (old or new definition/provisions) about concluding that because evolutionary theory still has these issues that this means some other concept is the valid, competing, scientific theory which should be taught.

<snip>

I dunno. I guess it depends on what you see as the issue. Personally, my concern is the denigration of science. After that, I honestly couldn't care less. I don't mind if the US decides "this isn't science, but we'll allow it anyway", or if it decides to allow it in social studies, or somewhere else. My objection is to the ridiculous undermining of the basic concept of what science is because nothing good can come of it.

What they want and whats best for them are two seperate subjective viewpoints, neither of which I believe have been neglected by either side. Both sides will insist they are looking out for what is best for the students, and will have no problem trotting out students (like they do scientists) to affirm their claims. No matter who comes out on top, they will claim its a popular victory and ultimately what is best for the students.

Me, I don't care about the students as much as I care about the subject. I'm looking out for what I see as being best for science, because that it what is under attack. It might be under attack for tangential reasons, but I'm personally only interested in the protection of science.

As I said earlier in this thread, the concept of God or an Intelligent Designer doesn't make me uncomfortable at all. Its the suggestion that such ideas are scientific that are anathema to me.

jc

To be fair, Science is under no threat from this situation as the scientific community will never ever accept ID as anything other than a philosophical view (and rightly so).

You have to remember, that while the US leaves religion out of education, they're one of the very few countries that do so.

Irish schools teach and have taught religion right beside science from primary level and this often included creationist views (The primary curriculum required memorising of religious Q&A which included a description of God as the one who created man and all life - thats a hell of alot more than ID is doing with older kids who may already have made up their minds). I don't believe for one second that this has had any bearing on the scientific standards of the Irish community.

The situation in the US is regretable but localised to HS level among a small number of schools. The changes will have no bearing on the quality of science in these areas as the chances of any university adopting ID into a biology course are astronomical. Much like our own students, these kids will be opened to a new range of ideas and thinking at 3rd level.

The people who matter in science will still be there and they'll still hold their views. I find it unlikely that this will really change anything for the kids at the level of each individuals personal education as I suspect they have all been bombarded with the positives and negatives of both evolutions and ID for years.

So all in all, I don't personally believe that the rigour of scientific value is in any danger or under any challenge in any meaningful way. It still just amounts to posturing and a large scale pissing contest. Its wrong that they have adopted the policies but our progress in the scientific endeabour is not under threat. The children are, if the HS limits their college choices, but thats about it.

bonkey · 09-11-2005 3:06pm

psi wrote:

To be fair, Science is under no threat from this situation as the scientific community will never ever accept ID as anything other than a philosophical view (and rightly so).

Not today's scientific community, no.

You have to remember, that while the US leaves religion out of education, they're one of the very few countries that do so.

Indeed. This is what I see as part of the problem. nations who include both make a distinction. This is the scientific explanation, that is the religious.

What is being attmepted to be done in the US is to undermine the scientific explanation because the religious cannot be openly taught.

Sure, its by no means a fait accompli, nor is it a slippery slope where our doom is guaranteed, but that doesn't change this from being anything but a deliberate attack on science itself.

Irish schools teach and have taught religion right beside science from primary level and this often included creationist views (The primary curriculum required memorising of religious Q&A which included a description of God as the one who created man and all life - thats a hell of alot more than ID is doing with older kids who may already have made up their minds). I don't believe for one second that this has had any bearing on the scientific standards of the Irish community.

I don't know about you, but I was never taught science in the religion class, nor religion during science. When the crossover questions arose, they were fielded in both classes by teachers who pointed out calmly and with respect that the two fields neither contradicted each other nor could do so due to the fundamental difference in what they were looking at.

I was taught that scientists can believe in God and that he created the universe without compromising in the slightest their belief in the relative/apparent correctness of theories like the Big Bang. I was taught they could do this because they had learned to distinguish science and religion from each other.

So what I see happening in the US is nowhere comparable to the situation we have in Ireland, nor indeed in any developed nation which teaches both science and religion that I'm aware of. We teach them as seperate, non-contradictory subjects.

The situation in the US is regretable but localised to HS level among a small number of schools.

Thats why Bush has made public comments about it when questioned by the national media? Because its a small, localised issue of no real import?

What happens should enough people are convinced by the silence of the scientific community is evidence of IDers claims, decide it should be in hte classroom, and make it an electoral issue???

ID has - as you acknowledged in other posts - been around for a long time. It has been gaining momentum, and the recent successes of getting it included in educational curricula in multiple isolated areas in the US marks its highest point to date.

It is dangerous in the extreme to take a movement which is gaining momentum on a continuous basis and dismiss it as not really significant because its not that big yet. How big do we let it get to before deciding its worth worrying about?

The time to defend science and its merits is not when ID has gained enough momentum that a large number of people have had their understanding of what science entails created or corrupted in order to support it.

The time to defend science is before that happens, but when its apparent that this is what its supporters are trying to do, and that they are having success at doing so.

It still just amounts to posturing and a large scale pissing contest.

So you're saying I should only get worried after the wrong side win (or look like winning) the contest? How does one stop them from winning, if not by opposing?

jc

GuanYin · 09-11-2005 6:13pm

bonkey wrote:

Not today's scientific community, no.

Nor the future. A large proportion of americas top scientists are imported. This and the competition it creates is the main reason the US is such a powerhouse of science. The money will follow these people anywhere and tbh we're approaching the stage where Japan, Singapore and Australia (well Sydney) can match the funding in the US and already many top scientists are moving to singapore on the eve of retirement.

I personally don't think that the international scientific community would ever be threathened in the manner which you seem to be suggesting. By and large, the top scientists are still european in nationality and I honestly think that if the US ever did try to take federal control over scientific dictum, the US science community would hit an exodus.

From an economic PoV this isn't a good thing for the US. After the Butler affair, the US lost quite a few research labs that were co-oping with science multinationals. Science is big business in the US.

If evolution was marketable and a big business science concern, this wouldn't be happening right now.

Indeed. This is what I see as part of the problem. nations who include both make a distinction. This is the scientific explanation, that is the religious.

What is being attmepted to be done in the US is to undermine the scientific explanation because the religious cannot be openly taught.

[/quote]

Agreed, but the victory is a symbolic one that probably won't last very long. Its a HUGE step backwards for the US education system, but its not going to have any far reaching effects. Remember, it was proposed in over 10 schools at one stage. Kansas is the only one to get it through and I think that the Dover incident sends a far greater message in the US.

Sure, its by no means a fait accompli, nor is it a slippery slope where our doom is guaranteed, but that doesn't change this from being anything but a deliberate attack on science itself.

And I already explained why this is the case. Technically Big Bang Theory has as much blasphemy as evolution, but we don't see as many headlines about that (although we see some). Evolution is the crux of the evangelists because it directly contradicts the words of god. The battle became personal a long long time ago.

These people don't give a toss about attacking science, they're attacking evolution because of what, historically, it represents.

I don't know about you, but I was never taught science in the religion class, nor religion during science. When the crossover questions arose, they were fielded in both classes by teachers who pointed out calmly and with respect that the two fields neither contradicted each other nor could do so due to the fundamental difference in what they were looking at.

I spent most of my education in the US, so no I wasn't taughtthe two together. However, there is no guideline on how a teacher deals with crossover questions about science and religion in Ireland (at least there weren't last time I checked).

I was taught that scientists can believe in God and that he created the universe without compromising in the slightest their belief in the relative/apparent correctness of theories like the Big Bang. I was taught they could do this because they had learned to distinguish science and religion from each other.

Your experience may have been the norm or it may have been exceptionally lucky. I'm inclined to believe it was somewhere in between. Certainly some of my older IRish colleagues remember openly being taught creationism and one recounted how a christian brother put forward the PoV that if evolution is correct, then a dog must have a soul.

So what I see happening in the US is nowhere comparable to the situation we have in Ireland, nor indeed in any developed nation which teaches both science and religion that I'm aware of. We teach them as seperate, non-contradictory subjects.

I don't think thats a curriculum guideline. I think it may be taken for granted that they are separate, but given the lack of homogeneous teaching standards in Ireland, I'd be surprised if that was the case across the country.

Thats why Bush has made public comments about it when questioned by the national media? Because its a small, localised issue of no real import?

What happens should enough people are convinced by the silence of the scientific community is evidence of IDers claims, decide it should be in hte classroom, and make it an electoral issue???

Bush backed it because its a voting tool and an issue supported by the Conservative Republicans. In the US at present, Bush's backing could be a kiss of death (Given his performances in backing Republican Candidates for Governor).

The US system is set up so that it could never really be an electoral issue anyway, at leats not one he could have much power over. It would be like a Republican Presidential Candidate promising to overturn Roe Vs. Wade on a manifesto.

ID has - as you acknowledged in other posts - been around for a long time. It has been gaining momentum, and the recent successes of getting it included in educational curricula in multiple isolated areas in the US marks its highest point to date.

I'd imagine its highest point would have been when evolution was banned in US schools. Another high point would have been in 1999 when evolution was taken off the curriculum in Kansas state schools. In 2001 that board was ousted and the descision was reversed.

And yet here we are and its it is shocking that evolution is being challenged in the classroom!? Its recent successes have coincided with the Strong Conservative Republican White House, strategic appointments by Bush and the weakness of the current Democrats. Like I said, I think that Dover will have been far more significant in its message to school boards and I don't see the Kansas situation lasting long.

It is dangerous in the extreme to take a movement which is gaining momentum on a continuous basis and dismiss it as not really significant because its not that big yet. How big do we let it get to before deciding its worth worrying about?

When it gets to universities. Have a look at the statistics for school leavers in the Kansas schools involved. The employment rates for the areas involved.

Most intellectual institutes and intellectual property in the US are in the northern coastal democratic states. These states also have the highest employment and education levels (and also the most non-US). Quite simply, ID will NEVER be accepted there.

I'd be far more worried about manifestos in elections that incite homophobia and racism. Texas outlawing gay marriages was a far bigger worry in terms of the state of the US.

The time to defend science and its merits is not when ID has gained enough momentum that a large number of people have had their understanding of what science entails created or corrupted in order to support it.

The time to defend science is before that happens, but when its apparent that this is what its supporters are trying to do, and that they are having success at doing so.

I think you're overestimating the actual magnitude of what has happened here. This is just 1999 all over again. Its happened before and it will be reversed again. The situation in these states is unfortunate, but the press have as per usual gone for the shock value and not really given the overall picture.

So you're saying I should only get worried after the wrong side win (or look like winning) the contest? How does one stop them from winning, if not by opposing?

jc

They will be opposed. The voters will oust the education school board and replace them with moderates and then it will go on round again, eventually it will get brought up at a higher level maybe even the senate, the motion will be defeated because noone in the US is going to change any of the major constitutional edicts and we'll see what happens after that.

bonkey · 09-11-2005 8:56pm

OK...I guess I lost the run o' myself slightly there.

Let me restate where I'm coming from.

I don't see this as some cataclysmic event. I don't go out of my way to fight ID or anything like that. But whenever someone spouts ID to me, or in a forum that I participate in, I only see one of two things:

- (slightly tinfoil-hatty, and less likely) Its someone with an actual agenda, and , well, I'm not gonna let them play their game unhindered.
- (more likely) Its someone who has heard and who may or may not have bought into the idea, but who thinks its a really neat topic to discuss. I want to make sure they've heard the other side of the argument, and then see just how well they've considered what it is they're proposing.

When it comes to public shifts in policy - '99 as you pointed out being a particularly bad point - I wouldn't rule out the influence that the media had on it. Sure...its local media which will arguably have the most impact, but national/international scrutiny will generally fuel that.

I guess what I'm saying is that I agree that we shouldn't lose perspective on the magnitude of this, but we shouldn't discount the benefit of paying attention either.

The reason I'm so annoyed about it is because I see so many comments regarding the issue talking about whether or not people have an issue with both theories being taught in the science classroom. To me, this is a victory on the part of ID, as it has people accepting it as a theory of the same (or of a comparable) type to the theory of evolution.

Its insidious. Just like the Federation.

GuanYin · 09-11-2005 9:34pm

bonkey wrote:

The reason I'm so annoyed about it is because I see so many comments regarding the issue talking about whether or not people have an issue with both theories being taught in the science classroom. To me, this is a victory on the part of ID, as it has people accepting it as a theory of the same (or of a comparable) type to the theory of evolution.

Its insidious. Just like the Federation.

You are right. The principle of what has happened is just plain disgraceful. And to some degree, it is a victory for ID, or more correctly, the fundamentalist creationists who see ID as a tool to wage their petty battle. I guess you take whatever victories you can get.

To be perfectly frank, most of the people I see debating this (on either side) have no clue what ID actually is. For instance, they thnk its a rehash of creationism or just creationism by another name. How surprised would the be that one of the strongest supporters of ID and one of the movements leading figures, is a buddhist. Not a christian and certainly not a creationist.

This is possible, because the theology of ID is merely a rehash of Paley's old argument - that something as complex as the universe and the life inhabiting has a driving motion or "watchmaker".

No deity is specified, no specific religious text and at no point does it discredit the big bang of evolution or anything like that (in fact,for the most part it embraces these theories or at least allows room for them). As a theology this is pretty benign, and is very little much more than someone saying "yeah I believe there's a higher or greater being out there".

Now. The problem is when the creationists and conservative christians move in and portray ID as something its not. They see it as the answer to evolution. Their argument is along the lines of :

"Well you say you can't prove evolution but that you don't need to because the evidence for it is insurmountable. Well if you can't prove it, then you can't disprove that its gods work and it seems unlikely that all this happened by chance - by your own admission the odds of life evolving on a planet are low - then you have to include ID in science class, because after all, its part of evolution - QED"

which is just a nonsense and unfortunate, because in terms of theological debate and discussion, there is alot on offer, while in terms of scientific argument, its just a farce.

It is very frustrating, but its all down to the local climate and its sad that it happens in this day and age but its not the end of the world.

akindoc · 02-12-2005 4:48pm

well bonkey if we cant isolate nothing then how do you know that something comes from nothing in quantum mechanics then??

akindoc · 02-12-2005 5:02pm

You are more blind and brainwahsed than the mindless Bible believers (of which I am not one, as I test everything) that you criticize. Have YOU ever done these experiments yourself? How do you know that this is even true. You've put your COMPLETE faith in the writers of these books. Sound familiar? You cannot simulate nothingness. It's impossible. The fact that the "nothing" would have a border, means that it isn't nothing. Therefore NO SCIENTIST can properly simulate complete and utter nothingness. Logic tells us that nothingness could have never existed, simply becuase it couldn't have changed state. Secondly, no one has any idea about quantum mechanics. It's unproven mess and contradicts all other known science and logic. I know enough about what it is trying to say to tell you that.

"What caused this constant to exist"...is like me asking of the Train engine which is pulling the rest of the carriages, "what is pulling the engine?". The constant exists! It didn't come into being. It is a constant, not a variable. It was always there, unchanging, it is not an effect and therefore it does not require a cause. That question only applies to something which had a beginning. I'm not contradicting myself at all, you simply cannot fathom this simple logic. Everything temporal requires a cause, but the eternal is eternal. Every carriage on a train requires pulling except the first one...which is itself the puller. Creating the universe wouldn't require a change in the state of the constant but would rather show a change in state of the nothingness around the constant. The constant remains unchanged with the creation merely being a fullfullment of its power.

kiffer · 08-12-2005 4:11pm

akindoc wrote:

You are more blind and brainwahsed than the mindless Bible believers (of which I am not one, as I test everything) that you criticize. Have YOU ever done these experiments yourself? How do you know that this is even true. You've put your COMPLETE faith in the writers of these books. Sound familiar?

Thats not totaly accurate now is it?
I've done some experiments myself and others have done other experiments, then we compare notes.
I dont put COMPLETE faith in the writers of those books, in fact most scientists will happly tell you that a large amount of published papers are wrong (or at least inaccurate and in need of revision).
The Key difference here is that scientific ideas are testable, but gods are not.
I do put a large amount of faith in the scientific community as a whole, if some one puts forward an idea it gets tested by Peer Review, and if it passes muster it gets put out to the world at large.
Models and Ideas change over time...

I don't have faith in the my physics book, I do believe that the large number of people testing these ideas and methods can and will find flaws with them.
The interesting thing is that Scientists can (or should be able to) change their minds about how the universe works.
However the mindless Bible believers are not in a position to change what they believe... they have a book with all the answers, the SkyWizard did it. They believe the text of their books, and cannot change that text. they can chose to change how they interpret the book but in the end thats not the same thing as being able to go, "this bit here is wrong, it didn't happen, God didn't destroy Soddom, he just moved it 5 miles down the road"

I've no problem with people believing in God, I'm never happy when people say, "but you believe some thing you read in a book too!!!!111oneone"

I believe it because it's been tested.
I don't believe many of the things in the bilbe because I consider them to be myths/metaphors and so on.
They are either not testable or they contradict things that are well proven.

The Proof of my Eyes out weighs what people who are long dead made up to explain the universe.
I'm happier to use the new things we've made up, then tested, discarding those things that fail our tests.

In time I'm sure that some amount of what I beleive about the universe will be proven wrong. maybe it'll be the speed of light, maybe it'll some other constant, like the belief that the world was flat, or at the earth is center of the universe, or that the sun revolved around the earth, or that the sun was the center of the universe.

The existance of gods can not be proven. They can not be tested in the same way that we test other things.

If one person says to me that there are 3 gods, called Chrao, Mario and Ughrob. I can't test that. that one person might believe in Chrao, Mario and Ughrob utterly, they might have had some amazing encounter with them but then the next day I meet some one who basicaly says all the same things but says there is <b>only two</b> gods called Snowfizz and Bob (They live in the sky.)

which one should I believe?
they both can't be right... I can't test for the existance of either set of gods, both have the same amount of faith and fervour.
I've got 3 choices
*Person one is right
*Person two is right
*Neither people are right

Clearly neither of them is right. because we all know that these guys are nuts no self repecting god would be called Snowfizz or Mario.

rsynnott · 09-12-2005 5:05pm

http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/ tbh

rsynnott · 09-12-2005 5:13pm

tortega wrote:

Have you not seen DOOM? Surely you know that 10% of the human genome doesn't seem to do anything and is therefore is the soul, and if a soul exists, surely this would imply the existence of God?

This thread is a wonderful mixture of reasoned discourse and completely mad things. What the above is can safely be left as an exercise to the reader.

PlayaFlow · 09-12-2005 5:18pm

akindoc wrote:

What we know.

Something cannot come out of nothing. If there was ever a state of absolute nothingness (eternal nothing) there would never have been anything. Nothing cannot change state, it would have no boundaries, it would be constant.

Therefore...there was always something!

Whether you want to believe in God or not you HAVE NO CHOICE but to believe that there was always something in existence. If there was always SOMETHING, then this something is not a variable, but a constant.

We know that the universe, and all life and matter within, is variable and temporal. Therefore the universe itself cannot be this required constant. The universe began at some point...but we know that something must have caused it to begin. We know this because of the inherent principle of cause and effect. Nothing happens without a reason/cause.

We know that cause and effect is a universal principle because if it were not the universe itself will be based on anarchy with no rules or laws or principles. Rules and laws require cause and effect. If cause and effect were not the premise of all things then random chaos would be the way things are: planets inexplicably turning into ice cream, humans turning into trees or gold or any other nonsense that you can imagine. There would be no science, logic, or any other method of reasoning. There would be no need for reason...for all things would be random and unexplainable.

OBVIOUSLY crazy things such as this do not occur without reason....and so we can safetly accept the cause and effect principle as law!

So...something must have caused the temporal variable Universe. This something must be a constant (in any event...whatever started the entire chain of existence must be a constant that was always here). If this something was (is) a constant then the question of "what caused it" does not apply. If constant and eternal....the question of "where did it come from" is non applicable and irrelevant.

So LOGICALLY we can see that there is an inherent constant in the universe by which all laws and priniples are derived from and inherent. You don't have to call it God if you do not wish to...but you HAVE to acknowledge its existence in the equation of logic.

Any questions?

did you come up with this yourself??????? ??? ... PM ur answer , coz ill probably forget to check back

The Bollox · 09-12-2005 5:27pm

akindoc wrote:

What we know.

Something cannot come out of nothing. If there was ever a state of absolute nothingness (eternal nothing) there would never have been anything. Nothing cannot change state, it would have no boundaries, it would be constant.

Therefore...there was always something!

Whether you want to believe in God or not you HAVE NO CHOICE but to believe that there was always something in existence. If there was always SOMETHING, then this something is not a variable, but a constant.

We know that the universe, and all life and matter within, is variable and temporal. Therefore the universe itself cannot be this required constant. The universe began at some point...but we know that something must have caused it to begin. We know this because of the inherent principle of cause and effect. Nothing happens without a reason/cause.

We know that cause and effect is a universal principle because if it were not the universe itself will be based on anarchy with no rules or laws or principles. Rules and laws require cause and effect. If cause and effect were not the premise of all things then random chaos would be the way things are: planets inexplicably turning into ice cream, humans turning into trees or gold or any other nonsense that you can imagine. There would be no science, logic, or any other method of reasoning. There would be no need for reason...for all things would be random and unexplainable.

OBVIOUSLY crazy things such as this do not occur without reason....and so we can safetly accept the cause and effect principle as law!

So...something must have caused the temporal variable Universe. This something must be a constant (in any event...whatever started the entire chain of existence must be a constant that was always here). If this something was (is) a constant then the question of "what caused it" does not apply. If constant and eternal....the question of "where did it come from" is non applicable and irrelevant.

So LOGICALLY we can see that there is an inherent constant in the universe by which all laws and priniples are derived from and inherent. You don't have to call it God if you do not wish to...but you HAVE to acknowledge its existence in the equation of logic.

Any questions?

you do realise, right, that in a few years someone somewhere will turn physics on it's head. I mean back a few hundred years it was completly unheard of that the earth is not the center of the universe. but low and behold galileo came along and proved it. I mean what if someone in a few decades makes a time machine and goes back in time before the 'big bang' and does something to make shít happen. science can only got you so far

Son Goku · 09-12-2005 5:28pm

akindoc wrote:

Secondly, no one has any idea about quantum mechanics. It's unproven mess and contradicts all other known science and logic. I know enough about what it is trying to say to tell you that.

*Sigh*
It doesn't contradict all other science and logic, it explains chemistry and photon emission perfectly and that’s before I discuss it's main achievements.
And it is certainly proven, because I have seen and done the experiments myself and I know the theory.

Please tell me what aspect of QM is an unproven mess?

(And QM does not say that something comes from nothing, Quantum Field Theory says something similar, but not quite that.)

rsynnott · 09-12-2005 5:35pm

PlayaFlow wrote:

did you come up with this yourself??????? ??? ... PM ur answer , coz ill probably forget to check back

It's not a huge accomplishment - anyone can prove the existance of anything by taking enough liberties with assumptions and logic.

homah_7ft · 09-12-2005 6:28pm

Marts wrote:

I mean back a few hundred years it was completly unheard of that the earth is not the center of the universe. but low and behold galileo came along and proved it.

Wrong and eh, wrong. Sorry chief.

Gegerty · 09-12-2005 7:17pm

one word: M-Theory. This will have all the answers and its not far off completion if the book I'm reading at the moment is accurate.

If its true then there are multiple universes in which every possible combination can happen. That means there are universes with nothingness and there are universes where the dinosaurs still roam the earth. It's a comforting thought, when you die there'll be another universe where you are still alive.

Also everything in existence has what is called a wave function. Scientist used to think that when you die your wave function ends. If M-Theory is proven then scientists believe that your wave function does not end but becomes de-coalesced with our universe and continues to exist. This means that the wave functions of the dinosaurs are all around us, like radio wave transmissions of the past.

Son Goku · 09-12-2005 7:29pm

What book are you reading?
I ask because that's a very "liberal" view of the nature of the wavefunction.

Gegerty · 09-12-2005 7:34pm

Son Goku wrote:

What book are you reading?
I ask because that's a very "liberal" view of the nature of the wavefunction.

Parallel Worlds by MICHIO KAKU

The book goes into more detail obviously.

Crucifix · 09-12-2005 7:43pm

I've only covered some basic Quantum physics, but I'm not sure how the wave function can be applied to a person's life. Actually....do you still have a wave function if you're not in motion?
Also, someone said 90% of a human's DNA has an unknown function...surely that can't be true. You're always hearing people saying that a standard set of genes doesn't seem to provide enough information for the creation of a human.

Gegerty · 09-12-2005 7:59pm

Crucifix wrote:

I've only covered some basic Quantum physics, but I'm not sure how the wave function can be applied to a person's life. Actually....do you still have a wave function if you're not in motion?
Also, someone said 90% of a human's DNA has an unknown function...surely that can't be true. You're always hearing people saying that a standard set of genes doesn't seem to provide enough information for the creation of a human.

I think the book said that scientists like to use simplified models to debate theories. The particular example it was talking about was the cat in the box theory. Is the cat both alive and dead at the same time or is it alive up until the point when someone actual looks into the box and sees it dead. Its wave function becomes de-coalesced from our universe as soon as the box is opened and the cat is seen to be dead (was one side of the argument).

It does point out that the debate is just a model by which some scientists (I don't remember their names) were using to debate a much more complicated theory. It also goes into the more complicated theory but I'm not going to because I'll only get it wrong!

Crucifix · 09-12-2005 8:02pm

Gegerty wrote:

I think the book said that scientists like to use simplified models to debate theories. The particular example it was talking about was the cat in the box theory. Is the cat both alive and dead at the same time or is it alive up until the point when someone actual looks into the box and sees it dead. Its wave function becomes de-coalesced from our universe as soon as the box is opened and the cat is seen to be dead (was one side of the argument).

I think Schrodinger's cat was supposed to be a metaphor for the probability distributions associated with an electron's wave characteristics.

Gegerty · 09-12-2005 8:11pm

Crucifix wrote:

I always though Schrodinger's cat was supposed to be a metaphor for the probability distributions associated with an electron's wave characteristics, rather than actually being associated with life and death.

Like I said its a simplified model used to debate a more complicated theory. Its also a good way of explaining the topic beofre diving into the real issue. If I could be bothered i'd get some quotes for you....but I can't be bothered.

Son Goku · 09-12-2005 8:33pm

Crucifix wrote:

I've only covered some basic Quantum physics, but I'm not sure how the wave function can be applied to a person's life. Actually....do you still have a wave function if you're not in motion?
Also, someone said 90% of a human's DNA has an unknown function...surely that can't be true. You're always hearing people saying that a standard set of genes doesn't seem to provide enough information for the creation of a human.

You're right, a wavefunction can't be applied to a person's life.

The wavefunction gives the root of probability density for position and momenta.
Kaku isn't the most reliable source for information, he's a bit of a new age mystic.

Gegerty · 12-12-2005 10:31am

I don't believe everything I read and the majority of his book is speculation because nobody can claim to fully understand string theory. New age mystic? I don't get that impression at all.

I think you guys are missing the point, I just meant to point out that M-Theory could give us a whole new take on life and our universe and thats not the words of Kaku, his book is just a round up of what is going on today in string theory research and he backs up everything he says and he also points out how unlikely alot of the stuff is. It's a great book for the layman i suggest you read it before you pass comment.

Son Goku · 12-12-2005 6:35pm

Gegerty wrote:

I don't believe everything I read and the majority of his book is speculation because nobody can claim to fully understand string theory. New age mystic? I don't get that impression at all.

I think you guys are missing the point, I just meant to point out that M-Theory could give us a whole new take on life and our universe and thats not the words of Kaku, his book is just a round up of what is going on today in string theory research and he backs up everything he says and he also points out how unlikely alot of the stuff is. It's a great book for the layman i suggest you read it before you pass comment.

I've read it and heard the opinions of others working in the field.
He isn't considered conservative with his interpretations.
He tends to overload everything with as much "fairy dust" as possible.

As for String Theory itself, I take it with a asteriod sized chunk of salt.

As Gerard t'Hooft said:
"Not since the age of Bacon, has a theory been worked on for so long without it making a single experimental prediciton."

Freddie59 · 18-12-2005 10:22pm

geraghd wrote:

Of Jesus or Mohammed?

Isn't Jesus the son of our Divine Lord, whereas Mohammed was merely a prophet?

Freddie59 · 18-12-2005 10:25pm

Sleepy wrote:

bonkey, take a bow. That was the best dismissal of an argument I've seen on boards for a long time.

I'd say God is shaking in his boots................:rolleyes:

rsynnott · 19-12-2005 10:33am

Freddie59 wrote:

Isn't Jesus the son of our Divine Lord, whereas Mohammed was merely a prophet?

The only mainstream belief system that acknowledges both of them (Islam) considers Jesus to be a prophet, not the son of god.

bonkey · 19-12-2005 10:58am

Freddie59 wrote:

Isn't Jesus the son of our Divine Lord,

That would be dependant on whether or not there is a Divine Lord, and whether or not its in any way remotely connected to Christian beliefs, really.

I'd say God is shaking in his boots

The response I posted was targetted at the argument presented, not at the underlying belief which it implied. So your pithy comeback is somewhat misplaced.

If people want to believe in a God (or Gods) thats their choice. I have no issue with belief. If they choose to go further and believe in a Christian God...thats fine too. I'm not particularly enamoured of organised religion, but accept that its pretty-much inextricably linked to belief at present. However, once people suggest that they can scientifically prove that their belief-based position is correct, I (and no shortage of other people) will show that they are mistaken.

Science and belief don't even address the same questions, so its ludicrous to suggest either can supply an answer for the other. Why do so many religious people have a problem making this distinction?

jc

GuanYin · 19-12-2005 11:18am

bonkey wrote:

Science and belief don't even address the same questions, so its ludicrous to suggest either can supply an answer for the other. Why do so many religious people have a problem making this distinction?

Spot on. Although I will say that a fair amount of people who'd call themselves scientists, or at least believe they posessed the ability to reason scientifically, can't make the distinction either.

Freddie59 · 19-12-2005 1:45pm

bonkey wrote:

That would be dependant on whether or not there is a Divine Lord, and whether or not its in any way remotely connected to Christian beliefs, really.

The response I posted was targetted at the argument presented, not at the underlying belief which it implied. So your pithy comeback is somewhat misplaced.

If people want to believe in a God (or Gods) thats their choice. I have no issue with belief. If they choose to go further and believe in a Christian God...thats fine too. I'm not particularly enamoured of organised religion, but accept that its pretty-much inextricably linked to belief at present. However, once people suggest that they can scientifically prove that their belief-based position is correct, I (and no shortage of other people) will show that they are mistaken.

Science and belief don't even address the same questions, so its ludicrous to suggest either can supply an answer for the other. Why do so many religious people have a problem making this distinction?

jc

Well - science v God. No contest really. God wins hands down always. If you never believed in God (or A God) then surely you must beileve that there is a driving force behind all around us (and not just mother Nature!).

Many of us are quite content to believe in the divine and the notion of Him. But I take your point and must respect your views and beliefs also. I think it's called a Mexican standoff!;)

Freddie59 · 19-12-2005 1:46pm

rsynnott wrote:

The only mainstream belief system that acknowledges both of them (Islam) considers Jesus to be a prophet, not the son of god.

But that's an Islamic perspective.:)

rsynnott · 19-12-2005 1:51pm

Freddie59 wrote:

Well - science v God. No contest really. God wins hands down always. If you never beielved in God (or A God) then surely you must beileve that there is a driving force behind all around us (and not just mother Nature!).

Sorry, no, why on Earth must I believe that?

bonkey · 19-12-2005 2:03pm

Freddie59 wrote:

Well - science v God. No contest really.

Correct....but not in the manner you suggest.

Science and God don't compete in any manner, so there is no contest.

God wins hands down always.

How? There is no contest to win. There are no areas where the two compete.

Many of us are quite content to believe in the divine and the notion of Him. But I take your point and must respect your views and beliefs also.

I think you'll find that my point (which you claim to take) is that belief and science are entirely, non-overlapping, seperate things. Not once on this thread, nor (I believe) on any thread dealing with this topic have I once clarified what my beliefs are.

And yet thread after thread after thread shows some religious-centric poster deciding that because I refuse to put God above science, instead maintaining that the two are seperate, they can draw inferences about my beliefs. As you've just done.

Which ironically only proves my point: Far too few religious-centric people seem capable of understanding what science is...or feel a need to wilfully misrepresent it.

I think it's called a Mexican standoff!;)

Only for those who either don't understand what science is, or who deliberately misrepresent it in order to further some related agenda.

Oh...I should also include those who don't understand what belief and religion are, but I generally find that those with strong belief-based or religious convictions take offence when I suggest that as an alternative

bonkey · 19-12-2005 2:04pm

Freddie59 wrote:

If you never beielved in God (or A God) then surely you must beileve that there is a driving force behind all around us (and not just mother Nature!).

rephrased:

If you never believed in God then surely you must believe in God.

Eh......No, Ted.

rsynnott · 19-12-2005 2:08pm

bonkey wrote:

How? There is no contest to win. There are no areas where the two compete.

I think they show Science V God on Eurosport on particularly slow days.

Son Goku · 19-12-2005 3:46pm

Freddie59 wrote:

(and not just mother Nature!).

You can easily believe that Mother Nature is the only driving force. There is no need for a ruling sentient entity in everybody's conception of the universe.

Freddie59 · 19-12-2005 8:34pm

bonkey wrote:

rephrased:

If you never believed in God then surely you must believe in God.

Eh......No, Ted.

No. Read the post again. What I am saying is that if you never beileved in God then sureley you must believe that something (not God in your case) is driving everything. That clear enough for you Dougal?

Freddie59 · 19-12-2005 8:36pm

bonkey wrote:

Only for those who either don't understand what science is, or who deliberately misrepresent it in order to further some related agenda.

In fairness Science has done quite a fair amount of misrepresenting in it's day.:o

scientific proof of god

Comments