Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no scientific evidence for the existence of a higher power. The god concept is untestable so it is merely a personal opinion that a higher power exists.
We all know that on christmas morning presents appear under the xmas tree with our names on them.
They exist therefore they had to get there somehow.
It takes an intelligent conscious mind to think of using a sleigh and 9 reindeer to deliver all those presents.
The presents wouldn't exist without someone thinking of using a sleigh and 9 reindeer to deliver them.
Santa has an intelligent conscious mind, so therefore SANTA DID IT!.
Plus, this implies that Santa has a red suit and personally knows my name.
I do enjoy your logical exercise, I woulda rep-ed ya, but "gotta spread some around before...."
It's not "scientific proof" as he claims. It's a clumsy hypotheses in which he makes statements of fact that are really assumptions, makes leaps of "faith", draws illogical conclusions and adds a lot of unneccessary fluffy filler. If he tried to defend this "hypotheses" in front of a PhD panel and made claims that it was proof that "GOD DID IT" (and a personal god at that), he would fail and be told to take a first year philosophy course to learn how to make logical arguments or go to a religious college where he doesn't have to be logical.
Tell me what is right with it apart from the fact that properties of the universe can be described mathematically.
Pick it apart. Demonstrate how it's wrong, please. You've made some assertions about it, now back it up. Explain.
I COULD call you stupid. I'm not. You're likely a fairly intelligent individual.
But if I did, I would be expected to explain my statement. Likewise, you've done nothing but call the argument stupid. Now explain it, please.
Pick it apart. Demonstrate how it's wrong, please. You've made some assertions about it, now back it up. Explain.
I COULD call you stupid. I'm not. You're likely a fairly intelligent individual.
But if I did, I would be expected to explain my statement. Likewise, you've done nothing but call the argument stupid. Now explain it, please.
Well, I tend to second Jaymax's opinion, mis-spellings do not tend to lend an air of verisimilitude, neither does the odd mis-understanding of quanta, there is more, mostly because the post is long.
Well, I tend to second Jaymax's opinion, mis-spellings do not tend to lend an air of verisimilitude, neither does the odd mis-understanding of quanta, there is more, mostly because the post is long.
I suspect from his name (always a dangerous assumption) that English may be his second language (in which case he does a remarkable job). I read it all and understand his mis-identification of the artificial mathematical rubric as isomorphic with the universe. It is NOT. BUT . . . the underlying order that enables us to create models to predict events is proof of the existence of a universal field establishing the metrics that enable us to mimic them . . . as Einstein said. Mathematics is a great tool . . . but the universe does NOT operate mathematically. I have predicted human attitudes and decisions using mathematics . . . but I never once thought that those decisions or attitudes were being created in the minds of people using the mathematical models I used to predict them. That would be absurd . . . especially given the relative mathematical illiteracy of humankind in general.
Center of Scientific Divulgation about Consciousness
Right, "scientific", in the not-mainstream, not-peer-reviewed, philosophy-infected sense. In this here website, a physicist will give us his highly qualified opinion regarding consciousness.
Quote:
Since consciousness is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any concepts or classifications, the materialist attempts to explain consciousness as an emergent property are absolutely inconsistent from a logical point of view. No entities which existence presupposes the existence of consciousness can be considered as the cause of the existence of consciousness.
In other words, we can't think about thoughts.
Wait, what?
Quote:
Science has proved that the state of the universe is determined by some specific mathematical equations, the laws of physics; the universe cannot exist independently from such equations, which determine the events and the properties of such events (including the probability for the event to occur, according to the predictions of quantum mechanics).
Wrong. Science has constructed a mathematical model of the universe, and experimentation has shown this model to be extremely accurate. The way the universe actually work may or may not be translatable in mathematical terms - though it's basically irrelevant because we can never attain such perfection, being limited to an empirical approach. Indeed, it is impossible to prove that there isn't an element of perfect randomness, deep down.
This basically invalidates the rest of the argument.
Quote:
In fact, if natural processes were not determined by any mathematical equations, there would be no reason to expect to be able to predict the natural processes (neither a limited number of them), through some mathematical equations.
Ridiculous. Mathematics can be used to approximate very well all sorts of things that do not in fact follow strict mathematical laws. For example, the growth of a population of bacterias can be accurately predicted with differential equations or statistics, even though there is no reason to believe that the bacterias obey a mathematical law when they reproduce. It is merely an emergent behaviour of the whole population.
Quote:
Some people object that the mathematical equations are not the principles ruling the universe, but they are only a representation imagined by man. Someone else claims that math is only the language used to describe the universe. This objections however do not stand since the laws of physics are intrinsically abstract mathematical concepts
Saying so does not make it so.
Quote:
Besides, the objective result is that natural phenomena occur according to some specific mathematical equations
The equations are very accurate. That does not mean they are perfect. For example, universal constants, which are at the very foundations of all physical equations, evolve as our instruments become more precise. Some of them may turn out not to be constants at all, or to be dependent on one another. Some of our equations may well need to be completely rewritten at some point. How, then, can one be so certain that natural phenomena really do obey our equations? Only for a given value of "certain".
Quote:
Someone claims that the equations of physics are not the cause of the natural processes, but they are only the result of our analysis of experimental data; in other words, they are only the way we have ordered and summarized, in a mathematical language, the observed processes. In this case, however, every new experimental data would require a new analysis and a revision of our equations. Such objection is then clearly denied by the predictive capability of the equations of physics: if the state of the universe was not really determined by any mathematical equations, no equations could allow us to predict systematically the natural phenomena, while we know that the laws of physics systematically give correct predictions.
For a given value of "correct". If you drop an object to the floor, you can fairly accurately predict when it will hit the ground. Down to very small fractions of a second, in experimental conditions. But perfectly? No.
Quote:
The existence of these mathematical equations implies the existence of a personal, conscious and intelligent Creator.
Leap of faith. Assuming the universe does indeed follow mathematical laws... So what? It has to follow something. Why go and say it therefore must be created? Worse, why attribute to the "creator" such characteristics as "personal, conscious and intelligent"? Occam's razor protests.
This reminds me very much of the TAG.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Mathematics is a great tool . . . but the universe does NOT operate mathematically. I have predicted human attitudes and decisions using mathematics . . . but I never once thought that those decisions or attitudes were being created in the minds of people using the mathematical models I used to predict them.
You write, "the universe cannot exist independently from such equations" ... I would say that at that early point in your explanation of your ideas, you have already fallen off of the true road to wisdom. I would argue that it is more reasonable and correct to say that "we have discovered that the universe behaves in such a way as to conform to certain mathematical relationships." Saying this does not go beyond today's scientific evidence and does not postulate that our awareness of such relationship somehow requires that those relationships *must* exist for the universe to exist. I believe that would be going beyond the evidence and thus is not a scientifically proper nor scientifically meaningful statement. With your statement as I quoted, you have stepped into practicing Platonian metaphysics (that is, suggesting the objective existence of perform forms), not science.
Pick it apart. Demonstrate how it's wrong, please. You've made some assertions about it, now back it up. Explain.
I COULD call you stupid. I'm not. You're likely a fairly intelligent individual.
But if I did, I would be expected to explain my statement. Likewise, you've done nothing but call the argument stupid. Now explain it, please.
First off, kbrich, you seem to be completely happy and sufficiently, unquestionably content to just accept Dr. Biagini's statement, as is. No questions yourself? No curiosity? If a sufficiently accredited scientist makes a statement that you like the sounds or direction of, you believe it at face value? In THAT case, I can give you a list of similarly "accredited" statements. Somehow though, I just know you wouldn't accept mine. I wonder why not...
But to my point. I'm quite willing to engage the good Doctor, even to the point of possible complete concurrence by myself. Or by him, I'd hope. That's what true scientists do, and apparently they may be uncommon posters on these threads. I do have some questions I'd like addressed by Dr. Biagini, unlike kdb above. To start...
“Proof”, Dr. Biagini? I will comment first that your arrival to this thread is welcomed, however I will caution you on observed protocols and typical responses in these controversial topics: your comments and conclusions, even though originating from you, “an evil, ego-driven scientist” , will, in this particular case, be completely accepted by fundamentalist dogmatic Christians, because what you say supports their philosophy. They will not subject it to anything but happy, gleeful accolades. In and of itself, this should bother you and science in general. If we subject your various points to the usual scientific peer-review, with which I’m sure you must be very familiar, you can reasonably expect to have to defend some of your points, yes? As you did, I'd assume, in your PhD thesis defence?
Additionally, anyone choosing to question you here on City-Data's forum will be similarly besmirched, attacked and belittled. Such tactics no longer intimidate me or others, since I've learned to “consider the source” when the comments get rude, illogical or insulting.
Before I proceed, I’d like your response to my brief comments about scientific rigor and questioning that may take place here, so that the Christian dogs don’t try to tear my head off simply for asking for clarification or for your thoughts on an alternate "take". (BTW, I recently summarized a research paper by Lenski et al, in the following thread.
While my simple "message-carrier" role elicited quite the rancorous negative responses, with accusations that the study was a fraud, a hoax and much worse, I’d love to get your reasoned, rational take on at least his methodologies and possibly his reasonable and similarly rational conclusions. I note that his paper was, of course, vigorously peer-reviewed by the National Academy of Science, his own university and many others quite knowledgable in the topic, and was then completely accepted. But not by the Christian "experts" on C-D.
He did, by yours and my exacting standards, show conclusively that the proposed and observed consequences of simple DNA error occurrence, to wit: incorporation of those positive mutations into subsequent generations followed by the accumulation of other positive adaptations, would and did result in a valid "speciation effect". This was roundly denied by several non-scientific commentators. As you and I also know, such untrained emotional evaluations (and yet, with insistent and hostile summary conclusions) are common in most public discussions of scientific and religious controversies, yes?
In the case of your “proof”, I’d like to have your brief thoughts on mine (actually, those of Dr. Lenski and his very capable grad students) before I make a few points and ask a few questions on your post. BTW, as you did, I’ll note my own qualifications to comment knowledgably, in that I have formal University under-, grad- and post-grad education in mechanical engineering, biochemistry, toxicology, mammalian evolution, physiology and behaviour, and environmental impact methodologies, as well as special training in automotive engineering and Applied Geology as it relates to mining scenarios, deposit aging and structure, erosion control and remote geo-tech analysis. Perhaps we can then discuss at an appropriate and gentlemanly level? We may even agree to disagree, but without rancor. One would certainly hold open that hopeful possibility.
First off, kbrich, you seem to be completely happy and sufficiently, unquestionably content to just accept Dr. Biagini's statement, as is. No questions yourself? No curiosity? If a sufficiently accredited scientist makes a statement that you like the sounds or direction of, you believe it at face value? In THAT case, I can give you a list of similarly "accredited" statements. Somehow though, I just know you wouldn't accept mine. I wonder why not...
I did skim over it, and didn't find anything I necessarily disagreed with.
I'm not particularly accepting of it, as much as I'm trying to hold people accountable to WHY they don't agree with it. It just drives me batty when I see the irrational reactions of the atheists on this board that reject arguments without even thinking about them...then calling us Christians "intolerant" or "unthinking".
If you are able to demonstrate why it's wrong, do it. Otherwise, why do you spout off about it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At last! Good discussion, and concurrence!
