Can Science explain everything in the universe without a God?

[DevilSolution]

Well no, because god made everything therefore its his particle.

 

Is 3 days without sleep safe?

[TheGeckomancer]

I can imagine some naming issues with that after the first thing you name. And 3 days is fine, only worry if you start losing time and getting random nosebleeds. That's when I know I need to sleep or eat. I have a hard time figuring out which one my body wants.

[DevilSolution]

Duly noted, i dont get nose bleeds and practically had to stay awake. Now its a case of being bothered to go back to programming and finish off or just sleep it off.

 

Whats the longest you've held out? i must admit im on my third day so really if i slept now it would be like 2 and a half or such.

[TheGeckomancer]

86 hours. I was awake longer than this but this was the work shift. It was a straight shift. I was doing RF engineering for ATT. Totally illegal but when you work with NO ONE face to face and they keep passing you off to remote technicians to supervise you can work for a week straight without anyone noticing. I started having legitimate visual hallucinations, only time in my life I have. They were actually pretty mild. It was mostly what LOOKED LIKE troll dolls dancing and melting and reshaping in the corners of my vision, couldn't look at them directly.

Edited December 4, 2015 by TheGeckomancer

[DevilSolution]

haha nice, we had a lodger work 2 shifts, sometimes we'd find him asleep in the driveway when his bedroom was less than 30 steps. Poor dude.

 

I think i'll check in with the fairies, make sure they're taking care of things. peace

[Phi for All]

Is the original subject all talked out now?

[TheGeckomancer]

Wait to see if tj mccaustland has anything left before locking. But it looks like it.

[Strange]

Well no, because god made everything therefore its his particle.

 

Did he? What evidence do you have for that?

 

 

Is 3 days without sleep safe?

 

It might explain the increasing levels of nonsense you are posting.

[swansont]

In all actuality you can visualize anything, but the probability of such visualization in given circumstances is the point in and of itself.

Ahem...... How then would you explain higher dimensions when you can't even COMPREHEND a four dimensional object let alone a tenth. You wouldn't just say God, you would say "Um well crap..... how the hell did this happen?" even if you were say a tenth dimensional being, you still couldn't understand 11th dimensional matter, the proof of an outside force is the presence of force, I.E. you take out God from the equation and you can't even prove that 2+2=4 because then theoretically 4 nor 2 exists.

 

I am wondering how you can visualize something you can't comprehend. If I can't comprehend a four-dimensional object, how can I visualize it? Doesn't visualization require some kind of comprehension? Otherwise, your visualization is going to be of something else.

[DevilSolution]

 

Did he? What evidence do you have for that?

 

 

It might explain the increasing levels of nonsense you are posting.

 

1) was rhetoric 2) im still posting nonsense wheeyyyyy. But i will go to sleep soon

[TJ McCaustland]

 

I am wondering how you can visualize something you can't comprehend. If I can't comprehend a four-dimensional object, how can I visualize it? Doesn't visualization require some kind of comprehension? Otherwise, your visualization is going to be of something else.

Haven't we already buried that sword? I'm not saying I can comprehend 4th dimensional matter with my 3rd dimensional mind, However I can state that because there are a finite number of mathematical dimensions that an outside force exists (Unless Einstein's 10 dimensions are refuted)

[andrewcellini]

Einstein's 10 dimensions

what are you talking about?

 

do you have a paper by einstein that refers to 10 dimensions?

 

seems like you're mixing something you heard about string theory with einsteins work

Edited December 6, 2015 by andrewcellini

[swansont]

Haven't we already buried that sword? I'm not saying I can comprehend 4th dimensional matter with my 3rd dimensional mind, However I can state that because there are a finite number of mathematical dimensions that an outside force exists (Unless Einstein's 10 dimensions are refuted)

You brought up the assertion that we can visualize anything. Did you address that, so this could be buried?

 

Also, have you given a citation for Einstein ever saying there are 10 dimension?

[TJ McCaustland]

You brought up the assertion that we can visualize anything. Did you address that, so this could be buried?

 

Also, have you given a citation for Einstein ever saying there are 10 dimension?

yes you can visualize anything. Now grab a metaphorical spade and help me with this burial.

what are you talking about?

 

do you have a paper by einstein that refers to 10 dimensions?

 

seems like you're mixing something you heard about string theory with einsteins work

I hate confusing string theory with Einstein.....

[andrewcellini]

wow, quite the response. full of substance, and actually answers the questions.

 

do you actually have any citations or are you just making stuff up? the latter seems more consistent with your posts.

[John Cuthber]

Let's face it he said this

No, not wrong at all, Religion is what allows us to conceptualize things far beyond our current understanding,

ages ago and he hasn't been able to support it yet, in spite of lots of requests to do so.

I don't think he's suddenly going to do prove it now.

[TheGeckomancer]

TJ You forget most people start off religious. We don't get a choice. Born into religious families raised religious. We have seen both viewpoints, I know I have. I USED TO THINK there was something majestic, or secret or unique about the way I looked at the world because of my beliefs. Then my beliefs changed, and I found nothing else did. I am speaking from personal experience and embarrassment when I say your view point offers you nothing unique, and it's not brilliantly insightful. It's close-minded in a self praising egoistic way. Religion affords you the ability to be humble before God but arrogant before all other men without knowing any more.

[swansont]

yes you can visualize anything. Now grab a metaphorical spade and help me with this burial.

 

OK, then. All you need to do is visualize four spatial dimensions. Then five, six, etc.

[Moontanman]

First of all, I'd like to point out an ambiguity in the title of the thread. When, under mysterious circumstances, a corpse turns up in east London, for example, it is often the case that several explanatory hypotheses or theories (hereafter, simply explanations) are put forward in an attempt to render intelligible that which was previously unintelligible: Sherlock Holmes has one, Watson has a different one, Inspector Lestrade has yet another, and so on -- but presumably not all of them can be described as correct or true.

 

It's important, therefore, that we distinguish between what I'll follow Carl Hempel in calling a potential explanation and a true explanation.

 

So, now we need to ask the OP: what exactly is it you're asking?:

 

(i) Can Science provide a potential explanation for everything in the universe without a God?

 

or

 

(ii) Can Science provide a true explanation for everything in the universe without a God?

 

 

Obviously, (ii) presents a taller order than (i). A potential explanation, if true, would explain the phenomenon under examination, but given that it's not true, it explains absolutely nothing. Only a true explanation actually explains. Given that the victim died from the bite of a venomous snake, precisely as Holmes conjectured, Watson's axe-murderer potential explanation explains nothing.

 

There can be no doubt that many of our religious friends are convinced Creationism is the (true) explanation for life on Earth, not merely a potential explanation. Our more scientifically inclined friends, on the other hand, surely give short shrift to the possibility of Creationism being the true explanation.

 

I take it we can all agree, as a matter of common sense, that an "explanation" which is not true (i.e. a potential explanation) explains nothing. Global warming is -- presumably! -- not explained by occult rays emanating from Donald Trump's hair.

 

Moontanman tells us on the previous page (post #3), in no uncertain terms: "God explains nothing". I beg to differ. God explains nothing only if the God hypothesis is false, in which case we have only a potential explanation. I'm not a believer myself, but supposing against all odds that the old duffer really is up there doing all the things our religious friends attribute to him, then God does explain the existence of the universe, the diversity of life we see around us, and much more besides.

 

 

Next, with regard the following...

 

 

... I'd like to ask Phi whether his view is that:

 

(a) The scientific theory of evolution offers only a potential explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. (This is presumably the position of most Creationists.) In this case it explains nothing and, for you Phi, would be on an explanatory par with Creationism, assuming you already deem the latter untrue, or

 

(b) We have good reasons for believing that the scientific theory of evolution offers, or at least approximates, a true explanation for the diversity of life on Earth

 

 

Everything asserted by the bible which can be tested can be shown to be wrong, god explains nothing and halts all progress to that goal...

[TJ McCaustland]

wow, quite the response. full of substance, and actually answers the questions.

 

do you actually have any citations or are you just making stuff up? the latter seems more consistent with your posts.

I have citations, and I have speculation, My citations are observable and simple, my speculation is a twisted, tangled, wibbly wobbly ball of thought mixed with theory mixed with a can of What the..... Most of my posts here are speculative, or logical, I think you have intelligence enough to discern between the two.

 

 

Everything asserted by the bible which can be tested can be shown to be wrong, god explains nothing and halts all progress to that goal...

Not necessarily, What did Monasteries do in the dark ages might I ask?

TJ You forget most people start off religious. We don't get a choice. Born into religious families raised religious. We have seen both viewpoints, I know I have. I USED TO THINK there was something majestic, or secret or unique about the way I looked at the world because of my beliefs. Then my beliefs changed, and I found nothing else did. I am speaking from personal experience and embarrassment when I say your view point offers you nothing unique, and it's not brilliantly insightful. It's close-minded in a self praising egoistic way. Religion affords you the ability to be humble before God but arrogant before all other men without knowing any more.

Really? I'm surprised you'd try throwing such a heap of rubbish at me attempting me to catch it and change according to it. Am I a creationist? No I am a practical big bang theorist who states that because we have a limited number of dimensions that there Must be an influencing force, Now whether that is God, or a HIGHLY unlikely happenstance I am not sure, but I believe it is God because the universe is homogenous and isotropic, (This being Belief which is SPECULATION itself). You are highly incorrect in your statement that I was not given a choice, I was, and my beliefs are not one sided, I believe in the doctrine of my faith, the law, and the moral code, as well as most of the teachings, (Although I personally believe most Christians interpret the bible and all it's stories WAYYYYYYYYYYY too literally, the earth is NOT 6,000 years old.) But I look at them differently than most others, I also have refuted most of the "Apologetics" that try to justify interpreting the bible so literally. So no, I am neutrally biased, or without a bias, I have beliefs, but my beliefs are themselves speculation, Which is why I am 99% philosopher and 1% physicist/scientist. I am not egotistical or insightful like you seem to think, I am outsightful if there is such a thing, I think Outside the box, the kinda stuff you go "What the **** is that?" is my speculation, My ego is not an ego, it's a paper showing how much I've screwed up and how much I've gotten right, it's a logbook of my speculation, not a prideful illusion of power and intelligence, In reality I shouldn't even exist, I am an idiot, I am not omniscent, and my total knowledge on the universe is equivalent of 1 compared to 10^9999^99999^999999^99999, It is nothing, The only pride I have is that of the pride to speak my mind. I can't see what you can't see, I only think of what we can see differently, and that is the only thing that makes me any different than you. Did I go around saying "Immana win a nobel prize for me being awesome!"? No. I said "I think this works in this way but IDK if this is even true or works." And yet you say I am prideful when all I do is Speak? Then call everyone else in the world prideful for sharing speculation, No matter how wild and you find yourself being just as prideful as everyone else, and just as imperfect, idiotic, and generally unfit as everyone else. No one is special, but all are diverse and unique in imperfect ways that remove any hint of specialness or superiority to another. We are all weak in different ways.

[Strange]

No I am a practical big bang theorist who states that because we have a limited number of dimensions that there Must be an influencing force,

 

You seem to have thrown "practical" out of the window there. In favour of the non sequitur.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Strange

[TheGeckomancer]

I have citations, and I have speculation, My citations are observable and simple, my speculation is a twisted, tangled, wibbly wobbly ball of thought mixed with theory mixed with a can of What the..... Most of my posts here are speculative, or logical, I think you have intelligence enough to discern between the two.

Not necessarily, What did Monasteries do in the dark ages might I ask?

Really? I'm surprised you'd try throwing such a heap of rubbish at me attempting me to catch it and change according to it. Am I a creationist? No I am a practical big bang theorist who states that because we have a limited number of dimensions that there Must be an influencing force, Now whether that is God, or a HIGHLY unlikely happenstance I am not sure, but I believe it is God because the universe is homogenous and isotropic, (This being Belief which is SPECULATION itself). You are highly incorrect in your statement that I was not given a choice, I was, and my beliefs are not one sided, I believe in the doctrine of my faith, the law, and the moral code, as well as most of the teachings, (Although I personally believe most Christians interpret the bible and all it's stories WAYYYYYYYYYYY too literally, the earth is NOT 6,000 years old.) But I look at them differently than most others, I also have refuted most of the "Apologetics" that try to justify interpreting the bible so literally. So no, I am neutrally biased, or without a bias, I have beliefs, but my beliefs are themselves speculation, Which is why I am 99% philosopher and 1% physicist/scientist. I am not egotistical or insightful like you seem to think, I am outsightful if there is such a thing, I think Outside the box, the kinda stuff you go "What the **** is that?" is my speculation, My ego is not an ego, it's a paper showing how much I've screwed up and how much I've gotten right, it's a logbook of my speculation, not a prideful illusion of power and intelligence, In reality I shouldn't even exist, I am an idiot, I am not omniscent, and my total knowledge on the universe is equivalent of 1 compared to 10^9999^99999^999999^99999, It is nothing, The only pride I have is that of the pride to speak my mind. I can't see what you can't see, I only think of what we can see differently, and that is the only thing that makes me any different than you. Did I go around saying "Immana win a nobel prize for me being awesome!"? No. I said "I think this works in this way but IDK if this is even true or works." And yet you say I am prideful when all I do is Speak? Then call everyone else in the world prideful for sharing speculation, No matter how wild and you find yourself being just as prideful as everyone else, and just as imperfect, idiotic, and generally unfit as everyone else. No one is special, but all are diverse and unique in imperfect ways that remove any hint of specialness or superiority to another. We are all weak in different ways.

 

 

I can't even..... You either intentionally disregarded the meaning of every sentence and just responded to my words. Or... I don't know... I can't deconstruct this into meaningful sentences that are actual responses to what I said. I will clarify. You have been saying over and over religion allows you to visualize the world in a special way and have a special point of view. How is it not a prideful illusion to think your view is unique compared to everyone who used to think the same as you? And I never said YOU didn't get a choice. I DIDN'T get a choice as a kid. I was raised christian..... I am not going to try to read anymore from this... It's actually causing me pain.

[andrewcellini]

I have citations, and I have speculation, My citations are observable and simple

citation - "a quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, especially in a scholarly work." from google

 

 

my speculation is a twisted, tangled, wibbly wobbly ball of thought mixed with theory mixed with a can of What the.....

so your speculation is nonsense.

 

Most of my posts here are speculative, or logical

i get the impression that you think that logic and speculation are mutually exclusive and that, when you speculate, you can speculate wildly assessing every bit of nonsense you can think of as being meaningful to the discussion.

 

thinking this way tolerates inconsistencies very well

 

I think you have intelligence enough to discern between the two

i guess i don't because i disagree with your distinction

Edited December 9, 2015 by andrewcellini

[John Cuthber]

"speculation

ˌspɛkjʊˈleɪʃn/

noun

1. 1.

   the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

   "there has been widespread speculation that he plans to quit"

   synonyms: conjecture, theorizing, hypothesizing, supposition, guesswork; More
2. ...

The point is that even speculation needs logic to work from poor evidence.

 

 

Just writing illogical stuff isn't even speculation.

[TJ McCaustland]

"speculation

ˌspɛkjʊˈleɪʃn/

noun

1. 1.

   the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

   "there has been widespread speculation that he plans to quit"

   synonyms: conjecture, theorizing, hypothesizing, supposition, guesswork; More
2. ...

The point is that even speculation needs logic to work from poor evidence.

 

 

Just writing illogical stuff isn't even speculation.

I use logic, My Transcendence of dimensions? Thread for example, where I stated that the universe, when represented by a single quantum state is a point on a graph with infinite octagonal axes.

 

 

I can't even..... You either intentionally disregarded the meaning of every sentence and just responded to my words. Or... I don't know... I can't deconstruct this into meaningful sentences that are actual responses to what I said. I will clarify. You have been saying over and over religion allows you to visualize the world in a special way and have a special point of view. How is it not a prideful illusion to think your view is unique compared to everyone who used to think the same as you? And I never said YOU didn't get a choice. I DIDN'T get a choice as a kid. I was raised christian..... I am not going to try to read anymore from this... It's actually causing me pain.

Sorry. I tend to use way too much wordage for my own good thats too complexly tied together. Religion does not allow me to visualise the world from a special point of view, it allows me to view the world from a different point of view, meaning that I see the exact same thing as you, (This 8 for example) but I process that information is a slightly different way that 1) Probably does nothing that your processing of information doesn't do and 2) If it does it's most likely sending me off on a wild tangent like the response I posted (It kinda evokes a (0_0 What the.....? response instead of the Oh Ok response.)

Edited December 10, 2015 by TJ McCaustland