Questions for Atheists (Refresher Thread)

[SnakeLord]

Well not really....... Throw an apple in the air and wait. There's your gravity at work. No matter who you are or where you are on this planet the apple will fall back to the ground.

scientists have developed gravity free environments, (for training of astronauts etc). You can see with your own eyes in these places what happens when there is no gravity.

 

[havalina]

Originally posted by wesmorris
Hmm, this is probably a loaded question, but uh... how do you know "GOD" is what you felt? The brain is a powerfull organ, it can create some INTENSE sensations... it seems rather random to me to attach "god" to some sensational experience.

That's why I am trying to say ...no one can prove anything thru the senses.... only speculate.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by havalina
That's why I am trying to say ...no one can prove anything thru the senses.... only speculate.

IMO, that's equivalent to the statement "all knowledge is tentative".

 

[havalina]

Originally posted by SnakeLord
Well not really....... Throw an apple in the air and wait. There's your gravity at work. No matter who you are or where you are on this planet the apple will fall back to the ground.

scientists have developed gravity free environments, (for training of astronauts etc). You can see with your own eyes in these places what happens when there is no gravity.

Why is gravity referred to as "the gravitational theory?"

 

[heflores]

Snakelord

You are wrong, many other things could be the cause of the apple to fall down like the weight of the apple acting downward alone, or maybe all apples are fatally attracted to the earth. Maybe, there is a majical invisible wind that acts downward.....All kindda theories that will function for the sake of our compuations just like gravity.

You may also add green giant elephant constant instead in your comps and assign it any number you want (x) and multiply it by another constant equal to 32.2/x, and you would get the equivalent of gravity.....See, it's a theory made to understand an observation, and not quite a mimic of the observation..

 

[havalina]

Originally posted by wesmorris
IMO, that's equivalent to the statement "all knowledge is tentative".

Then you agree?

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by havalina
Why is gravity referred to as "the gravitational theory?"

The effect is not in question, it is "how does this fit into the big picture" that leaves it as a theory. For instance the "theory" predicts "grativy waves" which as of yet haven't been detected. This is because until recently it's been considered beyond our technological abilty. I know there some detectors have been constructed, but they have a low probability of actual detection as far as I know. Regardless, that's why it's a "theory". Further as a technicality, really everything is a "theory".

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by havalina
Then you agree?

Sadly, I'd only agree that one cannot reasonably reach the conclusion "it was god" regarding one's input. *shrug* Close though..

 

[SnakeLord]

"Gravitational theory" is about theory on grand scale or extreme.......

For example: Black holes, asymetric field theories etc...


"Gravitational theory" does not apply to throwing an apple in the air and it landing on the ground afterwards.

 

[havalina]

Originally posted by wesmorris
Sadly, I'd only agree that one cannot reasonably reach the conclusion "it was god" regarding one's input. *shrug* Close though..

Got it. When you said in this thread, "IMO, that's equivalent to the statement "all knowledge is tentative".
That reminded me of another thread where you said: "Nothing can really be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt", or more succinctly "all knowledge is tentative.

 

[havalina]

Originally posted by SnakeLord
"gravitational theory" is about theory on grand scale or extreme.......

For example: Black holes, asymetric field theories etc...


"Gravitational theory" does not apply to throwing an apple in the air and it landing on the ground afterwards.

Thank you and to wesmorris for clairfying. I need to let this marinate a bit, for I see a double standard.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by havalina
Got it. When you said in this thread, "IMO, that's equivalent to the statement "all knowledge is tentative".
That reminded me of another thread where you said: "Nothing can really be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt", or more succinctly "all knowledge is tentative.

Hey I'm consistent! Woo hoo! Yeah, that's my fundamental assumption regarding the nature of knowledge right there!

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by havalina
If we have proof of gravity, why is it referred to as "the gravitational theory"? There's no scientific proof of grativity, it's a theory.

There are two concepts that you are dealing with here. One is the fact (or law) of gravity; the fact the two masses exert an attractive force upon each other. Two is the theory of gravity; why and how the fact of gravity happens.

The theory of gravity is indeed a theory, not a fact (this is debatable, many would consider it to be a fact); however you also seem to misunderstand what the word theory means. A scientific theory is not guess; a scientific theory is an explanation that accurately explains all known facts. There is no such thing as a scientific theory that is not supported by proof. In fact, it takes only a single contrary fact to invalidate a theory (which must then either be changed or replaced). Prior to the discovery of proof a theory is known as a hypothesis. Still, there are certain requirements for a hypothesis; primarily that it is stated in such a way as to be disprovable, it is not what we would call a guess in common parlance.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by heflores
This is an exellent point that many Atheists miss. Many of the scientific phenomenanas that are accepted, are merely theories....black box models. The existance of god could be accepted similarly as a theory.

Most explanations of God are not testable, they therefore are simply unscientific and cannot be regarded as hypotheses or theories in a scientific sense. To be a scientific hypothesis, you would need an explanation of God that was testable/disprovable.

Originally posted by SnakeLord
scientists have developed gravity free environments, (for training of astronauts etc). You can see with your own eyes in these places what happens when there is no gravity.

Technically, this is incorrect. What they have done is fly a plane in a parabola that exactly matches the effect of gravity. While the people in the plane seem to be weightless in relation to the surrounding environment (the plane), they are still being effected by Earth's gravity and are, in fact, falling towards the Earth.

Originally posted by heflores
You are wrong, many other things could be the cause of the apple to fall down like the weight of the apple acting downward alone, or maybe all apples are fatally attracted to the earth.

Weight is caused by gravity and there is no such thing as the direction "down" in space.

Maybe, there is a majical invisible wind that acts downward.....All kindda theories that will function for the sake of our compuations just like gravity.

This is true, it is quite possible to posit other working models that would accurately explain the facts of gravity. However, no one has yet to do so in a scientific matter. More importantly, the mathematical expression of these alternative models would be identical to the one being used now.

See, it's a theory made to understand an observation, and not quite a mimic of the observation.

There you are correct but please see above.

Originally posted by SnakeLord
"Gravitational theory" does not apply to throwing an apple in the air and it landing on the ground afterwards.

This is incorrect. The theory of gravity is applicable to all masses.

~Raithere

 

[heflores]

Originally posted by Raithere
Most explanations of God are not testable, they therefore are simply unscientific and cannot be regarded as hypotheses or theories in a scientific sense. To be a scientific hypothesis, you would need an explanation of God that was testable/disprovable.

The reason that we have not been able to describe god mathematically or scientifically is because we don't have a handle on all the data availalble in the universe. We also don't quite know how the Universe behaves and whether it is stationary or expanding. What is the rate at which this Universe is expanding? If we found a model that described god, then you can rest assure that the model is false, because how can a lowly created matter reach the level of sophistication of it's higher originator and reach the point of understanding of it and possibly editing it's characteristics.

Since we are created in a closed system in reference to god, we will never be able to describe god in any detail. God is simply in a much higher dimension. This is like a toy doll trying very hard to understand the human that made it..... It's impossible.

 

[SnakeLord]

Technically, this is incorrect. What they have done is fly a plane in a parabola that exactly matches the effect of gravity. While the people in the plane seem to be weightless in relation to the surrounding environment (the plane), they are still being effected by Earth's gravity and are, in fact, falling towards the Earth.

Yawn, yes..... I didn't add the word 'simulates', sue me. I figured people were smart enough to get the point. My apple in the air analogy is simply to state that everyone can check out the effects of gravity and there are places to 'simulate' the effect of non-gravity without going off into outer space. God on the other hand doesn't cater for this. Seeings as there is no method whereby everyone can just test to see the effect of god, using these two scenarios to show a singular point is worthless.

This is incorrect

My point is- an apple falls to the ground when you throw it in the air. That's a fact. You can debate why it happens all you want to. What im saying is an apple will always fall to the ground. Thus you can test gravity, winds pushing downwards or whatever you want. Every single person on this planet can.... The same does not apply to belief in god. If it does tell me the test we can all do which shows the effects of god.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by heflores
The reason that we have not been able to describe god mathematically or scientifically is because we don't have a handle on all the data availalble in the universe. We also don't quite know how the Universe behaves and whether it is stationary or expanding. What is the rate at which this Universe is expanding?

I really don't see how these things are relevant to defining a testable hypothesis for God. Since when did you have to know everything to posit a hypothesis?

If we found a model that described god, then you can rest assure that the model is false, because how can a lowly created matter reach the level of sophistication of it's higher originator and reach the point of understanding of it and possibly editing it's characteristics.

So you believe in something that you cannot define? Then how can you assert anything about it?

Since we are created in a closed system in reference to god, we will never be able to describe god in any detail. God is simply in a much higher dimension. This is like a toy doll trying very hard to understand the human that made it..... It's impossible.

Particularly since the toy doll doesn't have a brain. I'd really like to know what 'much higher dimension' means to you... it's a word that gets bandied about in various pseudo-scientific explanations of the 'supernatural' but really doesn't mean anything in that context.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by SnakeLord
Yawn, yes..... I didn't add the word 'simulates', sue me.

Don't forget: when you make an assumption, you make an ass out of u and mption.

Just wanted to demonstrate that I can be a pain-in-the-ass for people on both sides of the discussion.

~Raithere

 

[Alpha]

Faith is relatively defined. I do not subscribe to that definition in this instance.

Well, the dictionary defines faith as:
- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- The body of dogma of a religion.
What's your definition of faith then?

Air yes... we know it's compounds etc. If we have proof of gravity, why is it referred to as "the gravitational theory"? There's no scientific proof of grativity, it's a theory.

Don't be stupid. When people say "the theory of evolution" they're referring to the theoretical part of evolution. This does not mean evolution is only a theory (it's not). Gravity is not just a theory either. The theory part of gravity is how it works, not it's existance. Just like the theory part of the theory of evolution is how it works, not the fact of it's existance.

Since we are created in a closed system in reference to god, we will never be able to describe god in any detail. God is simply in a much higher dimension. This is like a toy doll trying very hard to understand the human that made it..... It's impossible.

Bull. God isn't in a higher dimension. I hate when people use terms they obviously don't understand. That's a load of technobabble. There are 11 dimensions to this universe, and god is in none of them. Religious people always say god is unknowable and outside the universe. The only way god could be unknowable is if god is illogical and incoherent. But such a thing cannot exist. And god can't be 'outside' the universe either, for to be outside the universe is to be outside of existance!
OK, the 'theory' of gravity fits with reality. It works, and is largely consistent. It even makes successful predictions about how the universe works. Every other supposedly viable theory mentioned as an alternative to gravity in this thread is NOT consistent with itself and the observations made, and would not make successful predictions about reality. So tell me again, what's theory and fact?

 

[Severus666]

Thank God for Atheists!