Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    20 Mar '13 14:22
    Science requires something to exist before it can determine any facts on that something. I know that I exist because I had two parents and there was at least one witness to my birth and a recorded birth certificate. Science has given the name quark to the fundamental particle of matter, but do they know why it exists? Why does matter exist? That is a different way of stating the question why does something exist instead of nothing? I don't believe science is able to answer that question with facts. Science has done no better than religion in answering that question.
  2. 20 Mar '13 15:35
    Science is not able to answer that question, and indeed it does no better or worse than religion in this regard.

    By the way, quarks are not "the fundamental particle of matter". You might want to briefly check Wikipedia to read a bit about what quarks are.
  3. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    20 Mar '13 15:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Science is not able to answer that question, and indeed it does no better or worse than religion in this regard.

    By the way, quarks are not "the fundamental particle of matter". You might want to briefly check Wikipedia to read a bit about what quarks are.
    So do you believe wikipedia is a good source to identify what quarks are and to find out what is the fundamental particle of matter?

    P.S. I looked up quark in Wikipedia and it says the following:

    A quark (pron.: /ˈkwɔrk/ or /ˈkwɑrk/) is an elementary particle and a fundamental constituent of matter.
  4. Standard member Kepler
    Demon Duck
    20 Mar '13 20:29
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    So do you believe wikipedia is a good source to identify what quarks are and to find out what is the fundamental particle of matter?

    P.S. I looked up quark in Wikipedia and it says the following:

    A quark (pron.: /ˈkwɔrk/ or /ˈkwɑrk/) is an elementary particle and a fundamental constituent of matter.
    If you don't like Wikipedia try Arxiv. I'm sure you'll find some entertaining papers on quarks in there but they won't be nearly as accessible as Wikipedia.
  5. Standard member Kepler
    Demon Duck
    20 Mar '13 20:39
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Science requires something to exist before it can determine any facts on that something. I know that I exist because I had two parents and there was at least one witness to my birth and a recorded birth certificate. Science has given the name quark to the fundamental particle of matter, but do they know why it exists? Why does matter exist? That is a differe ...[text shortened]... that question with facts. Science has done no better than religion in answering that question.
    Science doesn't bother with the why of the universe, it seeks to investigate how the universe works. In that respect it does better than religion because if it finds evidence that falsifies an earlier theory, the sun goes round the earth for example, it changes the theory. Religion sticks to the discredited version despite the evidence.

    Why does something exist instead of nothing? Who knows? That's not really science, that's philosophy. The closest science gets to this is the anthropic principle which exists in various strengths, just like the beer I am considering drinking. The strong version says that the universe is the way it is so that it can support intelligent life while the weak version says that we are lucky the universe is as it is because otherwise we wouldn't exist to observe it. For your purposes you would likely want the strong version.
  6. 20 Mar '13 21:17 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Science requires something to exist before it can determine any facts on that something. I know that I exist because I had two parents and there was at least one witness to my birth and a recorded birth certificate. Science has given the name quark to the fundamental particle of matter, but do they know why it exists? Why does matter exist? That is a differe that question with facts. Science has done no better than religion in answering that question.
    why does something exist instead of nothing?

    How do you know that there is a reason why for this?
    What is your evidence that there must exist a reason why for this?
    Why must there logically be a why to answer every question?
    Why cannot it be a brute fact ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute_fact ) thus making the question rather meaningless -a bit like asking why are circles round except, unlike why circles are round, true not by definition but rather merely just true?
    Science has done no better than religion in answering that question.

    It is not the job of real science to answer a flawed unanswerable question and, as for religion, its 'answers' are invalid for they are not fundamentally based on evidence nor flawless logic.
  7. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    20 Mar '13 23:03
    Originally posted by Kepler
    If you don't like Wikipedia try Arxiv. I'm sure you'll find some entertaining papers on quarks in there but they won't be nearly as accessible as Wikipedia.
    That Arxiv ain't worth a shiitt.
  8. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    20 Mar '13 23:29
    Originally posted by Kepler
    Science doesn't bother with the why of the universe, it seeks to investigate how the universe works. In that respect it does better than religion because if it finds evidence that falsifies an earlier theory, the sun goes round the earth for example, it changes the theory. Religion sticks to the discredited version despite the evidence.

    Why does something ...[text shortened]... we wouldn't exist to observe it. For your purposes you would likely want the strong version.
    I am sure Dasa would tell you that true religion can not be falsified like science. But the problem we have then is deteriming what is the true religion and does anyone really understand it?

    So science can not tell the why of something, but only how the something works once it exists. So I suppose that also means that science can not tell where the original something came from. If that is so, then wouldn't that mean the scientists are only speculating if they they try to provide anything other than the facts on how the something works?
  9. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    20 Mar '13 23:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by humy
    why does something exist instead of nothing?

    How do you know that there is a reason why for this?
    What is your evidence that there must exist a reason why for this?
    Why must there logically be a why to answer every question?
    Why cannot it be a brute fact ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute_fact ) thus making the question rather mean ...[text shortened]... its 'answers' are invalid for they are not fundamentally based on evidence nor flawless logic.
    It stands to reason through common sense and logic that there must be a reason for everything, because the universe follows specific laws in an orderly manner. It is the job of science to tell us how something works within the laws that are already established, but apparently not why according to your buddy. On the other had, it is too much for you to think about so you regulate it to a brute fact so you don't have to think about it anymore. Good job.
  10. 21 Mar '13 07:29 / 11 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    It stands to reason through common sense and logic that there must be a reason for everything, because the universe follows specific laws in an orderly manner. It is the job of science to tell us how something works within the laws that are already established, but apparently not why according to your buddy. On the other had, it is too much for you to thin ...[text shortened]... bout so you regulate it to a brute fact so you don't have to think about it anymore. Good job.
    It stands to reason through common sense and logic that there must be a reason for everything, because the universe follows specific laws in an orderly manner.

    How do you derive the conclusion that “ there must be a reason for everything” from “ the universe follows specific laws in an orderly manner”? -One clearly does NOT logically follow from the other. Your reasoning is totally confused and totally logically flawed.
    Why there must be a reason why “the universe follows specific laws in an orderly manner”? Is that because “the universe follows specific laws in an orderly manner”? i.e circular reasoning? Explain....
    Note that All circular reasoning is logically flawed ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning ).

    On the other had, it is too much for you to think about so you regulate it to a brute fact so you don't have to think about it anymore.

    Nope, the concept of brute facts is just too much for you to think about so you say “there must be a reason for everything” so you don't have to think about it any more.
    You have yet to give us a valid reason why there must be a why to everything or, in other words, why there cannot be a brute fact.
    -So WHY cannot there be a brute fact? -just try and explain that WHY but without cheaply fudging the question with confused twisted illogic and just for once in your life you may actually think for real!
  11. Standard member Kepler
    Demon Duck
    21 Mar '13 07:35
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    It stands to reason through common sense and logic that there must be a reason for everything, because the universe follows specific laws in an orderly manner. It is the job of science to tell us how something works within the laws that are already established, but apparently not why according to your buddy. On the other had, it is too much for you to thin ...[text shortened]... bout so you regulate it to a brute fact so you don't have to think about it anymore. Good job.
    Common sense? In the words of Mark Twain the problem with common sense is it isn't very common. Logic doesn't demand reasons. If you don't believe that take a short course in logic, it will do you a power of good.

    Why is the universe? If it wasn't we wouldn't be here to ask such foolish questions. That is not to say our existence is the reason the universe exists, we are a just a consequence of the universe existing.
  12. Standard member Kepler
    Demon Duck
    21 Mar '13 07:46
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I am sure Dasa would tell you that true religion can not be falsified like science. But the problem we have then is deteriming what is the true religion and does anyone really understand it?

    So science can not tell the why of something, but only how the something works once it exists. So I suppose that also means that science can not tell where the ori ...[text shortened]... eculating if they they try to provide anything other than the facts on how the something works?
    Dasa is another idiot with his cranium stuck permanently up his rectum. The reason religion of any kind cannot be falsified is that it does not operate by the standards that science does. If it is wrong it does not correct itself, it just insists that it is correct despite the evidence. Science looks at the evidence, builds a theory based on that and then corrects it if subsequent evidence shows the theory is wrong in some way. Religion just says "This is the way it is because god says so". Two different ways of looking at the world.

    Personally, I'll take science over religion any day simply because it requires thought rather than blind faith. I like to exercise my brain rather than shove it up my hind end and let it atrophy.
  13. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    21 Mar '13 09:38
    Originally posted by Kepler
    Common sense? In the words of Mark Twain the problem with common sense is it isn't very common. Logic doesn't demand reasons. If you don't believe that take a short course in logic, it will do you a power of good.

    Why is the universe? If it wasn't we wouldn't be here to ask such foolish questions. That is not to say our existence is the reason the universe exists, we are a just a consequence of the universe existing.
    I reason that the universe could have existed without us. However the Earth is the only known place in the universe that was made with just the right conditions so we can exist. Why do you think that is? Is it possible you have the common sense to use reason and logic to answer that question?
  14. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    21 Mar '13 09:44 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Kepler
    Dasa is another idiot with his cranium stuck permanently up his rectum. The reason religion of any kind cannot be falsified is that it does not operate by the standards that science does. If it is wrong it does not correct itself, it just insists that it is correct despite the evidence. Science looks at the evidence, builds a theory based on that and then cor nd faith. I like to exercise my brain rather than shove it up my hind end and let it atrophy.
    Science has a long track record of being wrong and having to be corrected. There is a book of truths that has never been proven wrong, for even when it has been thought to be wrong, it has been eventually been proven right after all.
  15. Standard member Kepler
    Demon Duck
    21 Mar '13 12:31
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I reason that the universe could have existed without us. However the Earth is the only known place in the universe that was made with just the right conditions so we can exist. Why do you think that is? Is it possible you have the common sense to use reason and logic to answer that question?
    The anthropic principle again. The earth is just right for our existence. Is that because it was made just right? I'd say the earth is and the fact we inhabit it demonstrates nothing more than that the life that has developed on it has developed to fit the conditions on earth. If for some strange reason life had developed to suit different conditions we wouldn't be here and neither would any other life.

    The only known place in the universe does not preclude there being other places we could live nor does it preclude there being radically different forms of life out there somewhere. Just because it is unknown now doesn't mean we can't know about it in the future.