Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Finding out about the 'something our minds cannot grasp' is not religiousness it is humanity. The feeling of wonder, the glory in life and the search for reason and meaning are not exclusive to those who believe in the divine supernatural. Of course there are inexplicable events; to a religious person they are evidence for gods- to a person who is not a believer they are opportunities to explore the reasons, to understand the cause or just to enjoy the pleasure of the moment.

.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Ellis
Finding out about the 'something our minds cannot grasp' is not religiousness it is humanity.

I think you're right. Atheists may be equally aware of the "feelings", whilst being satisfied that all is part of nature, and that a deity is not required as an explanation. It appears, though, that Einstein held a different view. To him religiousness was the recognition of a deity ("behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp"), and he was saying that nothing is totally explicable by any other means. It may be reasonable to assume that he saw God as the necessary fundamental principal behind all of existence. Is that less scientific than any other reason-based speculation regarding the universe? One could argue that it falls into the same category as string theory and multiverse theory, both of which comply with observations, but neither of which can untimately be proven.



"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Andrea Thompson
Quote:
Staff Writer
SPACE.com Thu Jun 7, 11:15 AM ET

The most distant black hole ever found is nearly 13 billion light-years from Earth, astronomers announced today.
ADVERTISEMENT

The Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope spotted the bright burst of light the black hole created as it sucked up nearby gas, heating it and causing it to glow very brightly in what's known as a quasar.
I found this reading the topic on physics.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20070607/sc_space/mostdistantblackholediscovered;_ylt=AsL12sjJKBQP7ZMb3fInJtRxieAA

Is this an announcement of a fact, or of faith? If it is a fact how do scientists go about proving it? How real is something that may have existed billions of years ago?


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Andrea Thompson
Quote:
Staff Writer
SPACE.com Thu Jun 7, 11:15 AM ET

The most distant black hole ever found is nearly 13 billion light-years from Earth, astronomers announced today.

The Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope spotted the bright burst of light the black hole created as it sucked up nearby gas, heating it and causing it to glow very brightly in what's known as a quasar.
I found this reading the topic on physics.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20070607/sc_space/mostdistantblackholediscovered;_ylt=AsL12sjJKBQP7ZMb3fInJtRxieAA

Is this an announcement of a fact, or of faith? If it is a fact how do scientists go about proving it? How real is something that may have existed billions of years ago?

I think it's just an announcement of an observation; y'know, like 'today we saw an eclipse (caused by moon moving in front of the sun).'

Anyway, I have lots of catching up to do; but thought this was funny. Get it? ...thanks WWP.

Quote:
Does my voice really sound like that? -Thomas Edison

~SA

Last edited by samwik; 06/09/07 07:02 AM.

Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"Is this an announcement of a fact, or of faith? If it is a fact how do scientists go about proving it? How real is something that may have existed billions of years ago?"

It is the statement of a conclusion derived from reasonable inference. No one has ever seen an electron. No one will ever see an electron. In science, by which I mean actual science and not the comic- book version promulgated by various religious authorities, "fact" does not imply "absolute certainty."

Instead "fact" means something so well supported by the existing evidence and models that it would be ridiculous to withhold at least tentative acceptance of it. The Earth is not flat; The Earth is not the center of the universe; electrons exist; objects at rest tend to stay at rest; objects in motion tend to stay in motion; it is gravitation and not angels which causes the orbits of planets about stars, of stars about stars, and of galaxies about each other; evolution has occurred and continues to occur; the entropy of an isolated system does not decrease; the earth's atmosphere is mostly nitrogen (even though no one has ever seen a nitrogen atom).

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
TFF says
Quote:
"It is the statement of a conclusion derived from reasonable inference.....it is gravitation and not angels which causes...the ... whatever"
And, as a unitheist/panentheist, I can certainly agree.

The great mathematician, Alfred North Whithead, who was a proponent of process philsophy and theology, was on the same general path. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/

Alfred North Whitehead (b.1861 - d.1947), British mathematician, logician and philosopher is best known for his work in mathematical logic and the philosophy of science. In collaboration with Bertrand Russell, he authored the landmark three-volume Principia Mathematica (1910, 1912, 1913) and contributed significantly to twentieth-century logic and metaphysics.

BTW, when atheists say, "I do not believe in angels, heaven, hell or God...", I am curious to know what idea, or concept, they have in mind when the use words like 'angel', hell, or 'God'. I make this comment in the spirit of dialogue and communication.


Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
One does not have to beleive in something to use it. For example, I talk about Hades or the Fates, or any of the Greek gods, and I do not beleive in them (other than ingenious myth). Sorry, but to me that seems like an irrelevant argument. It's as simple as that, although perhaps others might think it differently than me, I am not sure.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Exactly Tim. Also you do not have to believe in something in order not to believe in something else!

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Tim wrote:

"I talk about Hades or the Fates, or any of the Greek gods, and I do not beleive in them".

Why not Tim? What makes you so sure they don't exist? And the muses? Perhaps you accept they exist?

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
You are of course quite correct terry--my disbelief does not preclude something's existence. But it is not proved for anyone other than me because I happen to
believe in it.

Tim- to the Ancient Greeks those imagined dieties were real, just like god is for some today, and so are for eg, the gods of the Hindus real and the Spirits that inhabit Australia real- to those who believe it. You make things real by your belief. There has to be a decision to believe, like in Peter Pan where the children have to clap if they beliieve in fairies and so Tinkerbell does not die.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Ellis. Are you saying there are no spirits that inhabit Australia? You mean I've been wrong all these years? Outback Oz is pretty unreal though.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Yet another viewpoint for the collection:

Many of us perceive/acknowledge/understand that both the spiritual 'real' and the scientific 'real' exist as aspects of total reality. They are of an entirely different nature, so it's extremely important that people differentiate between them and give each its due. Because the two realities are of a different nature, any discussion of one in terms of the other is impossible, except through indirect means such as allegory and metaphor. Spiritual beliefs should be founded on spiritual experience, not on the assumption that specific material evidence must exist in the physical realm - the shaky ground bearing the edifice of religious mythology. The spiritual person should have no need to refute or distort the world of science. Likewise, the scientific person should have no need to refute or distort the world of the spirit. Ultimately the distinction between the spiritual person and the scientific person is illusory, since we are all of the same nature, but differ only in understanding. I think Einstein saw that.

At least, I think that's what I think. smile


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
They are there if you believe in them terry! As rede says, the distinction is illusory and there's plenty of spirit in Oz if you want to find it.

To be a bit serious though, I think that rede is on to something with:

" Spiritual beliefs should be founded on spiritual experience, not on the assumption that specific material evidence must exist in the physical realm - the shaky ground bearing the edifice of religious mythology"

People's beliefs are, or should be based on their own considered decisions, as otherwise they are just following dogma imposed on them by the rule makers and rule keepers. Being told what to think under threat of punishment for disobedience is not cool!

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Ellis, I'm being dishonest. It's not just what I think I think. I accept it as true because it corresponds with my own experience and observations, and it's fine as long as I keep my mouth shut. As soon as I open my mouth it becomes dogma!


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Interesting.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
BTW, someone mentioned mentioned about the making of a house. But what make a house a home?

In my humble opinion,

First, a home is a place where people are free to wonder--that is, they are free to philosophize about what is possible.

Second, it is a place where we are free to experiment--that is, do all the science, including technology, necessary to success.

Third, it a place where we feel comfortable to practice the art of living, physically, mentally and spiritually, so that we have the confidence to move on.
===========================

Last edited by Revlgking; 06/15/07 10:02 PM.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Redewenur wrote:

"As soon as I open my mouth it becomes dogma!"

Not necessarily Rede. Depends how you say it. As Ellis said, "Being told what to think under threat of punishment for disobedience is not cool!" But hopefully we are all able to learn through others' experience as well as our own.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: terrytnewzealand
Redewenur wrote:

"As soon as I open my mouth it becomes dogma!"

Not necessarily Rede. Depends how you say it. As Ellis said, "Being told what to think under threat of punishment for disobedience is not cool!" But hopefully we are all able to learn through others' experience as well as our own.

Yes I know, Terry, "not necessarily" - what you say is true - but when we have a firm conviction that's supported by repetitive experience (akin to the experiment of the scientist), even though there may be no contradiction in the 'objective' world, it's still classifiable as opinion. Sometimes we are tempted speak as though our views are incontrovertible truth rather than opinion. As you say, it depends how we say it. I suppose the important thing is to bear in mind that the experiences of others may be very different.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
- more re: the above -

From 'Mathematical Infinity and Human Destiny' by Paul Budnik, a consultant in Silicon Valley. He has a Ph.D. in computer science from the University of Illinois

"It may seem that any attempt to objectify spirituality can only lead to its destruction. This is true of attempts to contain it intellectually. It cannot be contained because it points to an unbounding range of possibilities.

Comment: However, see his final paragraph.

In the worlds of science and mathematics, there is nearly universal agreement about a vast body of knowledge that has enormous practical value. Of course, there is no agreement about how to extend mathematics and science, but there is agreement on the process that must be followed to bring new ideas into the widely accepted core."

Comment: The value of science as a product of the scientific method.

"In contrast, religion and spirituality is filled with arbitrary dogma and often violent disagreement. The power [that] technology is giving the human race makes this increasingly dangerous, and ultimately unacceptable. If it continues, the human species will almost certainly destroy itself."

Comment: These points have been thoroughly discussed in SAGG, where I think they are generally considered true.

"It is possible to develop a core spirituality that has the objectivity of science."

Comment: I agree with that assertion.

"Like mathematics, an objective spirituality must be open-ended, with the potential for unbounded creativity. That is where most approaches to spirituality, in our intellectually dominated age, run into trouble. Intellect is a very powerful, but very limited tool. It likes to constrain things in a universe that it can understand. That is one reason most mathematicians, including Godel himself, resisted creative implications of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem."

Comment:

From Wiki:
'Godel's second incompleteness theorem shows that it is not possible for any proof that Peano Arithmetic is consistent to be carried out within Peano arithmetic itself. This theorem shows that if the only acceptable proof procedures are those that can be formalized within arithmetic then Hilbert's call for a consistency proof cannot be answered. However, as Nagle and Newman (1958:96-97) explain, there is still room for a proof that cannot be formalized in arithmetic: "This imposing result of Godel's analysis should not be misunderstood: it does not exclude a meta-mathematical proof of the consistency of arithmetic. What it excludes is a proof of consistency that can be mirrored by the formal deductions of arithmetic. Meta-mathematical proofs of the consistency of arithmetic have, in fact, been constructed, notably by Gerhard Gentzen, a member of the Hilbert school, in 1936, and by others since then. ... But these meta-mathematical proofs cannot be represented within the arithmetical calculus'

In other words, Paul Budnik has inferred that the validity of the scientific understanding of total reality cannot be proven from within its own framework.

"The universe is the creative evolution of consciousness. This is beyond understanding and imagination - but we can understand the structure of this process."

Comment: Whatever else can be said of the universe, it cannot be denied that consciousness has emerged within it, and that consciousness has evolved. It is, for now at least, a mystery - but we can understand the physical processes with which it is associated.

"We can understand how to feed it, and what will kill it. We can begin to convert some spiritual intuitions into intellectual understanding. Doing so is essential [in order] to focus our spiritual motivations into a framework that will allow the continued evolution of consciousness - not to mention the survival of humanity."

Comment: There is a rationale that allows intellectual insight into spiritual intuitions. It's the same process that allows the development of ethical awareness.





"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
Back up a bit...

Plenty of "Spirit" in Outback 'stralia? You better believe it! I once tried to hitch hike across the Outback. Fram Cairns to Perth. Boy, do you ever meet some colorful individuals. Between Mount Isa and Camooweal I got a lift from a Station Owner. An old guy, raspy voice from years of smoking hand-rolled cigarettes. We were in the REAL Outback, mile after mile of dead straight road, very few vehicles, really, nothing to look at, mate. All of a sudden the old guy says, "You ain't never SEEN scenery like this!" I'm Canadian, but to those Outback guys, anybody with a North American accent must be from Brooklyn, never left the Big City till they came here. I answered, "Well, I grew up in the Rocky Mountain foothills..." "YOU AIN'T NEVER SEEN SCENERY LIKE THIS!!!" he roars back. Three hundred and sixty degrees of dead flat horizon, spinifex and red dust. What scenery? But, hey, I didn't want to get DROPPED OFF in the middle of the Outback, "That's right, Sir, I ain't never seen anything like this!"

A few weeks later I was working on a Sheep Station outside of Fitzroy crossing, a place called Laurel Downs. It was being run by another old guy, a WWII Veteran and his two sons a few years older than I was. The mother had had enough of the Outback and had returned to Adelaide. We spoke with the neighbors by radio, that's how isolated we were. It took five days to drive, by Land Rover, around the perimeter of the place to mend fences. At the opposite corner of the property was an abandoned Ghost Town. They kept a few cattle there, it had a natural Bore, a spring, and there were trees arond the place. Cockatoos and Galahs everywhere. Apparently the settlers in the 19th Century had been "Emu Bobbers", Opal pickers. The place was going to be the "Next Coober Pedy", but the opals ran out. I did happen to find one Opal. I later gave it to my mother who had it set in a ring. We "de-knackered" young rams there, cut out their testicles. We went into the Crossing on three Saturday nights and each time I got into a fist fight. Aww, yes, PLENTY of Spirit in the Outback.

Howzat? Science? Oh, well, there's a Meteorite Impact Crater in WA. Goat Paddock.

Last edited by Wolfman; 06/16/07 08:27 PM.
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5