Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Science a Religion?
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 76 of 313 (381750)
02-01-2007 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Chiroptera
02-01-2007 9:13 PM


Re: A force is not a cause.
shouldn't your use of mass be replaced with weight? Because 1 gram of water is still one gram whether on jupiter or earth or in zero-gravity.
mass is simply a measurement of how much "stuff" there is in an object.
weight, on the other hand, reflects gravity. I weigh more on jupiter than on earth--because jupiter has a much stronger gravitational pull on me than the earth does.
granted, weight still doesn't fit for:"a description of how much other bodies are attracted to each other". it's a better fit than mass, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Chiroptera, posted 02-01-2007 9:13 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Chiroptera, posted 02-02-2007 9:23 AM kuresu has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 77 of 313 (381768)
02-01-2007 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Open MInd
02-01-2007 8:53 PM


Re: Religious Leader?
Did you know that every religion has at least one law that is not easily explained.
And what is that law for Deism?
To be part of any religion you can't just act with your common sense.
Again, apply this to Deism.
To answer your question about deists, they are part of a religion which does not believe in any religious leaders or religious laws. There religion requires one to act based on their own will.
In other words Deism refutes your assertions above = they are falsified.
Science can be considered a religion that closely resembles the religion of the deists.
Only by those that understand neither science nor Deism.
Every religious leader is required to be well versed in his own religion and he is then able to pass on the tradition to the next generation.
Except, as noted, for Deists: Deists use their common sense and discard tradition as a logical fallacy. All tradition becomes dogma and dogma interferes with understanding.
Thank you for refuting your own points.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Open MInd, posted 02-01-2007 8:53 PM Open MInd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Open MInd, posted 02-02-2007 10:31 AM RAZD has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 78 of 313 (381808)
02-02-2007 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Open MInd
01-26-2007 10:55 AM


Yes... science is a religion
Hi Open Mind, thought I'd throw in my two cents on the issue. I hope it is not so basic and simple, that it is found to be beneath the brilliance of the audience.
It is my understanding that one's religion is his philosophy (or worldview). To me, they are synonymous terms.
All religions address the theological foundation at some level; even the non or a theistic ones. It is not possible for a philosophy to not have a position on the 'God portion' of the equation.
Science, as it is sold and marketed to the general public, pretends to be unbiased in these matters. It cannot be. There is nothing that is just a fact. All facts impart meaning to the observer who observes them.
Some time ago, I used a story (a parable) to illustrate this point...
I walked into a gas station and the female clerk was a college student. I asked how she was (just making small talk) and she said, "I'm great! School is going well etc..."
I asked her what courses she was taking, and she replied with a list of the usual supects like math and english et al. But the last one she mentioned was Human Sexuality. She appeared to find this most provocative...
"No philosophy?", I asked.
"Oh no!", she said. "That's boring."
So I questioned her... "Is the truth absolute or relative?"
"Relative!", came her exuberant response ('everyone knows that', I thought to myself).
I said, "So what are they teaching you about human sexuality... the truth?"
After watching her wheels spin for a second she said to me, "Oh, I don't know... just the facts, I guess."
I said, "The fact is... Hitler killed about 6 million Jews besides the others destroyed by his scheme."
She had a blank look mixed with concern on her face...
I continued... "How do we decide what is the right way to interpret facts and make them meaningful to us?"
"Well sometimes that's hard." she said.
"Yes it is", I replied. "But that's why we need good philosophy."
Science as a philosophy is often called materialism or naturalism. It presupposes that the material universe can explain itself. If science were actually objective, it would have no such presupposition. The convention as it stands now is called 'Methodological Naturalism'.
I am not saying that there is anything wrong with natural science. My only point here, is that it can neither prove or disprove anything that lies outside of itself.
The modern habit of saying that we must prove God with science to be sure that we know of his existence is to falsely put a burden of proof on the issue that is strictly impossible.
When you hear a scientist saying that the universe is not designed it is not because of the facts. It is because of the philosophy they use to interpret those facts. Natural science has nothing to say on the issue. That is how it should be, but that is not how it is...
Everyone has an agenda. Scientists are no exception. The only agenda that will lead us to what Francis Schaefer called true truth, is one that is reality itself; the default philosophy of the universe. The truth has an objective, and is objective.
That does not mean it is not biased. The universe is very biased. It operates on laws biased toward being. If you violate them, then by definition, you begin to cease to be. The fine tuning of the physical laws is an incredible thing to behold. And they are relative to each other, so that if you change one, you change the relationship and community of all of them.
Whenever you hear a scientist using natural science to disavow the legitimacy of faith, know that he is using a religious worldview to deny the legitimacy of religious worldviews.
One of the key founders of our 'conventions philosophy of science' is David Hume. He set the stage for encouraging untold millions to believe one of the most clevers lies that the devil has ever concocted. And people latch on to it philosphically because it gives them a so-called rational reason to hope for a world without moral boundaries.
Let's look at Humes clever rationalization for rejecting God:
"When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
(David Hume An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding)
I think it is fatally flawed because that statement does not contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number. Nor does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence.
How do we make a meaningful statement that is metaphysically stated, in order to tell us that metaphysics is meaningless?
This is not the realm of science. It is the realm of philosophy and logical consistency. Logic will lead us to God, it cannot be used any other way without destroying itself.
C.S. Lewis said:
"To be ignorant and simple now - not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground - would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered. The cool intellect must work not only against cool intellect on the other side, but against the muddy heathen mysticisms which deny intellect altogether."
(Lewis / Learning in War-Time 1949, pg51)
Natural science is not a religion if it is used without bias. But it is used with bias because we have given it a philosophy that helps make the facts meaningful to the observer. It cannot even be what so many claim that it is. It is not possible to have no reason for believing something. We all have our reasons. Once we realize that consciously, we can question our own assumptions objectively.
So when a creationist uses a philosophy to examine the facts, the naturalists are correct in crying bias. But they defeat themselves, because a naturalist cannot be an unbiased observer either. If they were, they would not call themselves naturalists. They would only call themselves scientists. And in that grid (or perspective), when they saw a polar bear eating a human being they would not be moved emotionally in any way. They would just study the event to collect facts. That is just not possible except for the most unusual psychopaths.
So, science is not a religion in and of itself. But human beings make it a religion because it is not possible to not be religious.
I imagine I used twice as many words as necessary to make the point, but I hope it was clear.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Matthew 10:26 "So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Open MInd, posted 01-26-2007 10:55 AM Open MInd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 02-02-2007 1:21 AM Rob has replied
 Message 84 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2007 3:07 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 85 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-02-2007 3:15 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 86 by ReverendDG, posted 02-02-2007 3:27 AM Rob has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 79 of 313 (381809)
02-02-2007 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Rob
02-02-2007 1:11 AM


Re: Yes... science is a religion
All religions address the theological foundation at some level; even the non or a theistic ones. It is not possible for a philosophy to not have a position on the 'God portion' of the equation.
Yes, it is. Just as your philosophy takes no position on the existence of Flying Spaghetti Monsters (or didn't, until I asked you to take one just now), it's completely possible to have a system of knowledge that takes no position on your God.
The "God issue", as you put it, is a non-issue - there's no evidence for God, and therefore nothing for science to take a position on.
Science is a "religion" in the same way that bald is a hair color.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Rob, posted 02-02-2007 1:11 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Rob, posted 02-02-2007 1:37 AM crashfrog has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 80 of 313 (381810)
02-02-2007 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by crashfrog
02-02-2007 1:21 AM


Re: Yes... science is a religion
Just as your philosophy takes no position on the existence of Flying Spaghetti Monsters (or didn't, until I asked you to take one just now), it's completely possible to have a system of knowledge that takes no position on your God.
But I do have a position on the flying spagetti monster... I think it is luducrous!
And you have a position on my God, because He is your God too. If you say He is not your God, then that is a position. In order for your statement to be true, you would have to be unable to think. You would have to have no intellect as Lewis so clearly illustrates. The best you can do is to deny that you can think.
But you can think. You are created in the image of God.
Before I had heard of the monster, I had no position. But now that I have heard the news, I have a choice to make that I will be responsible for.
God knows how to play chess better than you and I Crash... He invented the intelligent agents that claims to have invented it! Too bad God's logic (truth) created us, or we might have an excuse to mistake thoughtlesness as the mind of God.
Just as Paul says in Romans 1... 'you have no excuse' to not believe in God. The heavens declare His Glory, and your conscious confirms the law He has written on your heart.
The only out is to kill your heart and mind so as to forget that any of this ever happened. You might be able to do so for a while, but I don't believe that you will ultimately do that to yourself.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 02-02-2007 1:21 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by DrJones*, posted 02-02-2007 1:40 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 82 by ringo, posted 02-02-2007 1:56 AM Rob has replied
 Message 83 by ReverendDG, posted 02-02-2007 2:13 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 02-02-2007 10:44 AM Rob has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 81 of 313 (381811)
02-02-2007 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Rob
02-02-2007 1:37 AM


Re: Yes... science is a religion
And you have a position on my God, because He is your God too. If you say He is not your God, then that is a position.
Reread Crash's statement that you quoted. Where does he put forth his position on god?
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Rob, posted 02-02-2007 1:37 AM Rob has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 82 of 313 (381812)
02-02-2007 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Rob
02-02-2007 1:37 AM


Re: Yes... science is a religion
Rob writes:
But now that I have heard the news, I have a choice to make that I will be responsible for.
That's like walking into Wal-Mart and thinking you have to buy something. You don't. You can walk right through the store without ever choosing anything.
That's where science is unlike religion - a scientist never has to choose among all the consumer goods gods available.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Rob, posted 02-02-2007 1:37 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Rob, posted 02-02-2007 9:27 AM ringo has replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 83 of 313 (381813)
02-02-2007 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Rob
02-02-2007 1:37 AM


Re: Yes... science is a religion
And you have a position on my God, because He is your God too. If you say He is not your God, then that is a position. In order for your statement to be true, you would have to be unable to think. You would have to have no intellect as Lewis so clearly illustrates. The best you can do is to deny that you can think.
yes everything has a position, but that doesn't mean theres only two, theres i believe, i don't believe, and at least one more if not more than that
namely: god is irrelevent, this is the position science holds, gods have no baring on science or meaning since we can't observe them, this is also my position, or in other words: i don't know, i'll stick to things i can know with evidence and if there isn't any or it can't be pinned down i'll just not factor it in

"no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life." - William Dembski

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Rob, posted 02-02-2007 1:37 AM Rob has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 84 of 313 (381815)
02-02-2007 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Rob
02-02-2007 1:11 AM


Re: Yes... science is a religion
quote:
It is my understanding that one's religion is his philosophy (or worldview). To me, they are synonymous terms.
All religions address the theological foundation at some level; even the non or a theistic ones. It is not possible for a philosophy to not have a position on the 'God portion' of the equation.
In that case science is not a philosphy or a worldview - at least not a complete one. Science's onlt concern with metaphysics is the assumptions that make science possible. i.e. science assumes that there is an external reality and that we can investigate it through the collection of data and by reasoning from that data. That includes the assumption that intervention from "God" (or similar entities) is either predictable enough to be included in science or so rare as to not meaningfully interfere with sciences investigations of our universe. Beyond that scienctists can (and do) take many metaphysical positions, including Christianity (e.g. Francis Collins and Simon Conway-Morris).
quote:
Science as a philosophy is often called materialism or naturalism. It presupposes that the material universe can explain itself. If science were actually objective, it would have no such presupposition. The convention as it stands now is called 'Methodological Naturalism'.
This is badly confused. The convention of methodological naturalism is essentially the limits I spoke of above. The term is used precisely to distinguish between Philosophical Naturalism and the practices of science. Science is NOT naturalism or materialism, because it limits it's commitment to methodological naturalism which admits that science is not capable of adequately addressing the supernatural.
quote:
I am not saying that there is anything wrong with natural science. My only point here, is that it can neither prove or disprove anything that lies outside of itself.
But you are attacking science. You are essentially claiming - in spite of the evidence - that science must take positions on the things that you say that it cannot investigate - positions which go beyond the minimal assumptions required to make science possible. However we know that scientists can and do take differing metaphysical positions that do not interfere with their science. We know that scientists and some philosphers of science refer to methodological naturalism to emphasise the fact that science is NOT committed to full philosophical nauralism as you claim But we do not have any evidence for your assertion that science must take a position beyond that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Rob, posted 02-02-2007 1:11 AM Rob has not replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 85 of 313 (381816)
02-02-2007 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Rob
02-02-2007 1:11 AM


Science is not a religion, but it's a religion!
Rob:
So, science is not a religion in and of itself.
Now you're making sense.
But human beings make it a religion because it is not possible to not be religious.
Too bad you can't sustain it.
Science is not a religion, you say--except that it must be one because Rob can imagine no other possibility. It's a religion, you say, even though it isn't.
This is argument from incredulity and self-contradiction. Not very compelling.
The rest is just assuming a nonstandard definition of 'religion' to argue for your nonstandard definition of 'science.'
Someone has sold you a bill of goods that any human thought process whatever is some sort of 'religion.' Not so. See the earlier posts on this thread for more information about this.
__
Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Rob, posted 02-02-2007 1:11 AM Rob has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 86 of 313 (381817)
02-02-2007 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Rob
02-02-2007 1:11 AM


Re: Yes... science is a religion
It is my understanding that one's religion is his philosophy (or worldview). To me, they are synonymous terms.
sorry a religion is a set of beliefs about the spiritual, a worldview encompesises more than that, philosophy is also part of a worldview, they are not synonymous in anyway
it can neither prove or disprove anything that lies outside of itself.[/qs] and no one ever said any different, the thing is, science only works within our reality, which is everything
The modern habit of saying that we must prove God with science to be sure that we know of his existence is to falsely put a burden of proof on the issue that is strictly impossible.
but everything we know of this reality can be shown with science, in order for you to make the argument that god exists you have to define things with qualifiers that everyone agrees on and can be tested
When you hear a scientist saying that the universe is not designed it is not because of the facts. It is because of the philosophy they use to interpret those facts. Natural science has nothing to say on the issue. That is how it should be, but that is not how it is...
thats just wrong, scientists define things via human understanding, since we are the only beings we can define things by. so inorder for design to be shown, you have to show it the same way we can show human designed things, a marking, an intelligent structure, a method that makes logical sense
i can tell you easily that nature doesn't show it
Everyone has an agenda. Scientists are no exception. The only agenda that will lead us to what Francis Schaefer called true truth, is one that is reality itself; the default philosophy of the universe. The truth has an objective, and is objective.
yes the agenda is honest understanding of the universe and how it works.
the fact that it disagrees with your beliefs doesn't mean its not true, anymore than my own
That does not mean it is not biased. The universe is very biased. It operates on laws biased toward being. If you violate them, then by definition, you begin to cease to be. The fine tuning of the physical laws is an incredible thing to behold. And they are relative to each other, so that if you change one, you change the relationship and community of all of them.
hmm? which ones? the laws of physics? you are making it sound like if you fall you go poof and the matter that made you is gone, if you fall from a tall height you are just dead, you still exist
Whenever you hear a scientist using natural science to disavow the legitimacy of faith, know that he is using a religious worldview to deny the legitimacy of religious worldviews.
of course he is, only the ignorent don't think so, this doesn't mean faith is equal or more truthful than science can be, faith has no evidence, so it has no validity in science, no one said you can't believe what you want, of course that doesn't mean you are right though
I think it is fatally flawed because that statement does not contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number. Nor does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence.
uh what? so you are testing his idea based on his own idea? he's making a statement about how logical and meaningful books on religion and metaphysics are, it's a statement about non-objective things, i agree with him: books on religion and metaphysics are meaningless if you can't even show they are true
How do we make a meaningful statement that is metaphysically stated, in order to tell us that metaphysics is meaningless?
what are you talking about? hume is saying both religion and metaphysics are useless, which i agree with him
This is not the realm of science. It is the realm of philosophy and logical consistency. Logic will lead us to God, it cannot be used any other way without destroying itself.
logic? religion has nothing to do with logic, metaphysics is a waste of time, since most of it has no evidence to show it is true
Natural science is not a religion if it is used without bias. But it is used with bias because we have given it a philosophy that helps make the facts meaningful to the observer. It cannot even be what so many claim that it is. It is not possible to have no reason for believing something. We all have our reasons. Once we realize that consciously, we can question our own assumptions objectively.
science is not a religion in any form, since the way you are using it makes anything a religion and makes the word meaningless.
i'm wondering what you mean by bias and philosophy?
if you mean the scientific view on verifiblity and evidence, than say over someones beliefs, then yes it is bias, because it has been found to be effective
the way you are saying this makes no sense at all, of course people have reasons for everything, you make it sound like people say they have no reasons behind what they think, thats impossible, its how the brain works
now people who don't believe in gods have reasons, they can have a position that they don't care about god, namely its irrelevent to them, because they don't know or find it has no meaning to thier lives
sorry but you have no clue what objective means.
So when a creationist uses a philosophy to examine the facts, the naturalists are correct in crying bias. But they defeat themselves, because a naturalist cannot be an unbiased observer either. If they were, they would not call themselves naturalists. They would only call themselves scientists. And in that grid (or perspective), when they saw a polar bear eating a human being they would not be moved emotionally in any way. They would just study the event to collect facts. That is just not possible except for the most unusual psychopath
but no one calls themselves naturalists, all science is about the natural world, because thats all we can test and observe.
what does the bear have to do with anything? are you saying that in order to be a true scientist you have to be a robot, because our own humanity effects our observations about the bear? this is true we wouldn't want to see a man get eatten by a polar bear,but what does that have to do with bias, if the point is to observe that bears eat people?
[qs]So, science is not a religion in and of itself. But human beings make it a religion because it is not possible to not be religious.
[/q]
where did you show this? i must have missed where you showed this is true?
i am not religious at all, there you go i refuted you
come on you are just changing the meaning of religious to anything you want
I imagine I used twice as many words as necessary to make the point, but I hope it was clear.
no it wasn't it just looked like a pseudo-intellicual smoke-screen to me, pretty much i just see you trying to claim that by your own "logic" god is the only answer and anything else is wrong

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Rob, posted 02-02-2007 1:11 AM Rob has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 313 (381843)
02-02-2007 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by kuresu
02-01-2007 9:19 PM


On mass.
Hi, kuresu.
quote:
mass is simply a measurement of how much "stuff" there is in an object.
This is a popular characterization, but it's only true for macroscopic bodies, and only by accident. It turns out that every single electron has the same mass, every single up quark has the same mass, and every single down quark has the same mass. Since every familiar object is made of electrons, up quarks, and down quarks, then an objects mass is a measure of how many electrons and quarks it contains (ignoring the binding energy, which throws things off a bit).
However, when we examine the quarks and electrons themselves, it becomes problematic to talk about "how much 'stuff'" they contain. As far as we know, they are all "point particles", and under other theories they are even stranger things still. Even though an up quark is much more massive than an electron, it becomes a bit strange to say that an up quark containts "more 'stuff'" than an electron.
-
Here is the correct physics description of mass.
There are actually two kinds of mass.
Inertial mass (which you are talking about) is a measure of how hard it is to move an object, or to get it to move off of it's straight-line path if it is moving. If you apply the same force to object A and to object B, and if object A accelerates twice as much as object B, then it turns out that whenever you apply the same force to both A and B, you will see that A will always accelerate twice as fast as B. We then say that B has twice the inertial mass as A.
Gravitational mass (which is what Open MInd and I were discussing) is like electric charge; it is the "charge" that describes how much gravitational attraction is associated with a body. If object B exerts twice the gravitational force on C than A does, then it turns out that B will exert twice the gravitational force on all bodies than A will. We therefore say that B has twice the gravitational mass that A has.
Newton discovered that inertial mass is always proportional to gravitational mass. That is, if B has twice the inertial mass of A, then we will automatically know that B also has twice the gravitational mass of A. So, since the force laws have an arbitrary constant in them (which must be measured empirically, and depends on the system of units), we might as well choose the system of units so that the inertial mass and the gravitational mass are the same. This is artificial; gravitational mass and inertial mass are different, but because in any body they are always proportional, we just use the same units on them.
Except that in General Relativity we find out why this proportionality exists. They turn out to be the same thing after all. Gravitational attraction is just a manifestation of bodies moving along geodesics (the analog of "straight-line paths" in Euclidean space), and trying to keep objects from moving together is exactly like trying to get bodies to move off of their straight-line path, and so we are measuring their inertial mass after all.

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by kuresu, posted 02-01-2007 9:19 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by kuresu, posted 02-02-2007 11:55 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 88 of 313 (381844)
02-02-2007 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by ringo
02-02-2007 1:56 AM


Re: Yes... science is a religion
You can walk right through the store without ever choosing anything.
Well, then you must be looking for something else. You didn't walk into Walmart by accident.
You have your reasons. And reasons are not facts, they are religions. That is the point.
I am astonished by the lack of understanding in your reply and the responses of the others. You guys would serve yourselves better by not saying a single word. Because when you respond, you proove that you are not ignorant. You refuse to invest the good sense God gave you. You do not put it to work because it threatens your own desires. And then you make up excuses for not putting it to use.
You only show your desperation to bury the truth. You have the right to remain silent and not incriminate yourselves. Too late now...
Luke 19:22 "His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?' 24 "Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.' 25 "'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!' 26 "He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

Matthew 10:26 "So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by ringo, posted 02-02-2007 1:56 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by ringo, posted 02-02-2007 11:32 AM Rob has replied

Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1253 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 89 of 313 (381875)
02-02-2007 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by RAZD
02-01-2007 9:46 PM


Re: Religious Leader?
If you think I don't know what Deism is, can you please give your definition of Deism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 02-01-2007 9:46 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2007 6:32 PM Open MInd has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 90 of 313 (381882)
02-02-2007 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Rob
02-02-2007 1:37 AM


Re: Yes... science is a religion
And you have a position on my God
How can I? There's nothing to take a position on.
In order for your statement to be true, you would have to be unable to think.
Circular reasoning. You're attempting to prove that God is the sole originator of life, the universe, and everything; by starting from the assumption that God has to be the originator.
In fact it seems like those who believe as you are the ones who are unable to think. Ever since you arrived here, you're provided nothing but the most spurious, poorly-conceived arguments and bigotry (not to mention a considerable amount of spam in my mailbox.) Peppered with meaningless Bible quotes, of course, as though the Bible could possibly be a source who I would recognize on these matters.
It's a book written by sheepherders. I don't find it the least bit relevant to these proceedings. Why would it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Rob, posted 02-02-2007 1:37 AM Rob has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024