1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Science, religion and the truth

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by mikkel_the_dane, Mar 17, 2020.

  1. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,214
    Ratings:
    +586
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    If using such a "circular argument", it at least take a human brain to comprehend the circle of formation everywhere :)
     
  2. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    13,015
    Ratings:
    +3,656
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Well, it is an old one in western philosophy. Goes back to Agrippa the Skeptic. No strong justification is apparently possible, because we hit this:
    1. Dissent – The uncertainty demonstrated by the differences of opinions among philosophers and people in general.
    2. Progress ad infinitum – All proof rests on matters themselves in need of proof, and so on to infinity, i.e, the regress argument.
    3. Relation – All things are changed as their relations become changed, or, as we look upon them from different points of view.
    4. Assumption – The truth asserted is based on an unsupported assumption.
    5. Circularity – The truth asserted involves a circularity of proofs.
    Regards
    Mikkel
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. blü 2

    blü 2 Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    10,617
    Ratings:
    +6,930
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    One much-studied hypothesis for the Big Bang has it as a singularity, or immeasurably close to it, containing only a superplasma in which the weak and strong forces were overridden. Thus from Time Zero on comes the expansion and cooling and the formation of the particle zoo from the emergence (or re-emergence of those forces). The third force to mention is the EM force, present in any discussion of light, radiation, and so on.
    What on earth are you talking about?They did no such thing. They discovered the problem and its solution is still a work in progress. For goodness sake, how do you think science works?
    You could only make that statement if you knew specifically what they did and why they did it (and are doing it). Pinpoint a moment in that scientific process when they should have known the EM force was relevant and failed to take it into consideration. Otherwise I'll think your comment lacking reasonable foundation.
    There you go again, demanding absolutes, ignoring the fact that research is a process, a devising and testing of hypotheses, the ruling in or out of possibilities. The only people who've discovered the problems that are out there are the scientists themselves, and the only thing you know about that is what they've told you.
    Dark energy is derived from redshift? Wow, make your case and get a Nobel do hang in your den!
    Unreliable in any way of which scientists aren't aware and you are?
     
  4. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    13,015
    Ratings:
    +3,656
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    So how you propose we observe that as a testing? How do we test Time Zero?

    Regards
    Mikkel
     
  5. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    13,015
    Ratings:
    +3,656
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    So observing an atom is the deepest meaning. How do I see that? I see an atom? How is an atom the deepest meaning?

    How you see as meaning as what actually exists? I can't see actually! Actually is in the mind. You are playing with words as far as I can tell. Same for existence! You can't see existence. Existence is a nominal idea in the mind.
     
  6. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    21,158
    Ratings:
    +10,831
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    Knowing the definition of truth does not mean we know it's content. Thus, we can know that the truth exists, but cannot comprehend it's actual existence.
     
  7. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    13,015
    Ratings:
    +3,656
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Yeah, just like "das Ding an sich". It must be there, but it is unknowable for anything that it must be there.
     
  8. blü 2

    blü 2 Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    10,617
    Ratings:
    +6,930
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    I'd be inclined to ask someone who'd done the serious homework on the question.

    Maybe ask Brian Green or Neil deGrasse Tyson who looks the best bet.
     
  9. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    13,015
    Ratings:
    +3,656
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Okay, so a functional non-answer. If you claim that is how it is done, but don't know how it is done, then how do you know?

    Regards
    Mikkel
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,214
    Ratings:
    +586
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    Explaining the entire Universe as an expansion from an approximate singularity is on the very brink of meta-physics IMO. It is very unlikely that the fundamental forces appears from a "Time Zero" as it logically would take all fundamental forces to create an Universe.
    When discussing a Big Bang, you forget to include and consider the very unreliable DISTANCE MEASURING SYSTEM which in first place lead to the assumption of Big Bang and an expanding Universe.

    Native said:
    Hopefully so. But they were gravitationally wrong in the galactic realms and they forgot to test their gravitational laws of celestial motions and just inserted "dark matter".
    I think science works by revising the laws in a hypothesis and change it if contradicted and eventually completely discards the hypothesis/theories.

    In the case above they just inserted an unseen amount of matter in galaxies in order to conserve their assumed and false ideas of celestial motions and its acquainted calculations. I know this "dark work" is still in progress as in the latest many decades and that can go on forever in eternity because it is just an intellectual and mental addition in cosmos.
    Well, just by looking on an image of a barred galaxy they should have known that gravity could not be the cause of the rotational patterns in galaxies. There is NO Way a gravitational force can produce the abrupt 90 degree turn in the galactic arms and into the galactic bars. I´t´s the other way around with barred galaxies: inside-out formation of stars.

    Very correctly, scientists thought all stars to "fly away from the galaxies" with the observed rotational velocity. hence they inserted "dark matter" to hold the stars in the galaxies. In fact they should have hold onto their "fly away" discovery and used other fundamental forces to explain this repulsive motion, which leaves only the three EM fundamental force to explain both the formation of stars and the rotational motion.

    Native said:
    Measuring cosmic distances via the luminosity of light and local "redshift" of objects is clearly incorrect as it leads to a force which isn´t there in the first place.
    NO not DIRECTLY from redshift but INDIRECTLY from the false measuring method which lead to the idea of "dark energy" because they couldn´t explain how the Universe could expand fast and with an increasing velocity.

    Native said:
    I´m saying that the cosmic redshift measuring method is unreliable.
    I think we already been there above.
     
  11. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    13,015
    Ratings:
    +3,656
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    @Native

    Found this:
    ... Here are some sliding definitions for what scientists have thought science to be: deduction of general laws from observed phenomena, finding out the ultimate constituents of Nature, accounting for regularities in empirical observations, finding provisional conceptual schemes for making sense of the world. ...
    Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics


    So what is science? Well, it seems to depend on what you take for granted.
    So we are in sense playing the correct definition of science, but there is no one correct definition apparently.

    So here it is apparently for biology, but it seems to run deeper:
    "Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]"

    Regards
    Mikkel
     
  12. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,214
    Ratings:
    +586
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    mikkel_the_dane said:
    So how you propose we observe that as a testing? How do we test Time Zero?
    Are you satirically or serious here?
     
  13. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Be your own guru

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    29,799
    Ratings:
    +13,878
    Religion:
    Atheist, Advaita (Non-duality), Orthodox Hindu
    #393 Aupmanyav, Mar 21, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2020
  14. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    13,015
    Ratings:
    +3,656
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    So you mention me as a form of non-existence and yet you write an answer to me. Well, you can believe as you do and I accept that. I though will continue to believe as I do, because to me you are in effect playing with words or doing philosophy, not science.
    You are describing your in part subjective world view, it would seem.

    Regards
    Mikkel
     
  15. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,214
    Ratings:
    +586
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    Thank a lot :) Personally I really find all needed informations from ancient Stories of Creation and go on from there into the "world perceptions of modern science" which mostly is somewhat disappointing.
    Sure, in modern times we all find our individual approaches according to our education and cultural heritage and so on.

    Agreed in the deeper depth :) I´ve always thought that modern science of biology and chemistry could learn modern cosmologist to understand much more of cosmos as such. Maybe even to such degree that they all would feel the scientific cosmological carpet to be swept away below their scientific feets.

    In this sense it´s "all above as below".
     
  16. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,214
    Ratings:
    +586
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    For your information your body consists of lots of atoms - unless you´re a wandering ghost. Then you´re just possible vibrations.
     
  17. Mock Turtle

    Mock Turtle Putin stamps on lesser mortals!
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2018
    Messages:
    10,655
    Ratings:
    +5,924
    Religion:
    None - agnostic with strong atheist tendencies.
    Well one truth that seems inescapable to me is that religions/spirituality are/have been divergent over the course of history (hence the spectrum of such beliefs), whilst science aims to be convergent with regards any truths sought, that is, they are whittled down until the best fit survives. Is the same going to happen with religions, after all, one would expect there only to be the one truth if it were actually true?
     
  18. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    13,015
    Ratings:
    +3,656
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Well, the closed we might get in practice is a sort of secular acceptance of that all religions hold no truth over other religions. Since to me religions are subjective, I doubt we can get closer than that.
    Science is easy, it relies on the objective part of reality aka methodological naturalism. World views including not just religions are hard, because they are in part subjective.

    Regards
    Mikkel
     
  19. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    7,775
    Ratings:
    +9,549
    Religion:
    None
    No, if observations of the universe don't conform to what a hypothesis predicts, we revise the hypothesis to fit observation. You seem to consider this a weakness, but it is one of the great strengths of science, others being its rational skepticism and empiricism. The evidence that the method is valid is its fruit.

    There is no need to inject poetry into science. Retraction and expansion, repulsion and attraction are sufficient. Why not also add dark and light qualities, or divine and profane qualities, or other ideas which add nothing to understanding.

    Imagination is all well and good, but you need to evaluate your imaginings and not believe those that are unevidenced. Failure to do that - simply believing what you imagine without sufficient evidentiary support, is a logical error called faith-based thought. Nothing useful comes from that kind of thinking.

    I presume that you are implying that if we can't repeat and observe the Big Bang, that we can't have a scientific theory of the evolution of the material universe. That is not what science is. Time travel is not a requirement for determining the much of the past. Do you think that we need to go back in time to see your birth to know that you were born one day and took a first breath? No, the evidence in the present allows us to know that.

    What we say is that your unevidenced claims are not valuable. Reason properly applied to evidence is the only valid path to useful information (knowledge). Idle metaphysical speculations - no, pronouncements - simply can't be used for anything.

    You don't understand the theory. Gravity wasn't present until it split off from the other three forces, the other three forces splitting from one another subsequently. The expansion did not involve gravity. The collapse of nebula, which didn't occur until the universe aged and evolved, did

    Understanding what consciousness is would just be more knowledge. If we had a good scientific theory of consiousness, it would just be ore knowledge. If that riddle is never solved, it won't diminish the knowledge we have.

    So you claim, and I have no reason to believe you even if you are correct.

    What I'm seeing on this thread are people that can't see the trees. We know that a forest is there by seeing the trees.

    And you can assert it all you like, but that changes nothing, either. There is no sound reason to believe in an afterlife.

    Finally, a claim with supporting evidence. Now that I believe. This is all you need to do to change the mind of a critical thinker - make claims supported by evidence.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. blü 2

    blü 2 Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    10,617
    Ratings:
    +6,930
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    I claim to know the best way to do it, not how it's done. The same principle directs me, when needs be, to my doctor and not to a herbalist, naturopath or faith healer. The principle is based, among other things, on past results.
     
Loading...