DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Christians Vs. Religious(other) - Evidence & Proof
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 350, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/14/2015 09:16:22 PM · #1
No. I get exactly what you are saying. I'm just trying to temper your word "shift" because I think it's quite wrong in this situation. Our understanding of General Relativity has not "shifted" much in the last decades, half century, and almost century.

If relativity is the trunk of the shrub, there are always branches coming off. One, may someday, become another trunk (which would constitute a shift), but many will die or merely decorate the shrub. I would contend this is an example of the latter or, at the very least, is far too early to declare the former.

Carry on. This thread was zombiefied by someone who isn't a regular with a two word response.

Message edited by author 2015-05-14 21:17:01.
05/14/2015 08:47:34 PM · #2
I get my science news helpfully aggregated by a PhD, and the point I am making is that those are just two examples of a shift in understanding that is occurring right now, and shifting is science's standard MO. It is continuously revised.

Would you like me to dig up more takes on this idea? It keeps popping up lately, from many different angles.
05/14/2015 06:00:36 PM · #3
Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by Mike:

they both argue that the universe was once a singularity.


Keep up, science is drifting away from the big bang, because it actively revises it's own predictions and theories all the time. Science is not a static thing, it is a process.

ETA links:

//phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
//phys.org/news/2014-09-universe-hyper-dimensional-black-hole.html#nRlv


I think this is where the laypress tends to let people without scientific backgrounds down. We get the impression this is hot, new, and accepted stuff. One paper from one group does not a "drifting" make. You can get an idea how "serious" this is with the last paragraph which states, "Motivated by the model's potential to resolve the Big Bang singularity and account for dark matter and dark energy, the physicists plan to analyze their model more rigorously in the future."

If they really had something this would be Nobel level stuff and I'd guess that they'd be a little more excited to pursue it now rather than "in the future". :)

Anyway, the point isn't to refute your big bang stuff, the point is that much of the reporting we see is done by people who don't have enough expertise to accurately report and is read by people (us) who lack the same expertise to interpret.
05/14/2015 03:54:50 PM · #4
Originally posted by Mike:

they both argue that the universe was once a singularity.


Keep up, science is drifting away from the big bang, because it actively revises it's own predictions and theories all the time. Science is not a static thing, it is a process.

ETA links:

//phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
//phys.org/news/2014-09-universe-hyper-dimensional-black-hole.html#nRlv

Message edited by author 2015-05-14 15:57:19.
05/14/2015 02:03:21 PM · #5
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Mike:

yes we have been through that, but atheists always seem to turn to science in the debate that God doesn't exist. I'm arguing it isn't an valid argument as we haven't filled in any gaps nor made them smaller, just more complex. Atheists have convinced themselves that the current scientific theories are more plausible than the theist's beliefs but they arent when you break them down.

Example, atheists and theists fundamentally argue the same thing and both are wrong, they both argue that the universe was once a singularity.

I think you're mistaken on the point of how much atheists rent space in their heads on this. Fundamentally, atheists believe there is no god. There's no real worldview to debate and defend. If you don't have this structure and heirarchy like religions do, there's no work required. Who cares? Not the atheist when it's about a flying spaghetti monster.


So true
02/22/2015 06:42:15 PM · #6
Originally posted by Mike:

yes we have been through that, but atheists always seem to turn to science in the debate that God doesn't exist. I'm arguing it isn't an valid argument as we haven't filled in any gaps nor made them smaller, just more complex. Atheists have convinced themselves that the current scientific theories are more plausible than the theist's beliefs but they arent when you break them down.

Example, atheists and theists fundamentally argue the same thing and both are wrong, they both argue that the universe was once a singularity.

I think you're mistaken on the point of how much atheists rent space in their heads on this. Fundamentally, atheists believe there is no god. There's no real worldview to debate and defend. If you don't have this structure and heirarchy like religions do, there's no work required. Who cares? Not the atheist when it's about a flying spaghetti monster.
02/21/2015 04:05:34 PM · #7
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:


I agree though that it is impossible to have an infinite past in spacetime but not impossible to have an infinite future.

Just how does one arrive at the conclusion that something that had no past has a future.
Ray

He said "infinite past", Ray. He's willing to concede a finite past but an infinite future. In other words, "The universe must have had a beginning, but it is possible it will never end."


Thank you for that clarification... makes perfect sense now.

Ray
02/20/2015 08:44:24 PM · #8
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:


I agree though that it is impossible to have an infinite past in spacetime but not impossible to have an infinite future.

Just how does one arrive at the conclusion that something that had no past has a future.
Ray

He said "infinite past", Ray. He's willing to concede a finite past but an infinite future. In other words, "The universe must have had a beginning, but it is possible it will never end."
02/20/2015 05:22:43 PM · #9
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:



I agree though that it is impossible to have an infinite past in spacetime but not impossible to have an infinite future.


Just how does one arrive at the conclusion that something that had no past has a future.

Ray


I'm not getting you Ray, and I don't see your :O). Try again?
02/20/2015 03:56:11 PM · #10
Originally posted by DrAchoo:



I agree though that it is impossible to have an infinite past in spacetime but not impossible to have an infinite future.


Just how does one arrive at the conclusion that something that had no past has a future.

Ray
02/20/2015 03:06:22 PM · #11
I know what you were saying Mike.

However, you are incorrect in one way. God can be infinite because God is not "natural". He isn't a thing made of spacetime and atoms, etc. Natural laws (or limitations), therefore, do not need to apply. And while it is beyond our ability to comprehend (and thus it seems to be nonsense), it is a logical possibility.

I agree though that it is impossible to have an infinite past in spacetime but not impossible to have an infinite future.
02/20/2015 02:58:53 PM · #12
Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by Mike:

Scientists still know very little about our universe and until they can explain a heck of a lot more of the hows, we atheists better stop referring to scientific theories as an argument that no god exists or that we are even on track to showing that god doesn't exist.

for all we know we may just be modeling the laws god put in place.


It is not the responsibility of the atheist to disprove the existence of something that has never been established to actually exist in the first place.

Perhaps we are just modeling the laws put in place by a divine creator, but there is no reason to posit such a creator to explain the universe that we observe. (And increasingly less justification for doing so as our scientific knowledge increases. The gaps just keep getting smaller.)

As Laplace almost certainly never said, "We have no need for that hypothesis."


yes we have been through that, but atheists always seem to turn to science in the debate that God doesn't exist. I'm arguing it isn't an valid argument as we haven't filled in any gaps nor made them smaller, just more complex. Atheists have convinced themselves that the current scientific theories are more plausible than the theist's beliefs but they arent when you break them down.

Example, atheists and theists fundamentally argue the same thing and both are wrong, they both argue that the universe was once a singularity. Big bang, creation, etc. Theists also argue that God is infinite and scientists argue that the universe is infinite, but here is the kicker, the universe was never a singularity. Saying that it was is exactly the same as proposing that it once was an infinity. A thing cannot be an infinity. Only a progression can be infinite. A series of things can be infinite but a thing cannot be an infinity because that assumes that end has been reached. The universe may have an infinite capability it may go on expanding in size forever but it was never a zero and it was never an infinity and neither can be God.


not much of this made any sense.
02/20/2015 02:10:43 PM · #13
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by Mike:

Scientists still know very little about our universe and until they can explain a heck of a lot more of the hows, we atheists better stop referring to scientific theories as an argument that no god exists or that we are even on track to showing that god doesn't exist.

for all we know we may just be modeling the laws god put in place.


It is not the responsibility of the atheist to disprove the existence of something that has never been established to actually exist in the first place.

Perhaps we are just modeling the laws put in place by a divine creator, but there is no reason to posit such a creator to explain the universe that we observe. (And increasingly less justification for doing so as our scientific knowledge increases. The gaps just keep getting smaller.)

As Laplace almost certainly never said, "We have no need for that hypothesis."


yes we have been through that, but atheists always seem to turn to science in the debate that God doesn't exist. I'm arguing it isn't an valid argument as we haven't filled in any gaps nor made them smaller, just more complex. Atheists have convinced themselves that the current scientific theories are more plausible than the theist's beliefs but they arent when you break them down.

Example, atheists and theists fundamentally argue the same thing and both are wrong, they both argue that the universe was once a singularity. Big bang, creation, etc. Theists also argue that God is infinite and scientists argue that the universe is infinite, but here is the kicker, the universe was never a singularity. Saying that it was is exactly the same as proposing that it once was an infinity. A thing cannot be an infinity. Only a progression can be infinite. A series of things can be infinite but a thing cannot be an infinity because that assumes that end has been reached. The universe may have an infinite capability it may go on expanding in size forever but it was never a zero and it was never an infinity and neither can be God.

02/20/2015 12:34:28 PM · #14
Originally posted by Mike:

Scientists still know very little about our universe and until they can explain a heck of a lot more of the hows, we atheists better stop referring to scientific theories as an argument that no god exists or that we are even on track to showing that god doesn't exist.

for all we know we may just be modeling the laws god put in place.


It is not the responsibility of the atheist to disprove the existence of something that has never been established to actually exist in the first place.

Perhaps we are just modeling the laws put in place by a divine creator, but there is no reason to posit such a creator to explain the universe that we observe. (And increasingly less justification for doing so as our scientific knowledge increases. The gaps just keep getting smaller.)

As Laplace almost certainly never said, "We have no need for that hypothesis."

Message edited by author 2015-02-20 12:37:50.
02/19/2015 02:56:40 PM · #15
The Superiority of Secular Morality

Really Good!
02/19/2015 02:43:21 PM · #16
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

... The Trinity was invented by early church fathers in the same way Newton invented gravity. If that makes sense to you, then fine, otherwise use a different word (I would suggest "described").


I will go out on a limb here and suggest that the theory of gravity has been tested and proven to be true.

Can the same be said about the Trinity and if so, where can I find these studies.

You know me Doc, I am ever so curious. :O)

Ray


Newton didn't invent gravity. He just came up with a model to predict its influence. Currently we have yet to prove what it actually is or what causes it.


I really ought to have been more specific in my comment. I did not suggest that Newton invented gravity but was rather trying to advance that the theory of gravity had been tested on many occasions and proven right.

I did just now manage to find This which deals with Einstein's Theory on Gravity.

I do hope that clarifies my post a tad.

Ray


Newton could not say how a massive object acted upon matter at a distance and Einstein cannot explain how a massive object curves space at a distance. They both only show that it does (and it keeps being proven) neither explain how it does, for instance we know that gravity bends light, but how? what is the influencing factor? why is mass attracted to each other? why does mass warp space?

The point that I'm trying to make is we know a great deal about our universe in what it does but not how. The only thing that we keep seeing scientists prove is that their mathematical models work. Scientists still know very little about our universe and until they can explain a heck of a lot more of the hows, we atheists better stop referring to scientific theories as an argument that no god exists or that we are even on track to showing that god doesn't exist.

for all we know we may just be modeling the laws god put in place.

Message edited by author 2015-02-19 14:44:36.
02/19/2015 02:00:30 PM · #17
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

... It is entirely possible for two people to be entirely rational and yet arrive at different or even opposite conclusions about something.


Who says we can't agree. I will readily admit that I have on occasion met some rational religious people. :O)

Ray
02/19/2015 01:55:54 PM · #18
Originally posted by jagar:

It amuses me that we all defend so ardently that which we can't prove logically, I just think maybe true intelligence goes way beyond logic.

I once heard the Dali Lama say that if science were to prove what he believed wrong that he would be forced to abandon his beliefs, Surely it is this thing that gets us all riled up when our beliefs are threatened that is really the obstacle to true intelligence.

I find myself stuck in the middle, me as a separate self with an omnipresent all beholding God just doesn't cut it, me as a seperate self were everything around me and inside me can be explained away be sheer logic doesn't cut it either, they simply don't satisfy the fundamental insatifactions and sufferings of being.

Qui suis-je ? What is consciousness ? pourquoi suis je la ?


Once you come to grips with the idea that there is truth in the world that is beyond our ken, then we are open to leaps of faith. A scary proposition, indeed, but one that can bear fruit. "Prove logically" is also a loaded term. Your "prove logically" may differ from someone else's. It is entirely possible for two people to be entirely rational and yet arrive at different or even opposite conclusions about something.
02/19/2015 01:55:01 PM · #19
Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

... The Trinity was invented by early church fathers in the same way Newton invented gravity. If that makes sense to you, then fine, otherwise use a different word (I would suggest "described").


I will go out on a limb here and suggest that the theory of gravity has been tested and proven to be true.

Can the same be said about the Trinity and if so, where can I find these studies.

You know me Doc, I am ever so curious. :O)

Ray


Newton didn't invent gravity. He just came up with a model to predict its influence. Currently we have yet to prove what it actually is or what causes it.


I really ought to have been more specific in my comment. I did not suggest that Newton invented gravity but was rather trying to advance that the theory of gravity had been tested on many occasions and proven right.

I did just now manage to find This which deals with Einstein's Theory on Gravity.

I do hope that clarifies my post a tad.

Ray
02/19/2015 01:32:41 PM · #20
It amuses me that we all defend so ardently that which we can't prove logically, I just think maybe true intelligence goes way beyond logic.

I once heard the Dali Lama say that if science were to prove what he believed wrong that he would be forced to abandon his beliefs, Surely it is this thing that gets us all riled up when our beliefs are threatened that is really the obstacle to true intelligence.

I find myself stuck in the middle, me as a separate self with an omnipresent all beholding God just doesn't cut it, me as a seperate self were everything around me and inside me can be explained away be sheer logic doesn't cut it either, they simply don't satisfy the fundamental insatifactions and sufferings of being.

Qui suis-je ? What is consciousness ? pourquoi suis je la ?
02/19/2015 01:05:49 PM · #21
Originally posted by Niels Bohr:


Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.

====================

Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.

============

Somebody once asked Niels Bohr why he had a horseshoe hanging above the front door of his house.
"Surely you, a world famous physicist, can't really believe that hanging a horseshoe above your door brings you luck?".

"Of course not," Bohr replied, "but I have been reliably informed that it will bring me luck whether I believe in it or not."


Message edited by author 2015-02-19 13:06:27.
02/19/2015 12:44:03 PM · #22
Without getting into it SP, I think you raise valid questions. Moral realism and moral antirealism each have their own tough nuts to crack. If one view didn't have any problems then nobody would argue about which is more reflective of reality. I agree that just because you believe in an independent morality doesn't guarantee that you know what it is (and thus we argue about morality anyway). But, the thinking man will understand morality differently depending on whether he adheres to realism or anti-realism.

Message edited by author 2015-02-19 12:44:47.
02/19/2015 12:40:25 PM · #23
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:


Quantum mechanics and the doctrine of the Trinity share at least one key aspect - anyone who says they understand, almost certainly doesn't. (All apologies to Neils Bohr.)


+1
02/19/2015 12:13:50 PM · #24
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by zxaar:



1. It is talking about probability. Don:t confuse probability with certainty. For example if you guess about me, I could be in of a house or out. 50 50 if you talk of probability. It does not mean I am both inside and outside of house the same time. Once you find out that I am in a house, the probability of me outside of house is not there.


I will be first to admit we are all armchair physicists unless someone wants to stand up and say they did any grad level work. I think, however, that quantum physics is a bit odder than you are making it out to be here. While what you are saying makes perfect sense when thinking about you being inside or outside, I don't quite think it holds for an electron.


Quantum mechanics and the doctrine of the Trinity share at least one key aspect - anyone who says they understand, almost certainly doesn't. (All apologies to Neils Bohr.)


no apologies needed, Bohr misunderstood it too.
02/19/2015 12:05:01 PM · #25
Totally off topic, but this had me hysterical... Love letters from Christians to Richard Dawkins, read by Richard Dawkins.

//www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/richard-dawkins-reads-hate-mail-fans

eta: NSFW

Message edited by author 2015-02-19 12:05:47.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 11/13/2019 05:27:22 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 11/13/2019 05:27:22 AM EST.