Definitions: Atheism and Agnosticsm.

[Cris]

Okinrus,

the concept of infinity cannot be completely comprehended by the human mind.

I’m not sure why that would be true. I don’t have any trouble comprehending infinity, observing it though is another issue.

As soon as science goes past observation and into guess work it is usually wrong.

Science doesn’t use guesswork. Guth and Linde were the originators of Inflationary theory and their observations of those early moments of the big bang is leading them to the conclusion that inflation wasn’t caused by the big bang but that the big bang is the result of inflation and that other big bangs are equally likely to have resulted.
In other words their theory of multiple big bangs is based on observations of how the early big bang occurred.

Our minds should not be capable of understanding the infinite.

You’ve made this assertion many times now but have never given a justification.

A finite system should not be capable of understanding the infinite.

Why not?

Augstine's statement that the soul was infinite does have some basis here.

Why?

 

[okinrus]

Why not?
It is impossible for the finite group of cells to replicate infinity exactly. This is because our concience is based upon observation where the flow of information comes from a finite collection of cells. Of course we can use induction over infinite sets but this requires knowing a supposition that is true for the complete set. Therefore it's an impossible claim to extend induction to physical infinite sets because we can never know if a supposition holds for the entire set.

Science doesn’t use guesswork. Guth and Linde were the originators of Inflationary theory and their observations of those early moments of the big bang is leading them to the conclusion that inflation wasn’t caused by the big bang but that the big bang is the result of inflation and that other big bangs are equally likely to have resulted.
In other words their theory of multiple big bangs is based on observations of how the early big bang occurred.

We have to be realistic here. Educated guest work is the major scientific process.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by wesmorris
I hope you don't think I'm mad, I'm just passionate about truth. I'm sure you feel similarly. While sometimes I find conversations with you a little frustrating, I've dealt with you enough to think of you as a good and kind man.. so please pardon me if I've repeatedly offended you.

BTW, I'm assuming you meant there's no downside to assuming I exist?

Sure Wes. Obviously that's what I meant. I am yet to see the downside, from my perspective, of being a christian - even if [let's assume for a moment] it is a delusion. I am positive that I have a lot more scientific knowledge, and interest in science than many etheists I converse with: obviously not all. It is really funny [and annoying because they embarrass themselves and you feel pity] when someone bases their arguments on something they know nothing about [namely science]. I cannot see a downside [within me and my life] where my christian beliefs are concerned. We can both be in different jobs, think the world of our jobs, and think "Get a life, that job sucks" of the other's job. Get me?

About offending - it is very hard for me to take offense in a statment which others might consider 'offensive'. People will call you an 'idiot, or 'arrogant', or 'delusional'. The only way I'd take offense is if I thought I was an 'idiot or etc.' and felt bad about it - in which case I would try to stop being an 'idiot etc.'. Then the question arises; Who is the real 'idiot etc.'? Me [I don't think I am] or the one who calls me an 'idiot etc.' for not agreeing with what he does not think is 'idiotic etc.'. There I either take the 'agnostic' stance. Where noone is an 'idiot etc.' for sure, or you cannot really tell who is an 'idiot etc.' or I'll believe I'm an 'idiot etc.' or I won't.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by okinrus
Educated guest work is the major scientific process.

Why don't you elighten us as to your knowledge of the scientific process. I would have thought you completely unqualified to make such an assessment.

What do you do for a living? What is your education?

 

[okinrus]

Why don't you elighten us as to your knowledge of the scientific process. I would have thought you completely unqualified to make such an assessment.

Knowledge about the scientific process is unrelated to scientific knowledge. The scientific method consists of producing a hypothesis based upon prior knowledge and then testing it extensively. The educated guess work is in building the hypothesis.

What do you do for a living? What is your education?

I'm not sure why this would matter. If what I say needs some sort of degree to prove it, then I think you miss the whole point of debating and rational thinking. That much said, I'm in the process of getting a CS degree.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by okinrus
Knowledge about the scientific process is unrelated to scientific knowledge. The scientific method consists of producing a hypothesis based upon prior knowledge and then testing it extensively. The educated guess work is in building the hypothesis.

Yes but science does not claim that its guesswork is fact.

It's irrelavent anyway, since as CA stated early on in this thread, the real argument is about epistemology.

Originally posted by okinrus
I'm not sure why this would matter. If what I say needs some sort of degree to prove it, then I think you miss the whole point of debating and rational thinking. That much said, I'm in the process of getting a CS degree.

It's just a credential thing. You were criticizing something it seemed that you knew nothing about.

It's funny that you would suggest that I miss the point of rational thinking when again it seems as if you're criticizing somehtign that you know nothing about. You have repeatedly demonstrated your inability to understand pretty much anthing thrown at you. Maybe that's all part of your ruse.

Shall we argue epistemology or what?

 

[okinrus]

Why does saying that science is guesswork criticize anything? Science is built upon guess and check with heuristics, so we have knowledge but we can never be 100% sure of it. Well human beings need confidence and abstance of doubt, at least in some areas, so religion fills this void.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by okinrus
Why does saying that science is guesswork criticize anything? Science is built upon guess and check with heuristics, so we have knowledge but we can never be 100% sure of it. Well human beings need confidence and abstance of doubt, at least in some areas, so religion fills this void.

Science cannot prove what IS. Science can only prove what ISN'T.

 

[Cris]

Okinrus,

Why does saying that science is guesswork criticize anything?

Primarily because the scientific method is more rigorous than simple guesswork.

Science is built upon guess and check with heuristics, so we have knowledge but we can never be 100% sure of it.

Or more precisely you mean experimentation and observation.

We can never be sure of anything until we know absolutely everything. But a fact in science means "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.".

Well human beings need confidence and absence of doubt, at least in some areas, so religion fills this void.

Yes I agree. The problem with that method of course is that while religious fantasies satisfy human curiosity they do not provide truth, except through blind luck, or any way to confirm any truths that they might accidentally hit upon.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by okinrus
Why does saying that science is guesswork criticize anything?

Because it's not guesswork. There is guesswork involved as inputs, but "Educated guest work is the major scientific process." is simply incorrect. There is method.

Originally posted by okinrus

Science is built upon guess and check with heuristics

You know it's funny. I'd say that religion is an excellent example of hueristics. Maybe even the most extreme example I can think of if you consider the bible "holy" or "scripture". Science on the other hand, is completely open ended. Even the resultant of science is generally termed "theory".

Originally posted by okinrus

, so we have knowledge but we can never be 100% sure of it.

So now it's epistemology? Okay. I'll actually agree with you here. I concur that we can never know anything 100% sure.

Originally posted by okinrus

Well human beings need confidence and abstance of doubt, at least in some areas, so religion fills this void.

I'll agree with that, but you have to admit then that it's filling the void with bullshit.

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Originally posted by Cris
To the contrary, something infinite must exist otherwise nothing could ever have begun and we couldn’t be here. Either the universe is infinite or something that created it is infinite. Since there is no evidence of a creator and since we have no reason to believe that at any time the universe did not exist then on that basis I would bet on the universe being infinite, i.e. by Occams razor.

I'll agree that Occam's Razor shaves off the need for a creator, but I don't see how the assertion that something infinite must exist in order for the universe to be here can be justified.

You misunderstand the nature of infinity. Infinity is simply something that does not have a boundary.

I disagree with this as well. Let's take a closed universe, for example. It has no boundary, but it is not infinite.

Originally posted by okinrus
Christianity is not based upon a mountain of lies. If we have faith we can move mountains so this is what christianity is inevitably based upon.

I like how you turned that around, but it doesn't change the fact that Christianity is based on a bunch of lies.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/forgery_in_christianity/index.shtml
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/historicus/jesus.html

No, they're not Christian sites. You likely won't find a Christian site trying to discredit Christianity.

Originally posted by Cris
We can never be sure of anything until we know absolutely everything. But a fact in science means "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.".

Nice description.

Originally posted by wesmorris
I'll agree with that, but you have to admit then that it's filling the void with bullshit.

LOL! Wes, you really crack me up!

 

[okinrus]

Because it's not guesswork. There is guesswork involved as inputs, but "Educated guest work is the major scientific process." is simply incorrect. There is method.

Oh there's a method. Why all the nitpicking that does not prove anything. This isn't a physics forum. Anyways it is based upon guess and check. It's an effective method when there is the opportunity to do extensive checks. We don't have that opportunity with theories on the origin of the universe. Therefore the scientific work done here is less rigorous than other areas.

You know it's funny. I'd say that religion is an excellent example of hueristics. Maybe even the most extreme example I can think of if you consider the bible "holy" or "scripture". Science on the other hand, is completely open ended. Even the resultant of science is generally termed "theory".

Polya wrote an entire book upon using hueristics for mathematical problem solving. It is an effective process used in many fields.

So now it's epistemology? Okay. I'll actually agree with you here. I concur that we can never know anything 100% sure.

Ok, what I'm emphasizing here is that atheism is a religion. We know that it is impossible to come up with an experiement to test the existance of God, therefore claims on the existance or non-existance of God are not science.

I'll agree with that, but you have to admit then that it's filling the void with bullshit.

Emptyness is another problem for scientist. Our cells cannot detect emptyness or have any mechanism that would see it, yet emptyness still exists.

I'll agree that Occam's Razor shaves off the need for a creator, but I don't see how the assertion that something infinite must exist in order for the universe to be here can be justified.

Without a creator, the universe must always have existed. Basically a universe that is infinite in the dimension of time. Also space is usually thought as something we could divide ad infinitum. If infinity does not exist in the physical realm, we have to wonder why our brains evolved to understanding it. The subconcience image processing that goes on in the mind automatically fills in slightly discontinous lines into continous ones. So why would the brain go so far to make discrete structures look continous is beyond me.

I'll agree that Occam's Razor shaves off the need for a creator, but I don't see how the assertion that something infinite must exist in order for the universe to be here can be justified.

Since the existance of God is not a scientific question, scientific techniques can not be relied upon to produce a correct answer. Also most decisions that we make that affect ourselves involve cost benefit analysis. Now I'm not going to say what is better for any particular person but using just Occam's razor is irresponsible.

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Originally posted by okinrus
Ok, what I'm emphasizing here is that atheism is a religion. We know that it is impossible to come up with an experiement to test the existance of God, therefore claims on the existance or non-existance of God are not science.

Argh. I thought we were past this. Mere skepticism on the assertion that God exists (weak atheism) is not a religion because there is no element of faith, a prerequisite for religion. And an explicit belief that God does not exist (strong atheism) also does not require faith (belief without proof) because there is nothing in nature that would indicate the existence of God. And even if any of the above did require faith (which they most certainly do not), an element of devotion (ardent dedication and loyalty) would be needed to definitively define atheism as a religion. Most atheists would believe in God if he all of a sudden showed up and asserted his almightiness before them. This excludes the "ardent devotion" and "loyalty" aspect. If God did show up and prove himself to everyone, then atheism could be considered a religion because it would be belief in spite of contradictory evidence, and therefore faith.

Emptyness is another problem for scientist. Our cells cannot detect emptyness or have any mechanism that would see it, yet emptyness still exists.

No problem here. Emptiness is not actually emptiness. Even a vacuum is frothing with virtual particles popping into and out of existence.

Without a creator, the universe must always have existed. Basically a universe that is infinite in the dimension of time.

Time is actually a property of the universe and not something that exists independent of it.

Also space is usually thought as something we could divide ad infinitum. If infinity does not exist in the physical realm, we have to wonder why our brains evolved to understanding it.

I thought you didn't believe infinity existed as a property of the universe.

The subconcience image processing that goes on in the mind automatically fills in slightly discontinous lines into continous ones. So why would the brain go so far to make discrete structures look continous is beyond me.

It seems that it was an evolutionary advantage to develop this ability.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
Argh. I thought we were past this.

You'll never get to the end when you're forced to travel in a circle. (what's sad is that all one has to do is open one's eyes to take a different path, yet the circle persists (does that mean some people just gouge out their eyes so they don't have to see?))

 

[okinrus]

Thanks wesmorris for your comments here, circles are infinite too.

Most atheists would believe in God if he all of a sudden showed up and asserted his almightiness before them.

Good luck. Reconize that he cannot just show up and do signs without being labled as the anti-christ, alien etc.

No problem here. Emptiness is not actually emptiness. Even a vacuum is frothing with virtual particles popping into and out of existence.

So emptyness does not exist and this is just an idea like God?

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Originally posted by okinrus
Thanks wesmorris for your comments here, circles are infinite too.

Actually, circles aren't infinite. They have a measurable circumference and area.

Good luck. Reconize that he cannot just show up and do signs without being labled as the anti-christ, alien etc.

How convenient!

So emptyness does not exist and this is just an idea like God?

This depends on how you define emptiness. If defined as "containing nothing", then I suppose it is just an idea, as we have yet to find anything that is completely empty.

 

[okinrus]

Actually, circles aren't infinite. They have a measurable circumference and area.

Creating a perfect circle though would prove that infinity exists .

 

[Pete]

Why? Because a perfect circle would be infinitely accurate? Does that make a perfect circle more infinite than a perfect line segment? Are line segments also infinite?

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by okinrus
Creating a perfect circle though would prove that infinity exists .

But by your comment you acknowledge that there is no device capable of measuring infinite accuracy.

And in your context it would be required to define perfection.

Note that pefection is inherently subjective. I say this mostly based on the fact that the argument about the definition of perfection itself is excellent evidence as to its subjectivity. Further though, really focus on the definition for a bit and see if you can take the subjectivity out completely. I think you'll find it quite impossible. Just the fact that you can think abou the issue in your own particular manner in a sense renders it subjective..

Not necessarily the perfection itself mind you.. but your ability to conceive of it (while realizing that our conception of abstracts is ulimately the only means by which they are actually meaningful). True perfection is in a sense the compliment of all that is abstracted in the universe. At least it would lie in that set. This is because perfect truth requires perfect language and a perfect conception thereof. I think the perfection of language is in a way like physical limits of reality in the sense that they can only be hypothesized and never obtained. As such, truth or perfection must by its nature remain perfect, untouched... uncorrupted. Our thoughts are by necessity but a muddled wax impression of it.

Gotta sleep now.

Oh and you're welcome.

 

[okinrus]

Why? Because a perfect circle would be infinitely accurate? Does that make a perfect circle more infinite than a perfect line segment? Are line segments also infinite?

You could divide a circle into infinitely unbounded slices. The circle is not infinite but a perfect circle implies that there is infinite number of slices thus proving the existance a infinite physical set.

But by your comment you acknowledge that there is no device capable of measuring infinite accuracy.

There would be no device knowing the exact location of each point just as we cannot produce a perfect number pi.

urther though, really focus on the definition for a bit and see if you can take the subjectivity out completely. I think you'll find it quite impossible. Just the fact that you can think abou the issue in your own particular manner in a sense renders it subjective..

The definition could become circular at some point but a circle is just a set of points equidistant from a center point all on a plane.