lubuntu said:Wrong again. If I make an assertion and have clear evidence which you can investigate that shows that to the best of our observation that an assertion is true, it is more correct than assertion made based on "a belief" or "faith."
Science is more correct than religion. There is an object truth we can deduce about the world we live in through experimentation. There is no hypocrisy in dismissing belief in the stead of evidence.
SixNein said:You cannot make logical conclusions about God, and I have explained and provided links that explain mathematically why that is the case. Logically, a truth cannot be discovered one way or the other. Thus you have to believe one or the other on faith. So you may chose to believe in God, or you may chose not to. Either way, the decision you make will be based upon faith.
lubuntu said:SixNein, I suggest you take a look at this to see why your arguments in this and other threads aren't nearly as strong you suppose they are
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx
lubuntu said:It takes no faith to believe nothing, that doesn't make any sense. Capital G, GOD, is a human construct which has nothing to do with the structure of this universe. By not believing in such a thing I am not making ANY positive hypothesis.
The fact that God or anything is outside of a logical structure doesn't speak the volumes for your argument like you think, it simply shows that such inquiry is worthless.
The rest of your argument is a complete non-sequitir, again I implore you to read up on logical fallacies before making your arguments.
SixNein said:You are making a positive hypothesis. God does not exist, true or false? If you say true then you believe that every single possibility has been ruled out.
Science works on observation, without observation, science DOES NOT say anything at all. That means, the scientific answer would be... don't know.
lubuntu said:There is no evidence, while we must of course remain strictly agnostic about all things that have not been ruled entirely out or are unproven. In practice, if we have no evidence for something we call that false.
See Russell's Teapot, he was a mathematician about the same time as your good friend. Maybe that will get through to you.
SixNein said:Perhaps you should re-read his analogy. I have simply claimed that neither side can prove that their opinion is correct. If I said there is a God and your wrong to think other wise, I would be incorrect. However, if you say there is no God and I'm wrong, you are incorrect. The burden of proof lays on the person who attempts to falsify the other.
This brings us back to square one... neither side can do that. Thus you are either going to believe this story or not. Science is not going to disprove god, no are the religious groups going to be able to prove him. So at the end of the day, a person will have to make that decision on his own. There is no science or magic button to press to answer that question, and there never will be.
Tom Mattson said:I didn't say it was.
If you mean that it's hypocritical for the one who says, "I believe god does not exist" to assert that he is more correct than the one who says "I believe god does exist", then I would agree with you. I wouldn't say either one of those things. Instead I say "I do not believe that god exists", which is perfectly in line with scientific evidence.
My point to you was that you say, "god can not be disproven" as though this should give scientists pause to consider it. It shouldn't. The fact that god isn't falsifiable is precisely the reason that "god" is ignorable.
Tom Mattson said:OK then here's a question for you: Why?
This thread is about the origin of the universe, not mathematics. Mathematical truths are true by definition. The same can not be said about scientific propositions, which are contingent on experimental results. Mathematics is a priori while science is a posteriori.
... In other words, we cannot rule out the possibility that the universe is a very large white hole. Only by waiting many billions of years until the edge of the sphere comes into view could we know.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html"
A Schwarzschild radial coordinate R is presented for the Friedmann dust-filled cosmology models. It is shown that a worldline of constant Schwarzschild radial coordinate in the dust-filled universe is instantaneously null at Rn=2GM/c2, where M is the Schwarzschild mass inside the sphere R=Rn. It is also shown that Mp=3c3/4G, where Mp is the proper mass inside R=Rn and is the age of the universe. The Rn=2GM/c2 result in Friedmann dust-filled cosmology is made physically significant by abandoning the cosmological principle and adjoining segments of Friedmann dust to segments of Schwarzschild vacuum. In the resulting cosmology model, the observable universe may lie inside a black or white hole.
SixNein said:Then you agree with me. Both are statements of faith.
I bring up this area of mathematics because it's central to understand. If you don't understand this area of mathematics then you will fail to understand why question #4 of the topic is the way it is.
The flat out physical translation is: There will never be a theory of everything. Science will always be incomplete.
Tom Mattson said:Yes, I agree with you on that point.
It seems to me like you're drawing your conclusions about science based on the existence of undecidable propositions in mathematics. Is that true? If so then I repeat: Why? Mathematics is not science!
When you say "incomplete" are you talking about the same incompleteness mentioned in, say, Goedel's theorems?
SixNein said:Thus you have to believe one or the other on faith. So you may chose to believe in God, or you may chose not to. Either way, the decision you make will be based upon faith.
SixNein said:I believe that mathematics is a science. If you strip away mathematics from science, you have nothing left except a conversation worthy of a do drop in bar.
JoeDawg said:No it is not. The word 'faith' has a very specific historical meaning that is not the same as the common everyday usage. Faith is not the same as simple belief.
Faith is belief *without evidence* or *in spite of evidence*.
It is based on revealed (completely subjective) truth.
Belief, however, can also be based on evidence.
Scientific evidence shows that human psychology and brain activity could very well be the origin of god-beliefs.
Scientific evidence from history shows that religious texts are not good historical records.
Scientific evidence about how societies function shows how religious belief accumulates.
This is not the same as math, and its not about proof.
Its about belief based on the best available evidence.
Evidence with predictive power.
I don't believe in gods, and I base that on the evidence in front of me.
Not on some preacher words, or some old scripture.
Religions are about revealed truth, which is completely subjective.
Science is about physical evidence and the predictive power of that evidence.
Math is about logical relations between defined abstract objects.
Science doesn't explain everything, but its the best tool we have.
JoeDawg said:And if you strip away science from math, you have no way of knowing if your logical premises are anything but imaginary constructs.
The vast majority of what is written in the bible is not supported by other sources. In fact, its even 'questionable' as to whether Jesus even existed. Many of the 'other sources' are no more than second hand accounts, at best. And the old testament is oral tradition, not historical fact. Some of it may be based on historical figures, but the bible is more comparable to something like Homer's Illiad than any modern standard of historical fact.SixNein said:"Scientific evidence from history shows that religious texts are not good historical records."
That is not an accurate statement. The bible for example has had very good historical accuracy that has been vetted from other sources.
Its based on more facts and evidence than any god-belief. And yes it can be solved, one doesn't need proof to come to a reasonable conclusion based on evidence. A reasonable person doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater."I don't believe in gods, and I base that on the evidence in front of me.
That is your choice, but it is made from lack of evidence or should I say the lack to obtain evidence. It is one of those problems that cannot be solved either way.
Accepting something based on scientific evidence (which you can test and use for accurate prediction) is much more reasonable than accepting something based on religious fantasy. Science is grounded in observation and probability. Its not perfect, but its the best foundation we have. And it gives us a much more consistent view of the universe than any religion has to date. God didn't give you a computer, science did."Not on some preacher words, or some old scripture."
Have you verified every mathematical proof, done every observation in science for yourself? At a certain point in time, you are accepting things on account.
SixNein said:You can apply math directly to the physical world. All mathematics can be applied somewhere in the real world.
JoeDawg said:The vast majority of what is written in the bible is not supported by other sources. In fact, its even 'questionable' as to whether Jesus even existed. Many of the 'other sources' are no more than second hand accounts, at best. And the old testament is oral tradition, not historical fact. Some of it may be based on historical figures, but the bible is more comparable to something like Homer's Illiad than any modern standard of historical fact.
Its based on more facts and evidence than any god-belief. And yes it can be solved, one doesn't need proof to come to a reasonable conclusion based on evidence. A reasonable person doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Accepting something based on scientific evidence (which you can test and use for accurate prediction) is much more reasonable than accepting something based on religious fantasy. Science is grounded in observation and probability. Its not perfect, but its the best foundation we have. And it gives us a much more consistent view of the universe than any religion has to date. God didn't give you a computer, science did.
Faith doesn't allow for new understanding, it demands we make the facts fit the belief, regardless of how many logical backflips are required.
JoeDawg said:No, you can apply math that reflects the physical world to the physical world.
You have it backward.
1+1=3
Doesn't make sense when you are talking about ping pong balls.
It does make sense when you are talking about humans having sex.
Its the observation of the real world even that gives math its meaning.
Historical importance and historical accuracy are not the same. There is plenty of stuff in the bilble that contradicts other sources too, not to mention the parts that contradict basic science.SixNein said:Egyptian Pharaohs such as Ramsey has documented accounts of stories that are in the bible. Most historians consider the bible to be of significant historical importance so I don't know where you are going with this.
Or, its a empty anthropomorphism, much like every other supernatural being.God is a concept that is beyond the human mind to grasp.
I don't rely on faith, I rely on evidence. There is none for gods and quite a lot of evidence that shows the gods people believe in are creations of their imaginations.So there is no evidence to collect, you will have to rely on faith either way.
JoeDawg said:Historical importance and historical accuracy are not the same. There is plenty of stuff in the bilble that contradicts other sources too, not to mention the parts that contradict basic science.
Or, its a empty anthropomorphism, much like every other supernatural being.
I don't rely on faith, I rely on evidence. There is none for gods and quite a lot of evidence that shows the gods people believe in are creations of their imaginations.
Ah... but as with most religious discussions, this is going no where.
Hail Eris.
SixNein said:I believe that mathematics is a science. If you strip away mathematics from science, you have nothing left except a conversation worthy of a do drop in bar.
Tom Mattson said:Your belief notwithstanding, mathematics is not a science because it has no empirical content. The truth or falsity of mathematical propositions is determined by deductive reasoning or not at all. The truth or falsity of scientific propositions is determined by experiment. The fact that mathematics is an essential tool for physics does not in any way reverse that fact. And no, if you strip mathematics away from science you do not have idle chatter. The experimental side of science would remain.
I suspected that's what you meant. Since I don't have access to the "small number of scientists" who hold this view, I'll ask you: What makes you think that the formal undecidability of certain mathematical propositions has any bearing on theoretical physics, given that physical propositions are decided empirically (not formally)?
SixNein said:If you do or do not believe in God, it doesn't matter. The entire point is that you're not more correct then a person who believes the opposite.
JoeDawg said:Actually yes I can be. Religions are full of stuff that contradicts historical fact, other religions, and our understanding of science. If you are using a computer you have to accept science at least tentatively. Nothing presently compels you to believe in Zeus, other than an old book or two. Science gives us the most powerful method for prediction ever conceived by human beings. Religion has been consistently wrong about all kinds of things.
The gods don't reside on Mount Olympus.
Thunder is not created by the sound of Thors hammer
The Sun does not revolve around the earth.
There are no crystal spheres holding up the planets.
The world is not 6 thousand years old.
Science HAS been shown to be 'more correct' than religion. The fact science doesn't have all the answers does not imply or logically lead to the idea that religion is correct about anything. Religion may be correct about somethings but its not inversely proportional to science. Even a guess can be right half the time and religion tends to fair worse statistically.
The fact we don't know how the universe is created (or even if it was) is not a good reason to believe the giant space turtle vomited the universe, after a night out on the town.
Your logic is faulty. If you wish to believe in the fantasies of religion, be my guest, but its not logical and its not comparable to science or even good philosophy, which is at least based on some form of logic.
SixNein said:If you want to open this up to every interpretation of every religion then let's open up all the ideas from science as well. Look at how many crack pot theories have been proposed, how many accepted theories shown wrong, and how many theories that has been revised.
Lets put this into a different context. If I told you that I believe there is more to the universe then what has been observed, that the universe is far older, much larger, and unlikely to have all originated from a big bang process... and you disagree... then are you more correct then I? Keep in mind that it is impossible for me to prove this correct. Current observations of the universe say 14 billions years old, spherical shape, about 93-94 billion light years in diameter, and originated in the big bang.
Clarity14 said:WELLLLLLLL black holes arent portals they are a massive amount of gravity that actually makes space and time look like nothing. it pulls light in. why does a black hole look like a black hole?? because light can't escape it.
Kronos5253 said:I don't see that as being necessarly true. It's not that light can't escape it, it's that it doesn't escape it. My basis for that is this:
BH's obviously has spin from when the mass of the star it originated from collapsed in on itself to form this massively dense object. At the north and south poles of a black hole, there are emissions of electrons traveling nearly the speed of light. Now, considering electrons have mass and therefore cannot travel the speed of light, the assumption that light cannot escape a BH is null and void, if something with mass that only almost travels as fast, can escape it.
buffordboy23 said:The event horizon of a black hole is the point of no return. Once anything crosses that boundary, the escape velocity is larger than the speed of light, c. Therefore, nothing can escape.
What you are referring to are gas jets. There are intense magnetic fields at the poles. The BH brings stuff toward it due to its intense gravity and it flings ionized gas or plasma back out into space at the poles. Nothing crosses the event horizon here.
SixNein said:How do you know that I exist? Just about everything that you "know" is based upon faith.
It is mathematically proven (two proofs as a matter of fact) that some things cannot be explain logically. The Continuum hypothesis put forth by Georg Cantor, which deals with infinity, has had strong mathematical evidence that it's impossible to solve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor#Continuum_hypothesis
If mathematics cannot answer these questions, then it's siblings in science doesn't stand a chance.
SixNein said:Egyptian Pharaohs such as Ramsey has documented accounts of stories that are in the bible. Most historians consider the bible to be of significant historical importance so I don't know where you are going with this.
Kronos5253 said:I can understand that, but even if that's the case, then what causes a BH to lose mass?
Kronos5253 said:I find it illogical to think that nothing crosses the event horizon of a BH. If it can create an escape velocity larger than the speed of light, then shouldn't it be able to push an object (lets say, a photon since they have no mass) past the accepted speed of light? c is not a constant. It's used in equations as a constant, but the speed of light is variable, due to it's interaction with gravity and matter.
buffordboy23 said:Hawking radiation. It's a theory that has yet to proven by data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
Why would a BH push a photon? BHs pull because of their immense mass and gravity. The speed (which does not depend on displacement) of a photon is always "c" in the vacuum, and in other mediums it is slower. I guess you can say that the velocity (which depends on the overall displacement) of a photon is variable, but the velocity would still never be greater than "c" based on our current understanding of physics.
Kronos5253 said:Hawking radiation is a viable theory, but it's still only on paper. So why wait for that to be proven wrong/right to try to come up with other reasons?
buffordboy23 said:Your right. Some scientists probably explore this same question. The problem is that observations help guide theory and there are no current observations which show distinctly that BHs do lose mass.
EDIT: When the Large Hadron Collider is at full operation, it is suggested that micro-blackholes may be created. If Hawking's theory is correct, then they should evaporate very quickly. I am unsure of the specifics regarding whether or not the particle detectors could deduce the formation of micro-BH during a collision event.
Kronos5253 said:True, but that's most likely because you'd have to observe a black hole for an extremely long period of time before you'd notice any fluctuations in mass or density.
I know about the micro-BH from the LHC.. I think it's an absolutely ridiculous hypothesis though. The immense amount of density and the resulting rapid rise in gravitational pull from a collapsing star is what causes a BH in the first place (theoretically speaking of course), so how could a micro-BH even exist? A micro-BH might as well just be called a micro-explosion, because the density and amount of matter produced from 2 electrons colliding is nowhere near enough to create a BH. It would be similar to a smaller star collapsing.
If just doing that could create micro-BH, then any star that collapses would inevitibly turn into a black hole, and we already know that isn't true. The star has to be large enough and have enough mass to produce enough density to create a BH.
I just think it's a ridiculous notion lol But that's just an opinion :)
Kronos5253 said:True, but that's most likely because you'd have to observe a black hole for an extremely long period of time before you'd notice any fluctuations in mass or density.
Kronos5253 said:I know about the micro-BH from the LHC.. I think it's an absolutely ridiculous hypothesis though. The immense amount of density and the resulting rapid rise in gravitational pull from a collapsing star is what causes a BH in the first place (theoretically speaking of course), so how could a micro-BH even exist? A micro-BH might as well just be called a micro-explosion, because the density and amount of matter produced from 2 electrons colliding is nowhere near enough to create a BH. It would be similar to a smaller star collapsing.
buffordboy23 said:Exactly, and this timescale is a great many magnitudes larger than that of a human life span. There would have to some monster of a physical mechanism yet to be discovered that causes a rapid mass-loss rate that is observable.
Actually, the LHC will collide protons, which are comprised of quarks. In simple terms, we can say that the apparent mass of some object (in this case a proton) increases as the object approaches the speed of light:
m_{apparent}= \frac{m_{rest}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}
Go ahead and put in something like v = .99999999 c to see what the apparent mass is. So you will have two protons with this apparent mass and now you should see that it is possible to have a large density in a small area.
Kronos5253 said:While that forumla theory is facinating, looking at the result I got from the equation, it's still not near enough to form a black hole. The mass I got wasn't half that of our Sun, and our Sun will eventually become a white dwarf, not a black hole, because it doesn't have enough mass.
buffordboy23 said:It's not the total mass that is important here. It's the density. Calculate the densities and compare.
