Is science grounded on faith?

[yppop]

Moonstruck……

Here are the answers you asked concerning the characteristics of God!
Height? Infinite
Weight? zero
Colour? transparent
Shape? formless
Composition? Continuous space

Perhaps now you would be so kind as to answer some questions relative to previous posts of yours:

1. In post 59 in response to MOM’s challenge to: “Give a rational example of a natural law that could account for potential reality?” You answered: “The law of angular momentum and the law of conservation of mass energy are largely responsible for the matter we observe in the Universe.”

Please explain this mechanism by which you claim matter is formed. I was under the impression that it was the Higgs Field, for which there is no evidence and is at the present a scientific BELIEF!

1. In post 84 in reference to a previous claim by you that the extinguishing of life in the universe is inevitable Buffalo challenged with the question: “What do you base that on? “ You replied: The laws of thermodynamics vis a vis observations on type 1a Supernovae.”

I know how the second law of thermodynamics predicts a heat death for the universe, but please tell how the laws of TD are based on observations of the type 1a Supernovae? My only knowledge of the observation of type 1a supernovae are in regards to the presence of Dark energy, for which there is no evidence and therefore is at the present time a scientific BELIEF!

1. In post 70 in response to Buffalo you make the statement: “I can assure you that no physicist in his right mind would ever claim to know that there is a multiverse as there is not a shred of evidence to support such a claim.”

Of course no physicists in his right mind would ever claim to KNOW that there is a multiverse, but there sure an awful lot of physicists, cosmologists, and astronomers that BELIEVE there is. You see that is one of the ways that materialistic scientists defuse the obvious implication of the big bang theory with its powerful implication of a beginning, a creation, a God event. It is a God event because the materialistic scientist cannot conjure up any other mechanism (please no quantum fluctuation responses) to explain the BB. Multiverse theories, and there are several, are theories based on the scientific principle of mathematical formulation (explanation available on demand), a method of scientific production not many in this forum are aware of, but one that generates lots of science in a powerful BELEIF that once an equation is satisified by evidence and becomes law, it then becomes a scientific God; and in which we can BELIEVE that it will apply in all subsequent situations; and if some reason it doesn’t, then we are justified in applying another scientific principle, abstraction, to satisfy the God equation that was apparently violated as was the case in the assumption for the existence of dark matter.

Yppop

 

[Slowlearner]

Richard Dawkins actually makes some good points on why science is not like religion and/or faith.

See here.

I watched the video and noticed something that Dawkins failed to mention. The map of religion corresponds largely with a map of FREEDOM. Countries that are Christian largely represent the free and prosperous western culture.

So if we want to make the third world free and prosperous, do we send Dawkins or Christian missionaries?

I see on his website that Dawkins only lists US and UK speaking locations for the upcoming year. Why is he ignoring Arabia and Africa???

 

[Moonstruck888]

Moonstruck……

Here are the answers you asked concerning the characteristics of God!
Height? Infinite
Weight? zero
Colour? transparent
Shape? formless
Composition? Continuous space

That sounds like a pretty good description of nothing to me. Shapeless, colourless, formless… Height infinite?

Perhaps now you would be so kind as to answer some questions relative to previous posts of yours:

1. In post 59 in response to MOM’s challenge to: “Give a rational example of a natural law that could account for potential reality?” You answered: “The law of angular momentum and the law of conservation of mass energy are largely responsible for the matter we observe in the Universe.”

Please explain this mechanism by which you claim matter is formed. I was under the impression that it was the Higgs Field, for which there is no evidence and is at the present a scientific BELIEF!

It took me several years to learn the ins and outs of particle physics. How long an explanation would you like? The Higgs field is predicted by the Standard Model, which is among the most successful scientific theories to date, is ratified by physical evidence and has resisted all and every attempt to falsify it.

1. In post 84 in reference to a previous claim by you that the extinguishing of life in the universe is inevitable Buffalo challenged with the question: “What do you base that on? “ You replied: The laws of thermodynamics vis a vis observations on type 1a Supernovae.”

I know how the second law of thermodynamics predicts a heat death for the universe, but please tell how the laws of TD are based on observations of the type 1a Supernovae? My only knowledge of the observation of type 1a supernovae are in regards to the presence of Dark energy, for which there is no evidence and therefore is at the present time a scientific BELIEF!

Type 1a Supernovae produce a predicatable energy output, every single one of them having exactly the same magnitude. This gives us a candle to measure whether the Universe will ultimately collapse or die a heat death. Dark Energy has nothing to do with it.

1. In post 70 in response to Buffalo you make the statement: “I can assure you that no physicist in his right mind would ever claim to know that there is a multiverse as there is not a shred of evidence to support such a claim.”

Of course no physicists in his right mind would ever claim to KNOW that there is a multiverse, but there sure an awful lot of physicists, cosmologists, and astronomers that BELIEVE there is. You see that is one of the ways that materialistic scientists defuse the obvious implication of the big bang theory with its powerful implication of a beginning, a creation, a God event. It is a God event because the materialistic scientist cannot conjure up any other mechanism (please no quantum fluctuation responses) to explain the BB. Multiverse theories, and there are several, are theories based on the scientific principle of mathematical formulation (explanation available on demand), a method of scientific production not many in this forum are aware of, but one that generates lots of science in a powerful BELEIF that once an equation is satisified by evidence and becomes law, it then becomes a scientific God; and in which we can BELIEVE that it will apply in all subsequent situations; and if some reason it doesn’t, then we are justified in applying another scientific principle, abstraction, to satisfy the God equation that was apparently violated as was the case in the assumption for the existence of dark matter.

Yppop

Whether a physicist BELIEVES there is a multiverse is irrelevant. Until he can PROVE it, he has to suspend judgement or else invent his own pseudo religion and cease to be a physicist.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I watched the video and noticed something that Dawkins failed to mention. The map of religion corresponds largely with a map of FREEDOM. Countries that are Christian largely represent the free and prosperous western culture.

So if we want to make the third world free and prosperous, do we send Dawkins or Christian missionaries?

I see on his website that Dawkins only lists US and UK speaking locations for the upcoming year. Why is he ignoring Arabia and Africa???

Maybe I’m a bit patriotic on this, but from my perspective, only the USA represents a free and prosperous culture. Even in the UK, you can go to jail for saying something that offends a muslim. There isn’t a single country anywhere else in the world that has something as powerful as our First Amendment!

 

[yppop]

That sounds like a pretty good description of nothing to me. Shapeless, colourless, formless… Height infinite?

 

[Moonstruck888]

In the beginning - time
God created the heavens - space
and the earth - matter.

There you have it. First line of the bible. It took thousands of years for science to verify what the Bible said all along.

Prove it.

 

[buffalo]

Prove it.

Prove what -that it took thousands of years to verify this? I am not sure of your question.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Moonstruck888;6627446:

Forget particle physics, I am quite familiar with it. What I am looking for is the mechanism you alluded to regarding the formation of matter based on angular momentum and the conservation of mass energy. A scientific question deserves a scientific answer, direct and to the point, without obfuscation. Should be able to do it in a couple of sentences or a good reference.

You want me to explain over a hundred years of particle physics research in a couple of sentences? If you are familiar with particle physics, you know that is impossible.

Surely you know how matter and antimatter can be formed by colliding high energy photons? Type in matter formation or baryongenesis into Google and you’ll get more reference material than you can possibly read.

Incidently there is NO EVIDENCE for the Higgs Boson; it is predicted by the standard model but hasn’t shown up yet. It was thrown into the Standard Model to resolve mathematical inconsistencies. Scientists believe it will show up in the Large Hadron Collectorat at CERN if and when they can fix the leaks. In the meantime the Higgs Boson is a BELIEF as I pointed out.

The Higgs Boson is Hypothetical at the moment, but given the reliablility of the standard model, I would give the Higgs Field more credence than your shapeless, sizeless, colourless, soundless, odourless, massless God.

And no, scientists don’t believe that. The Large Hadron Collider cannot even come close to generating enough energy to create a Higgs Boson, not by several orders of magnitude. What it can do is create breakdown products that back up the predictions of the Standard Model, which whether you like it or not is the most successful scientific theory ever devised.

Now, if you are as familiar with particle physics as you claim, you will know that the discovery of EVERY sub atomic particle has been the result of research into plugging mathematical inconsistencies in theory.

I know what a 1a Supernovae is and why it is used as a standard candle. Its use as a standard candle was instrumental in determining a more accurate relationship between the red-shift and distance of galaxies that led to the conclusion that the expansion of the universe is accelerating because of "DARK ENERGY"for which there is no evidence; just BELIEF.

That aside; you didn’t answer my question directly, so now explain to me how the measure of distance of type 1a Supernovae is related to the second law of thermodynamics as you imply with that vis-a-vis (face to face?) pairing ?

If you leave dark energy out of it, you have already answered your own question. Type 1a Supernovae have settled the question of whether the Universe is going to collapse or die a thermodynamic death, and it seems to be the latter.

Dark matter is hypothetical at the moment and is irrelevant to this.

My, my you just eliminated an awful lot of reputable scientists. Incidently, can you tell me the origin of the multiverse theories? How they were derived? By whom?

Yes, I can tell you that, but first you tell me why you don’t just use google to obtain the information? That is what computers are for and this seems unpleasantly like some kind of silly test.

Your “PROVE IT” criterion eliminates in addition to mutiverse theories, a lot of what passes for science these days: string theory, quantum loop theory, dark energy, dark matter, the big bang, the theory of evolution, all of anthropology, etc. etc. etc.

Correct. Until these ideas have supporting evidence, they are the sole provenence of philosophers.

God exists, and if you ask me to prove it, I’ll know you didn’t go back and read MOM’s posts, like a good scientist would in the search for knowledge.

God exists and if you ask me to prove it you’re not a sportsman!

I’m one man and I work full time hours. I’m afraid I do not have anything like the time to read and reply to every post on this forum or even in this thread. I’m afraid that biochemistry has created me with human limitations, and you’ll just have to bear with me.

How can you be truly searching for knowledge if you start with the premise that God exists instead of the question does God exist?

Engineering is superfluous in the eyes of the public; science gets all the credit, but technology has done all the good work.

Yppop

I am an engineer, and engineering is applied science.

Mechanical Engineering - Applied Physics
Electrical Engineering - Applied Physics
Sound Engineering - Applied Physics and applied Biology
Genetic Engineering - Applied Biology

 

[Moonstruck888]

I watched the video and noticed something that Dawkins failed to mention. The map of religion corresponds largely with a map of FREEDOM. Countries that are Christian largely represent the free and prosperous western culture.

So if we want to make the third world free and prosperous, do we send Dawkins or Christian missionaries?

I see on his website that Dawkins only lists US and UK speaking locations for the upcoming year. Why is he ignoring Arabia and Africa???

I think that has more to do with the Industrial Revolution occurring in the West rather than religious doctrine.

One thing I would say, now that we are giving away all our engineering plants and industrial factories to China and India, we might not be at the top of the tree for much longer…

 

[Moonstruck888]

In my opinion, both ‘science’ and religion have their different Creation stories. Each story has its accompanying set of evidence. Frankly, I think some people who claim to follow science but who throw out the Holy Bible and personal experience of believers, are quite rude.

Funnily enough, I think that people who denigrate the Scientific method that led to the invention of the very computer they are typing on and the delivery of the electrical energy that runs it are extremely ungrateful.

Fact: The Universe started off very tiny and is now very large, to wit: It exploded.

I am a simple man, with a complex mind. My savior is a simple man, who died to please His Heavenly Father, a most gruesome death, when he could have just stayed incorporeal in Heaven. The love that action speaks of is more wondrous than than the Big Bang.

Provided that it really happened.

So, I keep my humble opinion, based on history as well as science, that, yes, science is historically grounded on faith. Or does the empirical or skeptical view throw out all of history, too, as evidence?

I would treat a lot of historical evidence with extreme scepticism. Historians make many claims that are basically opinions. The Inca’s sacrificed humans to appease their God! Did they? How do we know that they weren’t executions of criminals or a cull of people with a contigious disease? We have an unfortunate tendency to pick an explanation that seems suitable and then work around it rather than accepting that we just don’t know things.

Now, today I have spent four hours of my 24 hours of rationed time, on this thread.
Enough.
I’ll be back tomorrow.

Good evening to you…

 

[Moonstruck888]

Maybe I’m a bit patriotic on this, but from my perspective, only the USA represents a free and prosperous culture. Even in the UK, you can go to jail for saying something that offends a muslim. There isn’t a single country anywhere else in the world that has something as powerful as our First Amendment!

In the USA, in states like Michigan for example, the infrastructure is falling apart and thousands of people are being made homeless…

Freedom? If Freedom is about being free to starve when Government mismanagement puts your workplace out of business, then give me a friendly dictatorship every time…

 

[buffalo]

In the USA, in states like Michigan for example, the infrastructure is falling apart and thousands of people are being made homeless…

Freedom? If Freedom is about being free to starve when Government mismanagement puts your workplace out of business, then give me a friendly dictatorship every time…

or how about the Catholic principle of subsidiarity?

 

[Ismael]

Usually scientists put their “faith” in Positivism.

The Higgs Boson is Hypothetical at the moment, but given the reliablility of the standard model, I would give the Higgs Field more credence than your shapeless, sizeless, colourless, soundless, odourless, massless God.

Here there are at least TWO mistakes.

1- The Higgs Boson is only ONE of the possible theories to solve the holes in the Standard Model Theory

2- If the Higgs Boson and the Higgs field were real they would not deny God and you would not have to ‘believe in them’ either…

And no, scientists don’t believe that. The Large Hadron Collider cannot even come close to generating enough energy to create a Higgs Boson, not by several orders of magnitude. What it can do is create breakdown products that back up the predictions of the Standard Model, which whether you like it or not is the most successful scientific theory ever devised.

That is highly arguable, The standard model works, but in the end it is just a theory.

I believe, as a physicist, that the standard model is probably a good thoey or even the best theory, bur one must realize that it is based on other theories, which in turn might be wrong or incomplete.

Now, if you are as familiar with particle physics as you claim, you will know that the discovery of EVERY sub atomic particle has been the result of research into plugging mathematical inconsistencies in theory.

That is not exactly true either. Some particles have been predicted, and were later found. Some others were discovered first and then helped to shape the Standard Model.

Other particles have been theorized but never found (or even proven impossible to exist).

As a Physicist I find it offensive that people abuse physics to make some dumb arguments to prove that ‘God does not exist’, since frorm Physics, even High Energy Physics you can not derive a conclusion like that.

Basically it is like saying: "“Now that I know how the watch works it means there is no watch maker”

Fact: The Universe started off very tiny and is now very large, to wit: It exploded.

That is actually not true… Space expanded… it did not explode… and since space itself expanded it is somewhat wrong to talk about big and small.

 

[Moonstruck888]

or how about the Catholic principle of subsidiarity?

I’m quite happy with the socialist principle of taxing people according to their means to provide everyone with a safety net.

I haven’t heard of subsidiarity. What is it?

 

[Moonstruck888]

As a Physicist I find it offensive that people abuse physics to make some dumb arguments to prove that ‘God does not exist’, since frorm Physics, even High Energy Physics you can not derive a conclusion like that.

Basically it is like saying: "“Now that I know how the watch works it means there is no watch maker”

Well, we can debate whether my interpretation of the Standard Model is correct or not, but as one physicist to another, I’m sure you’ll agree that there is simply no way the Universe could have been created in seven days, six thousand years ago?

 

[Moonstruck888]

That is actually not true… Space expanded… it did not explode… and since space itself expanded it is somewhat wrong to talk about big and small.

Space, exploded.

The expansion was powered by an exothermic process that blasted everything outwards, to wit: An explosion.

Or are you referring to the unproven hypothesis that spacetime itself is expanding?

 

[edwest2]

I think that has more to do with the Industrial Revolution occurring in the West rather than religious doctrine.

One thing I would say, now that we are giving away all our engineering plants and industrial factories to China and India, we might not be at the top of the tree for much longer…

“we”? I doubt anyone here is in the process of giving away industry to China. The multinational corporations are only concerned about money and profits.

The Industrial Revolution would not have been possible without the Church. Look up who founded most of the Universities and Colleges in the West.

God bless,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

I’m quite happy with the socialist principle of taxing people according to their means to provide everyone with a safety net.

I haven’t heard of subsidiarity. What is it?

Catholic Social Doctrine Begins with Subsidiarity

 

[Moonstruck888]

“we”? I doubt anyone here is in the process of giving away industry to China. The multinational corporations are only concerned about money and profits.

The Industrial Revolution would not have been possible without the Church. Look up who founded most of the Universities and Colleges in the West.

God bless,
Ed

We vote for the people that keep them in power, no?

 

[Ismael]

As one physicist to another, I’m sure you’ll agree that there is simply no way the Universe could have been created in seven days, six thousand years ago?

I never said one should take the creation story literally.

The Fathers of the Church did not (nor did the Jews I think).
St. Augustine, for example, argued against the literal interpretation of the Genesis.

I do not believe man was made from mud either, but I think the theory of evolution is a plausible scientific explaination of the rise of the physical human being (and so does the Catholic Church).

Augustine also argues that the truth can be found even by non-believers, by the means of their own senses.
Hence the truth can be found in science as well, but there are different types of truth and different means.

The scientific method applies only on truths that can be descovered by what is detectable ‘through the senses’, i.e. truths in the material world. but it cannot examine spirituals or immaterial truths, nor, by definiton, can deny them.

Many atheists today have a strong belief in Positivism… but positivism itself cannot be proven scientifically.