Do you believe......

Sangre · 10-01-2007 04:42PM

What did Muhammed get in his degree?

Tar.Aldarion · 10-01-2007 04:42PM

InFront wrote:

CV, there's no need to respond to most of what you say because most of it has been covered already and I don't see why we need to be repeating ourselves. But that quote is at the very least, a scientific falseness. Nobody can say it is of zero probability. I hope that whatever maths course you say you are doing is not heavily reliant upon statistsics and probability.

It is 0 when the term god is meaningless, because a god can not exist.
This depends on how you define god of course, which somebody has to do before I can debate the validity of their beliefs.

Sam Vimes · 10-01-2007 06:06PM

edit:

deleted long post. can't be arsed anymore

InFront · 10-01-2007 07:02PM

Sangre wrote:

What did Muhammed get in his degree?

I am only guessing, but I don't think that the Prophet pbuh, knew much about physics and mathematics:) . I'm sure whoever Stephen Hawking's typist is doesn't have the foggiest about what he means by singularities and event horizons either.

"deleted long post. can't be arsed anymore"

Okay and let us know how the CERN research that "will probably prove the Law of Conservation of Mass wrong" is going.
Having read that last post on that again, I think you must have confused the interview with the someone explaining how the LCM IS already known to eb violated in particular areas of physics such as Spec. Relativity. I re-checked their website today and they have no such projects currently running claiming to even try to disprove the LCM.

InFront · 10-01-2007 07:13PM

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

It is 0 when the term god is meaningless, because a god can not exist.
This depends on how you define god of course, which somebody has to do before I can debate the validity of their beliefs.

A stochastic probability value such as that? The 0 value suggests certainty, more than mere "evidential" logical reasoning between propositions and coming out with a descriptive value such as "very high"/ "very low". Do you feel everything has a stochastic probability value as opposed to an epistemic one?

PGod cannot be known to = 0.
We cannot know that God was not responsible for the big bang, and therefore the laws of physics, known and unknown, that follow.
If you think you can prove PGod=0 then I think the authorities should be informed of your discovery:rolleyes:

Sam Vimes · 10-01-2007 09:30PM

InFront wrote:

I am only guessing, but I don't think that the Prophet pbuh, knew much about physics and mathematics:) . I'm sure whoever Stephen Hawking's typist is doesn't have the foggiest about what he means by singularities and event horizons either.

Okay and let us know how the CERN research that "will probably prove the Law of Conservation of Mass wrong" is going.
Having read that last post on that again, I think you must have confused the interview with the someone explaining how the LCM IS already known to eb violated in particular areas of physics such as Spec. Relativity. I re-checked their website today and they have no such projects currently running claiming to even try to disprove the LCM.

believe whatever you want mate. i saw the show, you didn't

10-01-2007 10:42PM

The law of cons of mass is apparently described in special rel as "law of cons of energy" although to be honest I don't ever remember hearing of a law of cons of *mass*... of pretty much everything else yeah, but not mass... not in physics anyway

anyway special rel could be off in that whole local realism thingy, no?

Sangre · 11-01-2007 12:10AM

Steffano2002 wrote:

Same with time-travel Sangre. It is not scientifically impossible. Thus it is possible... :rolleyes:

I was being facetious. I was taking the piss out of InFront's entire arugement.

InFront · 11-01-2007 01:04AM

bluewolf wrote:

The law of cons of mass is apparently described in special rel as "law of cons of energy" although to be honest I don't ever remember hearing of a law of cons of *mass*

To give it it's full title it's called the law of conservation of mass-energy since e=mc^2 -- mass and energy can interconvert.

anyway special rel could be off in that whole local realism thingy, no?

Of course it could be, but that's getting much deeper into philosophy than (I would guess) was being suggested. Special relativity could be wrong. I just wouldn't agree that it is "very probable" that it is, based on what we know (or seem to know, as you might argue). Dawkins seems to be placing his belief that it is so that special relatvity is wrong, but on what?. Chance. Well his is mere hypothesis... and that's fine, but it should be remembered for what it is.

Dave! · 11-01-2007 01:18AM

This is merely a tangent. Assuming I haven't gotten lost in the jargon, you lot are arguing about whether or not it's possible for the life that exists on other planets to reach earth (and vice-versa). It's irrelevent and it's steering the thread away from the original topic (intentionally?).

So god eh.....

InFront · 11-01-2007 01:26AM

Well Dawkins says it probably can, science says it doesn't think so, what gives? Dawkins' faith or science?
Yes it probably is a tangent, the point is simply that Dawkins' belief in advanced, superior aliens visiting us from all those light years away (or vice versa) has more place in faith than in fact, right?

Sangre · 11-01-2007 01:31AM

Who cares what Dawkins, one man, thinks? In case you haven't noticed the only requirement for atheism is a lack of belief in any deities. There is no code, creed, insignia or secret password. The beliefs or 'faith' of one has no bearing on anyone else's claim to atheism

InFront · 11-01-2007 03:52AM

Sure, I don't care if you're an atheist. In real life I am friends with them.
My issue is only with atheists who claim that faith is false because it is unproven. Dawkins happens to believe so, based on his books and essays.

11-01-2007 07:39AM

InFront wrote:

To give it it's full title it's called the law of conservation of mass-energy since e=mc^2 -- mass and energy can interconvert.

Ah, *that's* more like it

Of course it could be, but that's getting much deeper into philosophy than (I would guess) was being suggested.

Er no, local realism is physics, not philosophy, look up quantum phys

Special relativity could be wrong. I just wouldn't agree that it is "very probable" that it is, based on what we know (or seem to know, as you might argue). Dawkins seems to be placing his belief that it is so that special relatvity is wrong, but on what?. Chance. Well his is mere hypothesis... and that's fine, but it should be remembered for what it is.

I for one am still quite confused as to why you think dawkins is saying it's wrong since all I've seen you quote from him in support is "there might be life on other planets" which is something quite unconnected...

To repeat (for the third time lads) (I) "believe that beings will be found on other planets and they will appear God-like to us". This alien life was assigned Dawkins' probability of "very probable"
Therefore according to Dawkins it is very probable that life exists on other planets that will appear God like to us
Therfore it follows that they will appear to us
Therefore, provided you understand the implications of general relativity and space travel on a large scale, it follows that these currently held limitations are "probably" wrong. Well, either that or man will manage to live well into his hundreds

Statistical evidence for life outside our solar system: perhaps.

Statistical evidence for advanced life that leaves us in awe? I can't see why, wouldn't their planet have been born after ours in the big bang?

And thirdly: that we will see them, or that they will appear to us must mean that one of us must have broken the laws of relativity, given what you know about arriving somewhere at less than the speed of light. Travel to even the very closest star to us would take decades even with Nuclear propulsions methods, but this advanced life would surely live beyond that.

Woah. You're making quite a lot of jumps and going off on one complete tangent here.
I also don't see why you're placing any importance on this whatsoever. Dawkins is one guy who believes there are aliens. He didn't even say probably as you keep quoting, he said "I believe".
Great. So what? This has nothing to do with anything...

edit: and now that I've read the chapter in "The god delusion" where he talks about this, he says that a message from such aliens would take so long to reach us that their civilisation may well appear that advanced almost godlike by the time the message got to us. Now let's stop with this dawkins vs relativity rubbish.

Sam Vimes · 11-01-2007 11:47AM

InFront wrote:

To give it it's full title it's called the law of conservation of mass-energy since e=mc^2 -- mass and energy can interconvert.

Of course it could be, but that's getting much deeper into philosophy than (I would guess) was being suggested. Special relativity could be wrong. I just wouldn't agree that it is "very probable" that it is, based on what we know (or seem to know, as you might argue). Dawkins seems to be placing his belief that it is so that special relatvity is wrong, but on what?. Chance. Well his is mere hypothesis... and that's fine, but it should be remembered for what it is.

i felt the need. for allah's sake could you please stop pretending that dawkin's was suggesting the theory of relativity is wrong with no scientific basis?

suggesting that is retarded. its so retarded that a retarded person could easily see that its retarded. do you not think that a man with a PH.D could see that its retarded?

HE IS NOT F*CKING SUGGESTING THAT. YOU ARE DELIBERATELY MISUNDERSTANDING HIM

and now we see why i couldn't have been arsed anymore

magnum69 · 11-01-2007 12:10PM

Yes i believe in religion and all that stuff. Period!:)

InFront · 11-01-2007 05:46PM

bluewolf wrote:

Er no, local realism is physics, not philosophy, look up quantum phys

Thanks for the tip. But actually I consider local realism to be a philosophical point, inasmuch as it is a concept of physics, a design of theory that encounters the nature of reality itself, not solid construction. "Realism" and "Locality" are themselves metaphysical creations. Do you not agree?

I mean in the very same way, Einstein's theory of relativity, although science, is a matter of philosophy. Einstein's theory gives us the green light to roll our eyes up to the Heavens when someone asks "what is happening right now on Mars?" because the notion of "right now" is pointless. Equally quantum mechanics, although it is scientific in nature, alters our very concept of reality... Isn't that philosophy?

Anyway, that's offtopic, the point is simply that physics and philosophy are very compatible friends.

I for one am still quite confused as to why you think dawkins is saying it's wrong since all I've seen you quote from him in support is "there might be life on other planets" which is something quite unconnected...

Generally when you put words in inverted brackets the subject has to have said them. The construct you put in quotation marks is not what i put in quotation marks. Go back and check it if you like.

Do you read Dawkins' books?

He didn't even say probably as you keep quoting, he said "I believe".

Incorrect. I have to assume you don't read his books. Page 72.

InFront · 11-01-2007 05:51PM

By the way can we decide whether this Dawkins guy is important or not? There's no point in going into his belief in aliens if nobody else believes it.

"there are very probably alien civilisations that are super-human, to the point of being god-like in ways that exceed anything a theologian could possibly imagine" As one poster correctly pointed out that is intended in the context of their space travelling abilities.

That illustrates a level of blind faith that Dawkins deplores, or tells us he does. Does anybody agree with it? Because there's no point in arguing that point if nobody feels the same.

Sam Vimes · 11-01-2007 06:12PM

InFront wrote:

By the way can we decide whether this Dawkins guy is important or not? There's no point in going into his belief in aliens if nobody else believes it.

"there are very probably alien civilisations that are super-human, to the point of being god-like in ways that exceed anything a theologian could possibly imagine" As one poster correctly pointed out that is intended in the context of their space travelling abilities.

That illustrates a level of blind faith that Dawkins deplores, or tells us he does. Does anybody agree with it? Because there's no point in arguing that point if nobody feels the same.

no, nobody feels the same way you do on that point. aliens almost certinaly do exist. as one poster said, there's roughly a 1 in a quadrillion chance that they don't. dawkins feels that way because its statistically likely. it has nothing to do with blind faith. it boggles the mind that you fail to see that.

can you honestly not see the difference between believing something because there's a 1 in a qudarillon chance of it not being true (evidence based belief) and believing something despite there being a 1 in qaudrillion chance chance of it being true (blind faith)

btw earlier you described it as "embarrassing" that i said he had a doctorate of philosophy. i realise he didn't directly get a PH.D in philosophy, however his wiki page says that he has a "D.Phil" which is directly described as a doctor of philosophy. i was using its literal definition to prove the point that he's not an uneducated hack as you're trying to trick people into thinking he is

i'm taking bets on how InFront's going to deliberately misunderstand the above to pretend it has something to do with faith or saying einstein is wrong

InFront · 11-01-2007 06:22PM

Commander Vimes wrote:

btw earlier you described it as "embarrassing" that i said he had a doctorate of philosophy. i realise he didn't directly get a PH.D in philosophy, however his wiki page says that he has a "D.Phil" which is directly described as a doctor of philosophy.

I'm not sure what's going on here. Is nobody else reading Dawkins' books or are you just posting from what you've overheard about him? If you have read his books as is taken for granted, one would guess you would know what his PhD, which ended his formal academic studies, consisted of - the "ethnic" identity of the gene - ethology of genetics, and you wouldn't need to be looking it up on wikipedia of all things.
CV have you read Dawkins' books or essays, or not? Any of them?

Sam Vimes · 11-01-2007 06:34PM

InFront wrote:

I'm not sure what's going on here. Is nobody else reading Dawkins' books or are you just posting from what you've overheard about him? If you have read his books as is taken for granted, one would guess you would know what his PhD, which ended his formal academic studies, consisted of - the "ethnic" identity of the gene - ethology of genetics, and you wouldn't need to be looking it up on wikipedia of all things.
CV have you read Dawkins' books or essays, or not? Any of them?

i haven't read the books. i've seen interviews and lectures and read articles. and that's beside the point. the only times i've mentioned him is in direct response to you misrepresenting him. you've supplied the quotes and your incorrect interpretation. i've attempted to correct you. reading the book is not necessary.

you've read the book and are still unable to grasp what he was saying. maybe you should read it again and have someone who isn't prejudiced against him explain the bits you keep misrepresenting

trust me on this. his beliefs about aliens are pretty much identical to my own and so i know what he was saying. it has zero to do with blind faith and he wasn't suggesting that the theory of relativity is wrong. he just wasn't

Dave! · 11-01-2007 06:38PM

The relevent passage from page 72 of the God Delusion:

"Whether by detecting prime numbers or by some other means, imagine that SETI does come up with unequivocal evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence, followed, perhaps, by a massive transmission of knowledge and wisdom, along the science-fiction lines of Fred Hoyle's A for Andromeda or Carl Sagan's Contact. How should we respond? A pardonable reaction would be something akin to worship, for any civilization capable of broadcasting a signal over such an immense distance is likely to be greatly superior to ours. Even if that civilization is not more advanced than ours at the time of transmission, the enormous distance between us entitles us to calculate that they must be millenia ahead of us by the time the message reaches us (unless they have driven themselves extinct, which is not unlikely).

Whether we ever get to know about them or not, there are very probably alien civilizations that are superhuman, to the point of being god-like in ways that exceed anything a theologian could possibly imagine. Their technical achievements would seem as supernatural to us as ours would seem to a Dark Age peasant transported to the twenty-first century. Imagine his response to a laptop computer, a mobile phone, a hydrogen bomb or a jumbo jet. As Arthur C. Clarke put it, in his Third Law: 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' The miracles wrought by our technology would have seemed to the ancients no less remarkable than the tales of Moses parting the waters, or Jesus walking upon them. The aliens of our SETI signal would be to us like gods, just as missionaries were treated as gods (and exploited the undeserved honour to the hilt) when they turned up in Stone Age cultures bearing guns, telescopes, matches, and almanacs predicting eclipses to the second.

I've boldened the part where Dawkins shows that he doesn't necessarily believe we'll ever encounter the life from other planets, so you can stop flogging that particular dead horse based on his choice of words in the heat of public debate.

As to the whole 'god-like' thing -- what exactly is your issue with it? You've acknowledged that there's a high probablity of life on other planets. Life evolves through evolution. The planets weren't all formed at the same time. They also don't have the same environment and don't all experience the same level of attack from meteorites. So the rate of evolution would be affected.

Thus it is a fair assessment to make that some of the life on other planets is more primitive than ours, and some life is more advanced than ours. If we were to encounter a civilisation that is 2000 years behind us, it's fair to say that we would be worshipped as gods with iPods and mobile phones. And likewise if we were to encounter a civilisation that is 2000 years AHEAD of us, they would likely (based on for example our own insane rate of technological evolution) be so advanced that they would appear to be gods to us.

Can you tell me where your issue lies in that scenario?

Sam Vimes · 11-01-2007 06:40PM

thank you DaveMcG, hopefully i won't have to start banging my head against the wall now

Sam Vimes · 11-01-2007 06:42PM

DaveMcG wrote:

Can you tell me where your issue lies in that scenario?

he has no issues with that scenario so he's pretending that dawkins said:

1. we're going to go and visit them

2. that they're gods

InFront · 11-01-2007 06:44PM

Why on earth are you talking about him if you havent read him

You're the guy who was preaching about evidence and observation, yet you defend Dawkins without having bothered to have read him

I think we've debated enough with each other, at the risk of probably overposting on this issue I think I will retire from this debate with sanity:)

Sam Vimes · 11-01-2007 06:47PM

InFront wrote:

Why on earth are you talking about him if you havent read him You're the guy who was preaching about evidence and observation, yet you defend Dawkins without having bothered to have read him I think we've debated enough with each other, at the risk of probably overposting on this issue I think I will retire from this debate with sanity:)

this is another example of attacking the poster and not the post. you can't successfully argue with anything i've said so you've found some way to rubbish what i'm saying without actually arguing with it. you have not made one valid point against dawkins. its all just textbook attempts at tricking people into thinking you're right

when you live with my dad for 22 years you learn all the tricks. this is no different than ending an argument by saying "sure you're only a kid. what would you know" (replace kid with whatever attribute you want. the important thing is that the fact that you have this attribute is completely irrelevant to whether you're right or not)

btw, i haven't read the book but i have read many articles about him and seen hours and hours of video footage explaining the book, part of which was on this exact point. i know what he was saying because i heard him say it

Fanny Cradock · 11-01-2007 07:16PM

The fact that you haven't read the book does devalue your posts on him somewhat. Still, I'm still at a loss as to why so many words have been typed about the man.

Sam Vimes · 11-01-2007 07:37PM

Fanny Cradock wrote:

The fact that you haven't read the book does devalue your posts on him somewhat. Still, I'm still at a loss as to why so many words have been typed about the man.

no it doesn't. InFront is talking about very specific quotes from him, which i have seen him talk about. i fully understand what dawkins was saying and InFront's attempts to pretend he was saying something else. and so many words have been typed because InFront's still insisting he was saying something he wasn't

11-01-2007 08:04PM

InFront wrote:

Thanks for the tip. But actually I consider local realism to be a philosophical point, inasmuch as it is a concept of physics, a design of theory that encounters the nature of reality itself, not solid construction. "Realism" and "Locality" are themselves metaphysical creations. Do you not agree?

No. Either objects/particles/whathaveyou have their properties determined regardless of outside observation, or they don't.
It's cold, hard physics.

I mean in the very same way, Einstein's theory of relativity, although science, is a matter of philosophy. Einstein's theory gives us the green light to roll our eyes up to the Heavens when someone asks "what is happening right now on Mars?" because the notion of "right now" is pointless. Equally quantum mechanics, although it is scientific in nature, alters our very concept of reality... Isn't that philosophy?

I get antsy when people think mentioning the words "quantum mechanics" gives them licence to talk about "the nature of reality"...
No, it isn't, and no, it doesn't. No, no.
Sounds like you're muddling up the concept of reference frames.

Incorrect. I have to assume you don't read his books. Page 72.

When I typed the edit to my last post, I had the book in my hands. It clearly says that

A pardonable reaction would be something akin to worship, for any civilization capable of broadcasting a signal over such an immense distance is likely to be greatly superior to ours. Even if that civilization is not more advanced than ours at the time of transmission, the enormous distance between us entitles us to calculate that they must be millenia ahead of us by the time the message reaches us

I didn't think an exact quote was necessary but I guess so.
The issue is solved.

Sam Vimes · 11-01-2007 08:26PM

look at this video. go to about 30:30 and listen for two minutes:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2006/12/dawkins_in_lynchburg.html

that's the video that i was talking about earlier which meant i didn't have to read the book to know what he was saying

exactly what he says is "there may very well be somewhere in the universe evolved beings which are so far advanced compared to us that we would, if we saw them, we might be very well be tempted to call them gods"

i think that settles it

*dusts off hands*

Do you believe......

Comments