Theory....again

[LuisDantas]

Here is you making the claim that science can determine which pants can make my butt look fat:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3704432-post31.html

So please 'splain, how does science determine which pants make my butt look fat.

One way is by studying the effect of colors and patterns on the visual perception. It has been established that horizontal stripes make people appear thinner, and vertical stripes make them appear fatter, for instance.

Then there are psychological associations, if you are willing to study the perceiver's conditioning as opposed to the pants themselves.

But I am not sure why we are addressing this question. I'm sure there is a reason which evades me now.

 

[McBell]

So go ahead then, explain how you can use the scientific method to determine how certain pants make my butt look fat.

You try on a pair of pants, I look at your butt and decide if the pants make you look fat.
You try on another pair of pants, and another, and another, then at some point you put the first pair back on to determine if the prediction of them still making your butt look fat or not comes true.

 

[McBell]

That's every bit as much a bait and switch as Thief's definition of "theory" above.

How can you condemn the one, yet defend the other?

Not a bait and switch.
A clarification of what I actually posted as opposed to what she thought I posted.

 

[technomage]

Not a bait and switch.
A clarification of what I actually posted as opposed to what she thought I posted.

Hogwash. By that definition of "scientific method," I can use the "scientific method" to verify astrology, magical thinking, theism, or any number of woo-based conjectures. By using solely subjective evaluations, you open your experiment to pseudoscience.

 

[Ouroboros]

Theory....

rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice.

speculation: abstract thought or contemplation.

idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture.

(someone asked me to have a look.....this is what I found)
(hope he is reading this)

Think of theory as a model. It's a model that's made to fit evidence, facts, observations, logic, math, rules, knowledge, etc.

For instance, when we drop thing, they fall to the ground. We can model how, when, how fast, etc things fall, and then call it a model of "things falling to the ground" or more popular "gravity." In other words, a theory (or model) is not something that is a complete wild guess without any supporting facts or data. No, a theory/model is something that is modeled out of evidence. Sometimes (or most times) it's not perfect. It's a model. Just like a toy model of a real train engine won't be 100% perfect, but it's darn close! Just because it's a model doesn't mean it's completely wrong. Just because it's not 100% doesn't mean it's 0% correct.

Put it this way, your English isn't the greatest. My English isn't great either, but does that mean that we are always wrong? If I spell one word wrong, does it mean that all my words are spelled wrong? Of course not! The same with a model. There are parts and pieces that are wrong in a model, but it doesn't mean the whole model is wrong.

Take the law of motion for instance. That if you're on a moving flatbed truck and throw a ball the speed of the ball is the force you throw it with and the speed of the truck. You add them together if you throw in the same direction as the truck is moving. But... that's totally wrong!!! Because of special relativity and the limitation of speed of light, that formula is oversimplified. But it works in the given context of less than 1/10th of speed of light. So is the model completely wrong or is it mostly right and only wrong in specifics?

 

[Ouroboros]

Up to an iq of 125 for now.....

Oh, wow! I'm sooooo impressed!!!!

No... sorry, I'm not.

That's considered average intelligence in our family.

 

[Thief]

Think of theory as a model. It's a model that's made to fit evidence, facts, observations, logic, math, rules, knowledge, etc.

For instance, when we drop thing, they fall to the ground. We can model how, when, how fast, etc things fall, and then call it a model of "things falling to the ground" or more popular "gravity." In other words, a theory (or model) is not something that is a complete wild guess without any supporting facts or data. No, a theory/model is something that is modeled out of evidence. Sometimes (or most times) it's not perfect. It's a model. Just like a toy model of a real train engine won't be 100% perfect, but it's darn close! Just because it's a model doesn't mean it's completely wrong. Just because it's not 100% doesn't mean it's 0% correct.

Put it this way, your English isn't the greatest. My English isn't great either, but does that mean that we are always wrong? If I spell one word wrong, does it mean that all my words are spelled wrong? Of course not! The same with a model. There are parts and pieces that are wrong in a model, but it doesn't mean the whole model is wrong.

Take the law of motion for instance. That if you're on a moving flatbed truck and throw a ball the speed of the ball is the force you throw it with and the speed of the truck. You add them together if you throw in the same direction as the truck is moving. But... that's totally wrong!!! Because of special relativity and the limitation of speed of light, that formula is oversimplified. But it works in the given context of less than 1/10th of speed of light. So is the model completely wrong or is it mostly right and only wrong in specifics?

Ok smart guy...bring your family.....

IN THE BEGINNING...... the singularity was set into motion by what?

Spirit?.....or are you going to contradict the law of motion....and say....
It just happened?

 

[LuisDantas]

Thief, you may fail to realize it, but all you are doing is insisting that we must accept a first cause for existence as a dogmatic premise.

That is ultimately a personal choice, much as you want to convince us that it should not be.

 

[Thief]

Thief, you may fail to realize it, but all you are doing is insisting that we must accept a first cause for existence as a dogmatic premise.

That is ultimately a personal choice, much as you want to convince us that it should not be.

Dogma is belief without cause.

I have cause to believe.
Science claims nothing can move until something moves it.

Are you denying a basic law of motion?.....denying science?

 

[technomage]

Science claims nothing can move until something moves it.

You're equivocating. The singularity did not "move."

 

[Thief]

You're equivocating. The singularity did not "move."

It's not 'singular' anymore.
'Something' happened.

 

[LuisDantas]

Dogma is belief without cause.

Not a very usual definition of dogma.

I have cause to believe.

That, I assume to be true. Even if I do not share that belief, nor would I necessarily find the cause convincing.

Science claims nothing can move until something moves it.

Hmm, I doubt that to be true. Have you got some source? Some _scientific_ source, I mean?

Are you denying a basic law of motion?.....denying science?

No, not me.

 

[Thief]

Not a very usual definition of dogma.



That, I assume to be true. Even if I do not share that belief, nor would I necessarily find the cause convincing.



Hmm, I doubt that to be true. Have you got some source? Some _scientific_ source, I mean?



No, not me.

Well gee....
It was taught as basic knowing in grade school.
The laws of motion are considered without retort or rebuttal.

A body at rest will remain at rest.....until 'Something' moves it.

I like to capitalize the word.
But the science is still there.

Sure this is all theory.
There will be no proof.
But the reasoning is sound.

I think so anyway.
I'm not one to say no to the laws of motion.
I didn't create them.

 

[technomage]

It's not 'singular' anymore.
'Something' happened.

But that's not "movement," Thief.

And--unfortunately for your proposal--when dealing with a singularity, cause and effect break down. Yes, according to science, the pre-Big Bang singularity is quite able to become the Big Bang with _no cause whatsoever_.

That's the science.

 

[Thief]

But that's not "movement," Thief.

And--unfortunately for your proposal--when dealing with a singularity, cause and effect break down. Yes, according to science, the pre-Big Bang singularity is quite able to become the Big Bang with _no cause whatsoever_.

That's the science.

Nay....at best science can take you TO the event.
Science stops there.

But once the event 'begins'...so does everything else.

It's all theory.
And science won't be able to solve it.
The experiment work fit in the petri dish.
But reasoning can do what science cannot.

The singularity moved......outward.

 

[Ouroboros]

Ok smart guy...bring your family.....

IN THE BEGINNING...... the singularity was set into motion by what?

Spirit?.....or are you going to contradict the law of motion....and say....
It just happened?

So the law of motion includes spirit.

I don't ever remember any equation in physics class where "spirit" was a term.

Can you give me one?

 

[Thief]

So the law of motion includes spirit.

I don't ever remember any equation in physics class where "spirit" was a term.

Can you give me one?

Nay.
Spirit is the Cause.

Most believers (believing in a Creator) set the Creator outside of His creation.
(granted some people think God and the universe are not separate)

I believe God is separate of His handiwork.
He can touch it.
He can do as He pleases with it.
And though it does respond to His touch....it does not really 'respond'.

THAT is why Man was created.

Care to say....'nay'...?

 

[Ouroboros]

Nay.

Nay? Are you from the 18th century?

And why are you contradicting yourself. You said it was scientific. You said the First Cause was proven by science. So, let's see it. Let's see the equation.

Spirit is the Cause.

That's not science. That's philosophy. Get your categories right.

Most believers (believing in a Creator) set the Creator outside of His creation.
(granted some people think God and the universe are not separate)

Like me. I think the multiverse and the underlying framework/substrate of the very existence is all a unity. That unity is God.

I believe God is separate of His handiwork.

And I believe that's a old human idea that's based on how people used to build and construct things in the old days. Today, we're constructing more and more using automated processes and let nature itself produce it for us.

He can touch it.
He can do as He pleases with it.

I know you do. And where do you want to go from there except just repeating the same argument over and over again.

I'm not sold on the First Cause argument. Nothing you've said is convincing. Repeating "Spirit first" a million times doesn't work to explain any questions I have. The questions I have had in the past to you, you just brush over and refuse to answer. So "spirit first"... my counter argument is "nah."

And though it does respond to His touch....it does not really 'respond'.

THAT is why Man was created.

Care to say....'nay'...?

Nay to your God.

Yea to that we are God's extension of this world because we're all part of God.

We are God's realization of him/her/itself.

We are God's eyes, ears, hands. So yea to that, but nay to separate God.

And again, you said this was proven by science. I have to see that science.

 

[Thief]

In matters of faith....
no equation, no photo, no fingerprint, and no repeatable experiment.

You have to think about it.
Make up your mind as best that you can.

Science?......laws of motion?.....

'Something'......made it all move.

An object at rest will remain at rest....until....'Something' moves it.

Do I need the equation?.....no.
Do you need an experiment?.....only if you insist.

Put a rock on your table and wait for it.

 

[Ouroboros]

You said: "Spirit?.....or are you going to contradict the law of motion....and say....
It just happened?"

Here are the three (3) Newton laws of motion:

Newton's First Law of Motion:

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
This we recognize as essentially Galileo's concept of inertia, and this is often termed simply the "Law of Inertia".

Newton's Second Law of Motion:

II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.
This is the most powerful of Newton's three Laws, because it allows quantitative calculations of dynamics: how do velocities change when forces are applied. Notice the fundamental difference between Newton's 2nd Law and the dynamics of Aristotle: according to Newton, a force causes only a change in velocity (an acceleration); it does not maintain the velocity as Aristotle held.

This is sometimes summarized by saying that under Newton, F = ma, but under Aristotle F = mv, where v is the velocity. Thus, according to Aristotle there is only a velocity if there is a force, but according to Newton an object with a certain velocity maintains that velocity unless a force acts on it to cause an acceleration (that is, a change in the velocity). As we have noted earlier in conjunction with the discussion of Galileo, Aristotle's view seems to be more in accord with common sense, but that is because of a failure to appreciate the role played by frictional forces. Once account is taken of all forces acting in a given situation it is the dynamics of Galileo and Newton, not of Aristotle, that are found to be in accord with the observations.

Newton's Third Law of Motion:

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

From here: Newton's Three Laws of Motion

All of them talk about natural things, not supernatural, nor spiritual.

In other words, the Spirit you're talking about is Natural. No other conclusion can be made from your claims and statements unless you can provide a new and different laws of motion that exclude Nature itself from the equation.

But I know you can't.