yahya515 Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 The idea wasn't dangerous. Supporters of the idea were dangerous. you started a big fight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) There are also examples of scientists who believe. Yes you are right. I don't personally know many, but there are religious people in science. That fact I cannot dispute. Anyway, like some of yahya515 other posts, I am not quite sure what he wants to discuss. Edited February 10, 2014 by ajb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yahya515 Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) Yes you are right. I don't personally know many, but there are religious people in science. That fact I cannot dispute. Anyway, like some of yahya515 other posts, I am not quite sure what he wants to discuss. Yes you are right. I don't personally know many, but there are religious people in science. That fact I cannot dispute. Anyway, like some of yahya515 other posts, I am not quite sure what he wants to discuss. in this exact post of mine, this is what I want to discuss! in this exact post of mine, this is what I want to discuss! The original proposal of this thread is :- Rate Topic physics with mathematics, philosophy , engineering and religion . Started by yahya515, Yesterday, 06:13 AM Which includes philosophy and religion as well as mathematics and engineering! Why does everybody get so spooked at the hint of something higher than human . The Greeks philosophers , put me right if I am wrong michel123456 , They stood on the acropolis and looked up and thought the Gods ,Zeus, Mercury and others were in control . Men of far older civilizations looked to the stars and heavens and thought of higher beings. Why do so many scientists run for cover nowerdays when one even hints at the idea of something greater than humans , when big bangs , to black holes to quasars to atomic energies enough to make you quiver exist out there and they are ALL so much bigger and more powerfull than humans . Why do scientists have to cling like limpets to a rock to the idea of " There is NOTHING Out there. .? Mike in this exact post of mine, this is what I want to discuss! The original proposal of this thread is :- Rate Topic physics with mathematics, philosophy , engineering and religion . Started by yahya515, Yesterday, 06:13 AM Which includes philosophy and religion as well as mathematics and engineering! Why does everybody get so spooked at the hint of something higher than human . The Greeks philosophers , put me right if I am wrong michel123456 , They stood on the acropolis and looked up and thought the Gods ,Zeus, Mercury and others were in control . Men of far older civilizations looked to the stars and heavens and thought of higher beings. Why do so many scientists run for cover nowerdays when one even hints at the idea of something greater than humans , when big bangs , to black holes to quasars to atomic energies enough to make you quiver exist out there and they are ALL so much bigger and more powerfull than humans . Why do scientists have to cling like limpets to a rock to the idea of " There is NOTHING Out there. .? Mike thanks mike. Edited February 10, 2014 by yahya515 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Okay, you want to discuss the fact that there are religious people involved in science today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yahya515 Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 Okay, you want to discuss the fact that there are religious people involved in science today? I do not want to discuss about religious people, a religion differs from a religion, a religious person differs from another religious person, what I wan to discuss about is general facts about the relation between religion and science, what I mentioned is a true historical event between the early church and early scientific observation. I do not want to involve in personal beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 ... what I wan to discuss about is general facts about the relation between religion and science, what I mentioned is a true historical event between the early church and early scientific observation. I do not want to involve in personal beliefs. Good. Just because... the Vatican has an observatory and hosts meetings on cosmology. There is also the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Things have changed since the days of Copernicus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 The spiritual aspect of religion has no overlap with science — religion is free to make pronouncements with no contradiction from science. The problem arises when religion moves into the arena of testable pronouncements of how the physical world works. If you adopt an ideological framework and demand that science conform to it, you hamper the science. This is true within science as well as with religion or non-science philosophy. Dogma is an enemy of science. Why do scientists have to cling like limpets to a rock to the idea of " There is NOTHING Out there. .? There is no need to invoke the hypothesis that there is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimaMazin Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) we will win. Firstly you should develop your science up to a superiority. Edited February 10, 2014 by DimaMazin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) by defining "the cleverness" we're assuming a clever system created the universe. I just can't go that far. It could have been but I see no evidence, . . OOOOOOOOO By saying the project is : - . . . . .......;;;;;;;;;;;############++++++++++++ From a standing start DOT . Nothing ----------------------X bang ----------------------Everything around ,on Earth , Across the Universe .. . . . . ........;;;;;;;;;;;############++++++++++++ . . OOOOOOOOO . That surely is one hell of a clever project whoever or whatever did it ! And a hell of a lot of evidence mike Edited February 10, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 . . OOOOOOOOO By saying the project is : - . . . . .......;;;;;;;;;;;############++++++++++++ From a standing start DOT . Nothing ----------------------X bang ----------------------Everything around ,on Earth , Across the Universe .. . . . . ........;;;;;;;;;;;############++++++++++++ . . OOOOOOOOO . That surely is one hell of a clever project whoever or whatever did it ! And a hell of a lot of evidence mike First, I really dislike when you chop up and re-vamp my sentences before responding. Professionally, this is extra effort for you and risks removing context. Personally, it seems rude that my style is tossed out so you can rearrange my words to suit you. I'm sure this isn't your intent, because you are a nice guy. Second, I feel fairly confident that anything you could hold up as evidence for a clever project designer actually more accurately and more rationally supports a natural explanation. Again, our awe and incredulity should never lead us into an irrational view of reality. I get that it's all wonderful and mysterious and cosmic. It's just too easy to imagine things that aren't there if you don't have a methodology that increases trust and reduces subjective assessments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 That surely is one hell of a clever project whoever or whatever did it ! And a hell of a lot of evidence Which is a problem. When everything can be put into the category of being evidence for something clever, it means it is impossible (even in principle) to falsify the hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I up voted the religion comment because I thought you were joking, but now I'm not sure. Is it your position that this nebulous religion has some imperative to dictate what people should think? Sorry I wasn't more clear on my intention. Yes, it is my position that religion has some imperative to dictate what people should think. Religion tells us what to think about life, death, sex, eating, drinking, worship, fear, science, and nearly all aspects of our lives. Punishment for not believing runs the gamut from verbal harassment to death in this life, or suffering to eternal damnation in the next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 First, I really dislike when you chop up and re-vamp my sentences before responding. Professionally, this is extra effort for you and risks removing context. Personally, it seems rude that my style is tossed out so you can rearrange my words to suit you. I'm sure this isn't your intent, because you are a nice guy. I am afraid you have misjudged my motive. I do not do it for the reasons you pose. I personally find it a drag to re read usually a long explanation for a second time. When using quote, or reading quote. when all I want to comment on is a small slice of the post. Perhaps I have over shortened your comments. But i believe is was an exact lift. I did get muddled on trying to do yours and John Cuthbert. I do appologise. My dog was going in for an operation, my wife was watching the three muskateers on Tv. I was using my i pad instead of the computer and my 10 mm wide fingers just could not get the cut and paste to hit the 1mm gap between one letter and another without going into some form of automatic do-its-own-thing mode . Sorry again . I have no desire to miss quote, or loose your flow or cherry pick to my arguments advantage. I will try to remember not to do it with you. And perhaps I should use at least WHOLE sentence's not short phrases with everybody. I think however to requote whole long paragraphs is different. I usually back link if the post is not the immediate one before. Second, I feel fairly confident that anything you could hold up as evidence for a clever project designer actually more accurately and more rationally supports a natural explanation. Again, our awe and incredulity should never lead us into an irrational view of reality. I get that it's all wonderful and mysterious and cosmic. It's just too easy to imagine things that aren't there if you don't have a methodology that increases trust and reduces subjective assessments. Surely " natural " invokes the past and current way people collectively refer to " Is not NATURE wonderful " in almost personalising NATURE as if it/she were a more than Plain Mechanical happening. Usually this refering to NATURE is only usually as a single aspect. say " plants and Animals " If we take it as a real Whole say Back to the beginning of time, to the future limits of time, from the smallest of particles to the biggest aspects of the universe plus all the processes that have and are at work to start, change, control by feedback, and steer the universe to achievement we can think of this EXPANDED NATURE as 'Clever project ' in the least. And evidence indeed for a Grandeous Something. Even if the furthest we can go is call it NATURE . If we find Nature more than just a machine ,we might be tempted to go further in our description . Either way it is evidence of a Clever Project . Who's Project ? Which is a problem. When everything can be put into the category of being evidence for something clever, it means it is impossible (even in principle) to falsify the hypothesis. Does the above answer to Phi fo All , not deal with this issue. as most of all the scientific theories of yesteryear scientists have been thought of as NATURE mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Surely " natural " invokes the past and current way people collectively refer to " Is not NATURE wonderful " in almost personalising NATURE as if it/she were a more than Plain Mechanical happening. Usually this refering to NATURE is only usually as a single aspect. say " plants and Animals " If we take it as a real Whole say Back to the beginning of time, to the future limits of time, from the smallest of particles to the biggest aspects of the universe plus all the processes that have and are at work to start, change, control by feedback, and steer the universe to achievement we can think of this EXPANDED NATURE as 'Clever project ' in the least. And evidence indeed for a Grandeous Something. Even if the furthest we can go is call it NATURE . If we find Nature more than just a machine ,we might be tempted to go further in our description . Either way it is evidence of a Clever Project . Who's Project ? Does the above answer to Phi fo All , not deal with this issue. as most of all the scientific theories of yesteryear scientists have been thought of as NATURE mike No; you seem to be waffling. You talk of nature and scientific theories but also say it's evidence of a clever project. My question was: How would you falsify the proposition that nature is a clever project? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) No; you seem to be waffling. You talk of nature and scientific theories but also say it's evidence of a clever project. My question was: How would you falsify the proposition that nature is a clever project? 1. Go through a sample take of 100 different natural solutions in a single aspect and see what proportion of 100 are rubbish, unclever solutions . or 2. Go through 100 of the same sample across 100 different aspects of nature. and see what proportion are unclever solutions. who knows there is plenty to go at. eg go to 100 different entities in nature measure how efficient or inefficient they are with energy.. grass light, atoms , trees rats amoeba birds dinosaurs, rocks. air, water etc. or take a tree and look at 100 aspects and look for good ergonomic process... leaf root, trunk, capillary, root hair, membrane, photosynthsis. or star 100 different processes. my hunch is that most would come out 85% good project style at least 15% unclever project style but you could disprove my hypothesis. . your objection. mike ps Maybe i should make such a project the remainder of my life's work . say the 92 elements 1 hydrogen is there evidence of 'clever project ' 2 helium is there evidence of clever project 3 etc ............92 uranium is there evidence of a clever project or there are a high proportion that are rubbish poor project ...... my hunch is this would be 99 % clever project . but it is falsifiable because it is possible to prove certain elements as useless.poor project .or prove that although one part of a natural aspect is a good clever project but 99 are rubbish project solutions. Edited February 10, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 That doesn't really define clever, nor tell anyone how to falsify the claim. The human body, for example. isn't cleverly designed. We have the same basic "design" as quadrupeds, but we walk upright, so we have back problems and the organs in our midsection are poorly supported. Our food and air pathways share a common source, meaning we can easily choke to death. Fertilized eggs can implant in the fallopian tubes, leading to death of the mother. We don't synthesize our own vitamin C (non-primates generally do). Wisdom teeth. Our retina is built backwards, leaving us with a blind spot. Males have nipples, external gonads and their urethra runs through the prostate, which can swell up and cause a blockage. Plants' photosynthesis throw away the most abundant part of the spectrum, between 500 - 600 nm — that's why they look green. Not efficient. A careful look shows co-opting of pre-existing features, rather than things that were designed. To which one might reply that to co-opt a feature like that is clever, which means it's impossible to falsify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) That doesn't really define clever, nor tell anyone how to falsify the claim. The human body, for example. isn't cleverly designed. We have the same basic "design" as quadrupeds, but we walk upright, so we have back problems and the organs in our midsection are poorly supported. Our food and air pathways share a common source, meaning we can easily choke to death. Fertilized eggs can implant in the fallopian tubes, leading to death of the mother. We don't synthesize our own vitamin C (non-primates generally do). Wisdom teeth. Our retina is built backwards, leaving us with a blind spot. Males have nipples, external gonads and their urethra runs through the prostate, which can swell up and cause a blockage. Plants' photosynthesis throw away the most abundant part of the spectrum, between 500 - 600 nm that's why they look green. Not efficient. A careful look shows co-opting of pre-existing features, rather than things that were designed. To which one might reply that to co-opt a feature like that is clever, which means it's impossible to falsify. How do you sleep at night ? ... ...... ......... ........ ..... ........ ....... ......Do not mean it ! Yes but you are picking one that suits your argument. A line drawn straight across the spectrum of the cosmos would be a better test. Test for cleverness of project. If natural selection is part of the feedback of the clever project. You are bound to get solutions that are not the best. But work well.may be the rise time is too quick and it overshoots , or too slow and misses the boat by taking too long. Feedback is a clever project if it is a good project. Just to get a flavour , I like to imagine 100,000,000 crack engineers of the future say 100,000 years in the future sitting down to design a universe. What would they use to do it , how , with what mechanisms , with what materials ,what design tools . I am sure that would be a clever project, and it would be evident in the resulting universe. When genetic algorithms were used to design bi stables they produced a better design than engineers. Had produced with spare components that nobody understands. , There is an amazing mechanism in the production of the elements 92 amongst the galaxies stars , clouds, supernova, neutron stars etc, planets asteroids, comets etc. some good project by any bodies standards ! Come on admit it , you are in awe. Mike Edited February 10, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moth Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Sorry I wasn't more clear on my intention. Yes, it is my position that religion has some imperative to dictate what people should think. Religion tells us what to think about life, death, sex, eating, drinking, worship, fear, science, and nearly all aspects of our lives. Punishment for not believing runs the gamut from verbal harassment to death in this life, or suffering to eternal damnation in the next. You seem to have an unusually open mind towards satanic religions as well as all the other beliefs covered by the term "religion". Where does religion derive it's authority to dictate belief? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Surely " natural " invokes the past and current way people collectively refer to " Is not NATURE wonderful " in almost personalising NATURE as if it/she were a more than Plain Mechanical happening. Usually this refering to NATURE is only usually as a single aspect. say " plants and Animals " If we take it as a real Whole say Back to the beginning of time, to the future limits of time, from the smallest of particles to the biggest aspects of the universe plus all the processes that have and are at work to start, change, control by feedback, and steer the universe to achievement we can think of this EXPANDED NATURE as 'Clever project ' in the least. And evidence indeed for a Grandeous Something. Even if the furthest we can go is call it NATURE . If we find Nature more than just a machine ,we might be tempted to go further in our description . Either way it is evidence of a Clever Project . Who's Project ? Perhaps it invokes these things for you, but I meant natural as opposed to supernatural. I wasn't talking about "nature", but rather what happens naturally in the physical universe, without the need for explanations which require some kind of supernatural guidance or force. The great Douglas Adams told us we need to be on the watch out so we don't find ourselves like the puddle, who wakes up one morning and realizes his world fits him so staggeringly well it must have been designed especially to have him in it. It's a powerfully attractive idea but it really doesn't reflect reality. Natural explanations cover all the bases so far, and they can be trusted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 ! Moderator Note Okay, we seem to have 3 or 4 different conversations going on here at once. Admittedly, the OP is far from clear as to what this is supposed to be about, but based on subsequent comments I think we assume yahya515 was enquiring about the overlap between science and religion in a general sense. Mike Smith Cosmos, I'm not really sure where you are going with your line of conversation, but it doesn't appear to belong in this thread. Please start your own thread on it rather than continuing to derail this one. Furthermore, please try and keep the excessive font changes to a minimum. It makes your posts very difficult to read. zapatos and moth, this is also not about whether religion dictates what people think. Again, please start a new thread on this if you wish to discuss it. This is also not about whether or not God exists. Please keep that area of discussion out of it. Finally, yahya515, this is not a place for preaching or soap boxing. Please try to be clearer in your posts so that we can avoid this sort of confusion. I have also moved your thread to Religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yahya515 Posted February 11, 2014 Author Share Posted February 11, 2014 Finally, yahya515, this is not a place for preaching or soap boxing. Please try to be clearer in your posts so that we can avoid this sort of confusion. I have also moved your thread to Religion. [/modtip] It means nothing to move or lock any of my posts, I have sent my messages! also this article will be published in journal of American physical society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) "Well you can knock me down with a Hokey stick ". At least one of my predictions has come true ! Quote from mike further back in this tread post #21 .................................................. .............................link http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81676-physics-with-mathematics-philosophy-engineering-and-religion/page-2#entry790936 I deliberately have not mentioned , that I am saying , a G.., A cr..... omni... b.... is responsible . Whether I think these things or not. I deliberately have not mentioned these , why ? Because ,historically it seems that , it is like lifting a piece of galvanised iron sheet that has been left covering some waste land for some time. On first lifting , a myriad of ants and various creatures are exposed , who immediately flee for cover in every direction . Its as if their sensitivity to light and exposure is too great. within seconds , they have gone to ground. So it seems , can be the response of many scientists, to the issue i raised., So, not even the mention of ............... ........... ............................. The galvanised sheet is lifted, the sun light shines in , the critters feel exposed , and run for cover in all sorts of directions. to philosophy direction, to religion direction , to physics direction, with maths direction, Engineering direction. and back under the galvanised sheet is nothing to be seen anymore [ back in speculations, just a discarded, iron sheet ] I am not even sure where i ran to or can run to for cover ? All I said was " isn't Nature Wonderful and Transcendent ." or there abouts. Help ! There is a witch hunt , going on here. I am being pursued by a mob of puritan scientists. I am not sure if I am just a scientist or someone who thinks there is a pretty fancy clever transendent project going on out there in Nature. I Think I am both. Question is will I be burned alive at the scientific stake . eek ! mike Edited February 11, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 this article will be published in journal of American physical society. Which one? APS has lots of journals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yahya515 Posted February 11, 2014 Author Share Posted February 11, 2014 Which one? APS has lots of journals. physical review letters, general physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 physical review letters, general physics. It's been accepted? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now