Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 9:02 AM
27 online now:
JonF, kjsimons, Stile, Tangle (4 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,896 Year: 8,932/19,786 Month: 1,354/2,119 Week: 114/576 Day: 15/99 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56Next
Author Topic:   can science accept assertive law?
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 46 of 78 (445105)
01-01-2008 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by imageinvisible
01-01-2008 8:10 AM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
Energy cannot be created or destroyed by any natural means, therefore it should not exist.

God cannot be created or destroyed by any natural means. Therefore God cannot exist.

Your form of reasoning is quite silly, and completely unscientific. I am just pointing to an obvious logical conclusion, if we were to allow that kind of silly reasoning.

Clearly, the kind or reasoning that you are using is not science. I suggest you take it to Conclusion vs Presupposition, where you can explain all of the presuppositions that go into your reasoning.


It seems that I replied too hastily. Thanks to Percy for correcting me. I have hidden the original content of my inappropriate reply - use "peek" if you really want to see it.

Edited by nwr, : original post withdrawn


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by imageinvisible, posted 01-01-2008 8:10 AM imageinvisible has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Percy, posted 01-01-2008 9:15 AM nwr has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18478
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 47 of 78 (445118)
01-01-2008 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by nwr
01-01-2008 8:38 AM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
I'm confused. Did you think you were replying to Tesla?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by nwr, posted 01-01-2008 8:38 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by nwr, posted 01-01-2008 9:22 AM Percy has responded

    
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 1537 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 48 of 78 (445122)
01-01-2008 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by tesla
12-31-2007 7:29 PM


existence:n. the basis of all things that "are". it was/is the energy that was before all things that are, which was intelligent, and created all that is from itself. based on faith it was. and therefore established the state of "being" or "existing".

This looks to me to be an example of the horribly insidious fallacy of reification: treating something as a thing when it is not. For example, fire can be described as a thing, but we know very well that it is a process.

Surely existence is a condition, not a thing.

Reification is very productive of impressive-sounding nonsense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by tesla, posted 12-31-2007 7:29 PM tesla has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 49 of 78 (445123)
01-01-2008 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Percy
01-01-2008 9:15 AM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
I'm confused. Did you think you were replying to Tesla?

It should have been obvious that I was replying to imageinvisible (Message 45).
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Percy, posted 01-01-2008 9:15 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 01-01-2008 9:39 AM nwr has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18478
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 50 of 78 (445130)
01-01-2008 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by nwr
01-01-2008 9:22 AM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
nwr writes:

I'm confused. Did you think you were replying to Tesla?

It should have been obvious that I was replying to imageinvisible (Message 45).

It was obvious that you had clicked on the reply button for Imageinvisible's Message 45. I can see how your reply makes sense if it were directed at Tesla, but not if directed at Imageinvisible, which is why I'm confused. You were responding to Imageinvisible's attempt to characterize Tesla's thinking. Unless I'm misreading Imageinvisible's post, what you're actually critisizing isn't Imageinvisible's logic, but Tesla's logic as characterized by Imageinvisible. Here's his full argument:

Imageinisible in Message 45 writes:

Energy cannot be created or destroyed by any natural means, therefore it should not exist. Energy does exist and it must have a cause, but the cause cannot be natural, because energy cannot be created or destroyed naturaly. Logical/reasonable conclusion, energy didn't occure naturaly. Ergo; because energy exists it must have occured by unnatural means. Therefore God, by logical conclusion, must exist. Is this what you are trying to get at?

That last part, "Is this what you are trying to get at?", is where it becomes clear he's attempting a recapitulation of Tesla's thinking.

Imageinvisible goes on to describe his own views, which seem vague and contradictory and which you and I would probably disagree with if they were clearly expressed, such as this:

This I can understand, and even agree with, if that is the point you are trying to make; but science (*current definition) will never accept this conclusion because it is not naturalistic even though it is more than likly the truth, and based on a scientific law. Scientific laws are tentative concerning suppernatural conclusions but absolute concerning natural conclusions, except where they conflict with the naturalistic explaination in which case they are ignored; or where you not aware of this?

But that wasn't what you quoted in your response, so I'm confused.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by nwr, posted 01-01-2008 9:22 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by nwr, posted 01-01-2008 9:51 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 51 of 78 (445133)
01-01-2008 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Percy
01-01-2008 9:39 AM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
But that wasn't what you quoted in your response, so I'm confused.

Thank's for gently pointing out that I was confused.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 01-01-2008 9:39 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2221 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 52 of 78 (445162)
01-01-2008 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by imageinvisible
01-01-2008 8:10 AM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
quote:
Energy cannot be created or destroyed by any natural means, therefore it should not exist. Energy does exist and it must have a cause, but the cause cannot be natural, because energy cannot be created or destroyed naturally. Logical/reasonable conclusion, energy didn't occur naturally. Ergo; because energy exists it must have occurred by unnatural means. Therefore God, by logical conclusion, must exist. Is this what you are trying to get at?

not correct.

my reasoning is stating more directly:

all things true are natural. natural and supernatural is decided by what is understood, and what is not understood.

just because we don't understand something does not make it supernatural.

IE: a magician to fly across the room.
at first glance it is supernatural. upon examination. the explanation is natural.

there is a natural explanation to what has been considered "supernatural" in existence. so evidence exists somewhere.

the fact that "existence" is at all has a natural explanation.

because God is superior intelligence, doesn't make him supernatural ACCEPT by the fact we cannot understand him.

Edited by tesla, : No reason given.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by imageinvisible, posted 01-01-2008 8:10 AM imageinvisible has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Rahvin, posted 01-01-2008 12:49 PM tesla has responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 78 (445169)
01-01-2008 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by imageinvisible
01-01-2008 8:10 AM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
imageinvisible

Energy cannot be created or destroyed by any natural means, therefore it should not exist. Energy does exist and it must have a cause, but the cause cannot be natural, because energy cannot be created or destroyed naturaly. Logical/reasonable conclusion, energy didn't occure naturaly.

Since we have no idea of what energy actually is then this assertion has no basis. Energy exists only as an abstract notion pertaining to the law of conservation of energy. Here is an excerpt from the Feynman lectures on physics.

#
There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing all natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law-it is exact so far as we know. The law is called the conservation of energy. It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy that does not change in the manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or any- thing concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same. (Something like the bishop on a red square, and after a number of moves-details unknown-it is still on some red square. It is a law of this nature.) Since it is an abstract idea, we shall illustrate the meaning of it by an analogy.
Imagine a child, perhaps “Dennis the Menace,” who has blocks which are absolutely indestructible, and cannot be divided into pieces. Each is the same as the other. Let us suppose that he has 28 blocks. His mother puts him with his blocks into a room at the beginning of the day. At the end of the day, being curious, she counts the blocks very carefully, and discovers a phenomenal law- no matter what he does with the blocks, there are always 28 remaining! This continues for a number of days, until one day there are only 27 blocks, but a little investigating shows that there is one under the rug-she must look everywhere to be sure that the number of blocks has not changed. One day, however, the number appears to change-there are only 26 blocks. Careful investigation indicates that the window was open, and upon looking outside, the other two blocks are found. Another day, careful count indicates that there are 30 blocks! This causes considerable consternation, until it is realized that Bruce came to visit, bringing his blocks with him, and he left a few at Dennis’ house. After she has disposed of the extra blocks, she closes the window, does not let Bruce in, and then everything is going along all right, until one time she counts and finds only 25 blocks. However, there is a box in the room, a toy box, and the mother goes to open the toy box, but the boy says “No, do not open my toy box,” and screams. Mother is not allowed to open the toy box. Being extremely curious, and somewhat ingenious, she invents a scheme! She knows that a block weighs three ounces, so she weighs the box at a time when she sees 28 blocks, and it weighs 16 ounces. The next time she wishes to check, she weighs the box again, subtracts sixteen ounces and divides by three. She discovers the following:

There then appear to be some new deviations, but careful study indicates that the dirty water in the bathtub is changing its level. The child is throwing blocks into the water, and she cannot see them because it is so dirty, but she can find out how many blocks are in the water by adding another term to her formula. Since the original height of the water was 6 inches and each block raises the water a quarter of an inch, this new formula would be:

In the gradual increase in the complexity of her world, she finds a whole series of terms representing ways of calculating how many blocks are in places where she is not allowed to look. As a result, she finds a complex formula, a quantity which has to be computed, which always stays the same in her situation.
What is the analogy to the conservation of energy? The most remarkable aspect that must be abstracted from this picture is that there are no blocks. Take away the first terms in (4.1) and (4.2) and we find ourselves calculating more or less abstract things. The analogy has the following points. First, when we are calculating the energy, sometimes some of it leaves the system and goes away, or sometimes some comes in. In order to verify the conservation of energy, we must be careful that we have not put any in or taken any out. Second, the energy has a large number of different forms, and there is a formula for each one. These are: gravitational energy, kinetic energy, heat energy, elastic energy, electrical energy, chemical energy, radiant energy, nuclear energy, mass energy. If we total up the formulas for each of these contributions, it will not change except for energy going in and out.
It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity, and when we add it all together it gives “28”- always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reasons for the various formulas.

Without understanding the mechanism we can make no claims as to what can or cannot be possible concerning it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by imageinvisible, posted 01-01-2008 8:10 AM imageinvisible has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 1:20 PM sidelined has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1350 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 54 of 78 (445172)
01-01-2008 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by imageinvisible
01-01-2008 8:10 AM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
Energy cannot be created or destroyed by any natural means, therefore it should not exist. Energy does exist and it must have a cause, but the cause cannot be natural, because energy cannot be created or destroyed naturaly. Logical/reasonable conclusion, energy didn't occure naturaly. Ergo; because energy exists it must have occured by unnatural means. Therefore God, by logical conclusion, must exist.

Your logic is flawed - you assume that a cause is necessary for the existence of matter and energy.

Nothing in science, particularly Big Bang Theory cosmology, postulates that there was ever a point at which matter and energy did not exist - it simply postulates that they existed in a different form at the singularity. We know that matter and energy can change forms - it happens all the time.

This is the result of a brainbug from High School level science classes, popular science magazines, Creationist lying websites, and general misunderstandings of scientific theory.

You're right - matter and energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. But they have always existed, in one form or another. The Big Bang is simply how we refer to the moment that the dimensions we experience (length, width, height, and time, that last being the most relevant) expanded from the single point of the singularity. The Big Bang does not in any way state that there was a "begining" moment that magically "poofed" everything in the Universe into exisetence.

That's what you mythology-believers think. Stop projecting your brainbugs onto science, please.

You should really do a search and read one of our Big Bang threads - your false premise leads you to make a whole host of silly conclusions, and demonstrates gross ignorance regarding the scientific Theories you claim to refute.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by imageinvisible, posted 01-01-2008 8:10 AM imageinvisible has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by imageinvisible, posted 01-02-2008 1:38 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1350 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 55 of 78 (445173)
01-01-2008 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by tesla
01-01-2008 11:59 AM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
because God is superior intelligence, doesn't make him supernatural ACCEPT by the fact we cannot understand him.

God is regarded as supernatural for two reasons:

1) there is no evidence of his existence. This puts him in the same category as the other gods worshiped before him, fairies, and the monsters under your bed.

2) "Goddidit" is not an explanation. It proposes no mechanism be which a process operates. Even if one were to say "God created the Universe," that doesn't tell us at all how the Universe formed. It's like saying "Jim fixed my car." We have no idea what Jim did by that statement - only that the car is now fixed, and Jim is somehow responsible. Therefor "Goddidit" is the response of the intellectually weak and lazy - it proposes no mechanism, and is the same as saying "Zeus did it" or "the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it."

You are correct that everything that exists in the Universe, and every process working therein, is natural, by definition. Should evidence of God's existence appear, he would no longer be a supernatural entity; similarly, if the processes by which he is supposed to work his "miracles" were to be defined and explained, they too would be regarded as natural. But until those things can be proven to exist in reality, they exist only in the imaginations of a few billion human beings. Like fairies, and the boogeyman.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 11:59 AM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 12:56 PM Rahvin has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2221 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 56 of 78 (445175)
01-01-2008 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Rahvin
01-01-2008 12:49 PM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
God is regarded as supernatural, because existence is regarded as supernatural.

define existence, you define God.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Rahvin, posted 01-01-2008 12:49 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 1:00 PM tesla has responded
 Message 59 by sidelined, posted 01-01-2008 1:05 PM tesla has responded
 Message 64 by Rahvin, posted 01-01-2008 1:32 PM tesla has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30980
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 57 of 78 (445176)
01-01-2008 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by tesla
01-01-2008 12:56 PM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
God is regarded as supernatural, because existence is regarded as supernatural.

Huh?


Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 12:56 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 1:02 PM jar has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2221 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 58 of 78 (445177)
01-01-2008 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by jar
01-01-2008 1:00 PM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
just re-read my past statements jar.

I'm not saying you'll "get it" but the answer to your question is there.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 1:00 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 1:05 PM tesla has not yet responded
 Message 62 by ringo, posted 01-01-2008 1:13 PM tesla has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 78 (445178)
01-01-2008 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by tesla
01-01-2008 12:56 PM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
tesla

God is regarded as supernatural, because existence is regarded as supernatural.

When did existence get defined as supernatural?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 12:56 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 1:12 PM sidelined has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30980
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 60 of 78 (445179)
01-01-2008 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by tesla
01-01-2008 1:02 PM


Word salad
I have read them but word salad, jabberwocky and making up definitions are not science.


Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 1:02 PM tesla has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
56Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019