From Nothing to Nothing

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut
You are making the assumption that science has the capability of explaining everything.

The first issue that I see is that science is reductionist. There are complexities that reductionism cannot ever explain.

This is also an assumption. You don't know this for a fact either.

The second issue is that science by definition must be able to be falsified or disproven. If there are no alternate cases, against which to test the science, then the science cannot be considered to be either provable or disprovable and therefore falsification is a requirement of testability. Without testability, it is pseudoscience. This limits science to only those things which may be tested.

So science at best is a subset of, and cannot encompass, all knowledge.

More assumptions.

You can't just tell me that I'm wrong because I'm making assumptions then counter what I'm saying with a bunch of assumptions of your own.

Yes, indeed, all is assumption, but a study of philosophy or ontological logic supports those assumptions, despite the fact that we cannot apply scientific method to those fields of knowledge. So there you have a prima facie case of knowledge that remains outside of the remit of science, in two separate areas, which was exactly my argument.

There's knowledge that science cannot penetrate (unless you redefine science to include pseudoscience).

But atheism is surely based upon assumptions, too, with less evidence (the absence of evidence is the primary atheist argument) and therefore weaker 'scientific' support.

Share with us one fact that cannot be verified via the scientific method.

Well, aside from the fields of Philosophy, Theology, History, Language and the Arts, I would probably stick to things assumed to be science:

Psychology has much that the scientific method is useless to probe due to the complexity and irrationality of the subjects.

Similarly, many components of Evolution remain outside of the application of full scientific method.

But if you are wanting very specific things, perhaps the superluminal inflation of the early universe after the Big Bang. whiich breaks all the rules of physics, had no observer, is not possible to experiment upon and is based upon entirely circumstantial evidence. Or perhaps, the Big Bang itself is also outside the scientific method to test.

Or in biology, when photosynthesis occurs, the energy produced must travel from photoreceptor to the packager that builds the ATP molecules. As they are no valence, van der waals, nuclear or electrostatic forces giving a 'direction' to the transfer, it should propagate only by Brownian Motion and therefore be highly inefficient. It isn't, it seems to take a quantum optimum path and no-one has a clue why. Not even any theory. Of course, this does not preclude it coming under the remit of science at a future date but at present, science has no answers to this observation. As we can't formulate any theory, we can't we experiment by taking an alternate case and proving one theory over another. It just isn't testable.

The scientific method can be applied to all of these questions. But I'm not seeing any facts that can't be verified.

Then please explain the specifics of the steps with which one would apply the scientific method to any one of them.

Or consider the Laws of Thermodynamics. These are considered facts, fundamental, even, are they not? Please provide the case which falsifies one of them, not something general, some specific theory that is supported by observational data and can be tested.

Or the geometry of Euclid which is the virtual opposite of Reinmanian geometry. Shouldn't we be able to apply scientific method and determine which is the true case and which is false. We can't, despite their opposing and fundamental nature, science cannot test them and disprove one or the other. Science is provably limited in what it can determine.

If you choose not to look, you will never see and it doesn't prove your case.

The laws of thermodynamics are the result of reproducible data from repeatable test. The same goes for geometry. Let's not get into the game of trying to use science to disprove what science has already proven in order to prove that science is unreliable. Science gave us penicillin when God gave us cancer. So yeah the methods and tools of science are imperfect and incomplete, but at least it can tell us the difference between penicillin and snake oil.

The requirement of falsifiability is not met in regard to the laws of thermodynamics. Just because they have been observed and no-one has proposed any opposite theory does not mean they are scientific. As previously pointed out, Aristotelean physics are exactly as rigourous intellectually, as untestable modern scientific paradigms (because one cannot raise an alternate case).

That you feel one should not challenge basic precepts using scientific method (using science to disprove what science has purportedly, previously proved) does not indicate that your position is reasoned. Science cannot progress without challenge to previous assumptions. We had to discard the ideas of Aristotle to advance.

Penicillin is produced by the lifeform Penicillium. It was not made, or even discovered, by science. It's antibiotic action was re-discovered and the active ingredient isolated by Alexander Fleming but had been noted centuries before by many pre-scientific ancient cultures (prior to 150 BC) who discovered and noted the antibiotic properties of moulds (usually prescribing their application externally to wounds).

Cancer has many causes but by far the greatest majority of cancers are believed to be caused by damage to DNA at replication by either chemical toxins, or by ionizing radiaton. Ionizing radiation and environmental poisons occur naturally but this is far more commonly as a consequence of industry and technology, themselves a consequence of scientific progress.

So it would be more reasonable to say that God gave us penicillin and science gave us cancer.

##ATTENTION##

1 - Are atheists comfortable with their mortality?
2 - Is existence special?
3 - Could there be an intelligent designer?

The opinions are very interesting so let's not derail them with negative comments aimed at each other.

Attack the ball and so forth.

Do not reply to this PSA.

originally posted by: SLAYER69
Are you comfortable with the concept that our consciousness came from nothing before we were born and that after our Deaths we will simply blink out and nothing more?

I don't know that that's how it works but I'm comfortable with that, if it turns out to be the case.

If so, Then, wouldn't you agree that our finite amount of time here could be said to be very special in that you are presently totally animated, aware of your surroundings, able to think about things beyond Earth and envision multi dimensions?

Yes, I would.

Do you imagine a time when we will be able (Given enough time) through various scientific advancements to eventually, one day not only live forever but also eventually come so far as to be a creative force and duplicate that which we ourselves were evolved from, complete with a set of genetic coding and spacial awareness and the medium within which to evolve?

Yes, definitely.

If we were to eventually recreate that which we came from complete with all the supporting parameters wouldn't we then be 'The Creators" in a sense?

Maybe, "A creator" would be more apt, perhaps.

a reply to: SLAYER69

I've created the very same thread albeit a different route in here. Anyway take a simple quiz:

www.philosophersnet.com...

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: dismanrc
You have faith in your science don't you? Newton had faith that if he dropped something it would fall down, even though he did not know why. Evn today no one can completely explain gravity, but they still have faith that it will work.

You are equivocating different meanings of the word faith. Faith can mean belief without evidence and can also mean trust. This is a deceptive tactic used by religious extremists to suggest science is like a belief system. It's not. There are experiments and evidence. We TRUST scientists to learn these things because they are certified experts. We TRUST that gravity is real because we can witness objects falling at the same rate every single time. This is not simply belief (ie religious faith in something that cannot be proven), this is trust in proven facts and experiments. It's like trusting your dentist to work on your teeth or trusting your mechanic to fix your car.

Science is nothing but a belief system; the same as religion. Both believe AND trust their systems. neither are mutually dependent OR mutually exclusive of each other. You can be both scientific and religious without any conflicts. From one point you say there is no proof that there is a God so he can't exesit, on the other hand Tackyons are a well establish scientific theory, but know one knows now to measure them, look at them or dectect them. From the flip side of this there is nothing that says God could not of setup a rational system to govern the world.

Even evolution is not mutally exclusive in my mind. I'm not an very religious person, but have no issues with the idea. God did also say we have free will and that he helps those who help themselves. So I think both extremes are not seeing the full picture. Both the people that say God will do everything for them and the ones that say its all just random chance are missing the boat in my opinion.

originally posted by: SLAYER69

You are after all a 'Higher Life form" with that regards. Do you imagine a time when we will be able (Given enough time) through various scientific advancements to eventually, one day not only live forever but also eventually come so far as to be a creative force and duplicate that which we ourselves were evolved from, complete with a set of genetic coding and spacial awareness and the medium within which to evolve?

If we were to eventually recreate that which we came from complete with all the supporting parameters wouldn't we then be 'The Creators" in a sense?

It's a long time ago but I remember reading Isaac Asimov's 'The Last Question' story, which is a very short but brilliant story about man evolving exactly how you have outlined. Worth a read if you haven't already - you can read it online here:

multivax.com...

a reply to: SLAYER69

Yup like my Sig... We aren't actually here, 'it's here' in our space.

I will say no more as there are those who wouldn't get it or even attempt to open Pandora's box for fear of finding truth.

s/f Though Provoking Thread!

a reply to: dismanrc

Science is nothing but a belief system

Correct: it is based on the belief that a theory which makes valid and falsifiable predictions is likely to be true, and may be taken as true until evidence is found that contradicts it.

Not really comparable with religious belief, which is faith in things that cannot be shown to exist.

From one point you say there is no proof that there is a God so he can't exesit

Barcs would never say a silly thing like that. The absence of proof of God’s existence does not prove His lack of existence, jut increases the improbability of it manyfold. And if, after so many thousands of years of belief, there is still no proof, it is quite reasonable to accept the hypothesis ‘there is no God’ until evidence is found that contradicts it.

On the other hand Tackyons are a well establish scientific theory but know one knows now to measure them, look at them or dectect them

Tachyons (1) were never an established theory, only a hypothesis — that is, an educated guess — and (2) are not required for the explanation of any scientific phenomenon or the completion of any theory. Most particle physicists would bet they don’t exist.

From the flip side of this there is nothing that says God could not of setup a rational system to govern the world.

Perhaps not, but there is no sign of any such system. Nor of Him. So this hypothesis is not required to explain anything. It was once, but that was over 150 years ago. It survives only because of its emotional importance to people. Nothing at all to do with whether it is true or false.

God did also say we have free will and that he helps those who help themselves.

God said these things? Evidence, please.

a reply to: Astyanax

Not really comparable with religious belief, which is faith in things that cannot be shown to exist.

Wade Davis is a interesting guy that studies peoples and culture .He takes his viewers deep into the jungles and explains to us the incredible way they act with nature . He told a story how this isolated tribe would collect plants to make this potent drink for their ceremonies . He had to ask them how they knew which plant to pick because you can not tell the female from the male plants . They told him that the plant talked to them . He estimated that it would take a modern lab with a 1/2 dozen trained lab technicians to possibly come up with the proper mixture to get the results needed to produce the substance . But they could only do that if they knew what the plants were saying .
Now you might argue that a plant cant talk and you cant hear anything and be telling the truth ,but that does not mean all humans see with the same eyes and hear with the same ears ,especially when a back woods tribe with out any university or books can do what they do . You may believe that its not possible but because they can actually perform this task you have to give them benefit of the doubt that they can and do .

www.ted.com...-52132

Its not only in the jungle where things that are strange to us but it also happens near us .Weather working with animals or witching for water . A good golf buddy of mine works for CNCP telecommunications . His job is to find buried wires . He uses a wire coat hanger . He can find water deep under ground . Now we know that seeing is believing but if science is to observe and figure it out then for them to go so far as to say it doesn't happen is a bit rude . If science cant explain something they should at least give the benefit of the doubt to the ones that say what they are doing and believe them because well the prof is in the pudding .

But to take a stand that if you cant see it or hear it or feel it it cant exist is very closed minded and requires more belief then the person that experiences it . Its not a hard thing to do either . Just imagine nothing . Its not possible for there to be nothing so there must be something . What you say . its only a abstract in our mind , a concept .Much like the concept of eternity .

a reply to: SLAYER69

So you're topic is quite interesting. I have been a self-proclaimed atheist since my teens, well because you know how difficult the religious bunch can be when it comes to forcing religion on a kid, so I had no other choice than to rebel.

Our level of conscienceness is unique on our planet yes, but I believe it's still primitive in a sense. By now I'm a little bit on the fence about the whole 'God/Great spirit' thing. If anything I believe we are God and that our conscieness originates from a pool. To punish humans for their bad actions on this earth is just stupid - I am smarter and more loving than the God of the bible, that God is a farce and a hypocrite, but I digress.

To put it simply - If I don't have the answers I can't fully believe in something. If you cannot give me concrete proof then screw it, it doesn't mean much.
I have learned to stop concerning myself so much with these great questions of life, although I think science is getting somewhere - multiverse and all that. One day we might understand more of the conscieness and how it interacts with the material world around it. We might understand perspective, and how to incorporate the vast ammount of variables in this world when it comes to judging others, we might one day actually understand. But for now I live my life simply.

Living forever is counter-intuitive to nature as it does not promote evolution, for things to evolve, things must die.

And to all the suicide haters - People's lives are their own, they can take it when they choose. I have a lot of respect for anyone who was able to commit suicide, it takes a lot of balls. This world is not an easy place and most of the time people who commit suicide do it through no fault of their own.

If there is a God, he's waiting with open arms for all the murderers, rapists and suicide commiters.
Don't hate people because they are hurting, you know what, don't hate people at all. Love and respect all those that you can muster love and respect for.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Sorry. Not buying it. Dowsing has been shown not to work in scientific experiments.

As for the talking ayahuasca roots, really, what nonsense. They probably dig up both kinds and choose the correct ones. Anthropologists, especially the ones who study drug rituals and suchlike, are notoriously gullible.

a reply to: Astyanax

There are some that claim to be dowsers that are not .There are some that can and do . I compare it to the two types of charities .One where its done for ulterior motives and on in a altruistic sense .Showing where one person fails does not answer the question of how the one that got it correct, did . You assuming that they just dig up roots and go from there does not fit the description Davis makes for the case .

originally posted by: dismanrc

Science is nothing but a belief system; the same as religion.

No, not even the same at all.

It's one thing to say something like Theoretical Physics or something is a belief system because much of it relies on Theory and unseen forces.

But take a known physical science like Chemistry. There is no belief need nor would it be welcomed in such a science. Whether you believe in it or not you mix certain chemicals together you will always get the same reaction. No belief needed, same result.

Religion is all belief. There is no hard evidence or repeatable tests or measurements at all. Zero.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Astyanax

There are some that claim to be dowsers that are not .There are some that can and do . I compare it to the two types of charities .One where its done for ulterior motives and on in a altruistic sense .Showing where one person fails does not answer the question of how the one that got it correct, did . You assuming that they just dig up roots and go from there does not fit the description Davis makes for the case .

Out of curiosity, have you tested this? Or know of a test?

originally posted by: Ghost147
Out of curiosity, have you tested this? Or know of a test?

I have actually tested this and it worked for me as well.

Not dowsing, since dowsing claims to be able to find many different things. But just water witching did seem to work. I don't know how or why. I was handed two bent metal coat hangers and told to walk in one direction and at a certain point they crossed. I could feel the actual pull of the rods too like a magnet was pulling them. The didn't cross anywhere else on my walk either before or after that point. Under me was the leech lines from a nearby business and I had no idea where they were supposed to be located but they were there.

I wasn't trying to cheat or guess about anything in fact since I knew what was supposed to happen I tried as best I could to keep hands level and everything so as not to get some kind of false positive. To me this just meant that perhaps science just hasn't figured out why this works. I don't think it's anything supernatural at all. Just some kind of EM Force we're not familiar with and don't know how it works exactly. But it did seem to work and I had no reason to falsify anything at the time. But I can't explain what happened either.

a reply to: dismanrc

A few folks have already explained this, but science is not even close to religion and to suggest they both require blind belief, is downright silly.

Most religions lay out a dogma that has no evidence to back it, and proclaim it as absolute truth. They do not update it when conflicting evidence is found. Science lays out a hypothesis and determines what experiments and tests can be done to confirm or deny it. These experiments are made public so others can duplicate and verify them and if conflicting evidence is found, it is updated accordingly. To equate these 2 concepts is ludicrous and insulting to scientists. I don't blindly believe that scientists and their research exists. I trust them to do their job because they are qualified experts in what they study. For religion, blind belief in unverified mythology and their version of god is a requirement. Blind belief is not required when you have public experiments that anybody with the means and know-how can repeat and test for themselves.

I agree that science and religion shouldn't have to conflict, but this isn't the fault of science or scientists. The problem is really with the religious extremists that fight science tooth and nail with ignorance every time something conflicts with their literal interpretation of ancient stories (ie the "war" on evolution, big bang theory, etc). I also agree that science, evolution, big bang, etc could be tools of god. There is no reason to think that any of that disproves a creator and I would never argue that. I just argue that the evidence of that said creator has not yet been found. Maybe science will discover god one day. I certainly can't rule it out, but in the same light, when there is no evidence that something exists, the logical default is that it does not exist.

i believe that we come from nothing and return to nothing when we die but i also believe in a creator.
I just believe the only way to enter heaven is to enter it alive