Originally posted by twhiteheadIf science doesn't know the cause of some activities, does this mean it has no cause?
I made no such assumption. If you agree that science does not know the cause of some activities then your statement "simple science that says all activities result from another cause" is clearly false.
if yes then why are science search for the cause then. Because that is the nature of things we know.
Lets take your example: The creation of the universe. You said there is no know cause.
So the question is did scientist stop searching for the cause just because they don't know it?
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is not my problem that you pick and choose what to read and what not to read. I pointed out that I have two directions of thinking. And I repeated that twice. If you are not able to figure this out it is not my problem. But it is your second time here: first you called my reasoning stupid and second you called me a lier.
So once again your original claim that you started from logic is shown to be a lie. You started with the Qu'ran and proceeded from there.
If you see my believe in GOD stupid , I also see your not beliving in GOD very stupid. And actually I see you ignoring a lot of stuff and making a lot of assumption but I never tried to attack you.
So if you don't like my way of talking you can point out what you don't like , or just leave.
Thank you anyway
Originally posted by MarinkatombI just wanted to get the simple stuff out of the way. But it seems this simple point is a problem. How can I continue with you while I think there is a misconcetption in the way?
Look man, why don't you address my actual post, this is a tangent...
EDIT: Let me just say that assuming things remain constant for eternity is an incorrect approach. I'm not going to try and prove that things change, i don't think i can, but assuming that they will never change is not a good way to get at the truth. Assume nothing and you stand a much better chance...
Anyway this will be my last post in this point, and you are free to comment or ignore it. I will move to the remaining of your post after that:
EDIT: Let me just say that assuming things remain constant for eternity is an incorrect approach. I'm not going to try and prove that things change, i don't think i can, but assuming that they will never change is not a good way to get at the truth.
If the behaviour of stuff is not constant from the begining, then every theory trying to explain the behaviour of stuff since it is begining will not be valid.
Why? Because those theories are based on the current knowladge which include the laws we are talking about. And using these laws they try to conclude the behaviour of the older stuff. So if the laws itself were changin with the time, so all conclusion will be invalide unless we know how these laws were changing, which is not possible. The other solution is that you develop another law that describe how physical laws are changing with the time. As far as I know there no such a thing.
So if you assumes that physical laws are changing with time then a theory such as Natural selection will not be valid.
I hope it is clear now.
Originally posted by ahosyneyDo you accept that your claim "simple science that says all activities result from another cause" if false?
If science doesn't know the cause of some activities, does this mean it has no cause?
if yes then why are science search for the cause then. Because that is the nature of things we know.
Lets take your example: The creation of the universe. You said there is no know cause.
So the question is did scientist stop searching for the cause just because they don't know it?
Again you are making the unfounded assumption that there is a cause. Scientists must first answer the question "does there need to be a cause?" before they start looking for a cause. In fact they should first ask "why should we even be asking if there needs to be a cause?".
Originally posted by twhiteheadAre you saying what you think they should do, or what they actually do?
Do you accept that your claim "simple science that says all activities result from another cause" if false?
[b]Lets take your example: The creation of the universe. You said there is no know cause.
So the question is did scientist stop searching for the cause just because they don't know it?
Again you are making the unfounded assumption that ther ...[text shortened]... fact they should first ask "why should we even be asking if there needs to be a cause?".[/b]
Do you accept that your claim "simple science that says all activities result from another cause" if false?
I will accept it when you give me an example of something without a cause.
You gave an example of something you think it is without a cause.
The physics I know talks about actions and reactions. And all what we see is action/reaction chain. But it seems you have another idea..
Originally posted by ahosyneyYou made the claim that you had been able to convince yourself of the existence of God without having to base it on a prior belief in the existence of God.
It is not my problem that you pick and choose what to read and what not to read. I pointed out that I have two directions of thinking. And I repeated that twice. If you are not able to figure this out it is not my problem. But it is your second time here: first you called my reasoning stupid and second you called me a lier.
If you see my believe in GOD st ...[text shortened]... ke my way of talking you can point out what you don't like , or just leave.
Thank you anyway
Then you said that your reasoning was based on the need for the universe to have been caused by something.
I asked you how you knew that there needed to be a cause for the universe and your answer was "Prophets and Messangers" - clearly you are using your prior belief in God.
I appologise for the use of the word "liar" as you probably did not intend to deceive, but your claim is still false.
Originally posted by ahosyneyI do not need to. All I need to do is to show that physics does not claim that everything has a cause.
I will accept it when you give me an example of something without a cause.
The physics I know talks about actions and reactions. And all what we see is action/reaction chain. But it seems you have another idea.
You clearly haven't got very far in physics. You are still studying Newtonian Mechanics I suppose.
As I said, in modern physics the exact location of particles and their exact movements are not only unknown but the cause of their movements or actions is largely unknown. In fact a particles movement is unpredictable or random in nature.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo my answer was not for that question. I was answering what was the cause is.
You made the claim that you had been able to convince yourself of the existence of God without having to base it on a prior belief in the existence of God.
Then you said that your reasoning was based on the need for the universe to have been caused by something.
I asked you how you knew that there needed to be a cause for the universe and your answer ...[text shortened]... of the word "liar" as you probably did not intend to deceive, but your claim is still false.
And also I didn't say the reasoning will lead me to GOD. All what I said is logical reasoning will leads me to some sort of being that outside this universe and it is the cause of its creation. But it will not tell me anything about that being and what it wants from me(if he wants every thing). This will not happen untill he try to contact me, and that is where the second direction comes to the picture.
My problem with you is that you will say you are jumping to conclusions. Which I don't try to do, and I don't want to do?
I want to complete my idea but you always mix the two directions.
I hope you do understand what I'm saying.
I don't know if you still thinking I'm not doing what I see.
Please when you discuss cause/effect , universe, physics and science with me assume that I don't know GOD, untill we reach some sort of agreement.
Is that ok with you.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI didn't study Quantim mechanics officially (I mean I didn't take a course in it) but I have some readings and I know what your talking about, and I see it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Actually you are mixing it.
I do not need to. All I need to do is to show that physics does not claim that everything has a cause.
[b]The physics I know talks about actions and reactions. And all what we see is action/reaction chain. But it seems you have another idea.
You clearly haven't got very far in physics. You are still studying Newtonian Mechanics I suppose.
As I s ...[text shortened]... actions is largely unknown. In fact a particles movement is unpredictable or random in nature.[/b]
What you are talking about is the uncertainity principle, and I think it is talking about the electron and it is movement around the atom. I know it stated that the exact location of an electron can't be specified, and unpredictable, and I have no problem of that, and it has nothing to do with our discussion now.
What I have a problem with is:
but the cause of their movements or actions is largely unknown.
you say that the phrase "largely unknown" is equal to "It doesn't have a cause" which I don't agree with, they are totally different.
I don't know if your statment is correct, I will do some search and get back to you. But even if it is correct it doesn't support you claim. I know that when the electron have enough energy it jumps from one energy level to another, but if its energy remains constant it will remain orbiting in its energy level (Closer to the atom), and it always have enough energy to remain orbiting. May be what I'm talking about is something different.
You clearly haven't got very far in physics. You are still studying Newtonian Mechanics I suppose
I remember when we talked about Newton and Enestien you said that Quantum Mechanics didn't cancle Newton's but give a different view for it.
I know that Newton's mechanics are not completly valid on high speeds (closer to the speed of light) but that implys a change in the behaviour of particles not a complete change of the laws.
Anyway I will do some reading and get back to you.
Originally posted by MarinkatombI will complete your post but I have to do some reading for Twithead, it seams that he knows everything...🙄
If you really read my posts you will understand what I'm talking about.
Ok, i re-read your post. I originally said to you.. (sorry if you wanted me to go back further, i'm trying to get on with the conversation without writing for days...)
"Because there's nothing to suggest he (God) is in the picture. Give me one good reason [i](that isn't ...[text shortened]... can develop it...?
Originally posted by ahosyneyThrow some "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle" into the mix, I suspect that's one part of what Mr T is referring to.
I know that Newton's mechanics are not completly valid on high speeds (closer to the speed of light) but that implys a change in the behaviour of particles not a complete change of the laws.
3 edits
Originally posted by ahosyneyLet me give an example (i've touched on this in my main post earlier). Imagine a Universe with one thing in it. Does time exist? Does Gravity exist? These things are measurements of things in relation to other things. If the Universe did indeed start with a singularity (as some people believe) then the Universe didn't act the way it does now from the very start. I have plucked this example out of the air, i have no way of telling whether this is actually the case or not, but like i said, we need to be open to all possibilities.
I just wanted to get the simple stuff out of the way. But it seems this simple point is a problem. How can I continue with you while I think there is a misconcetption in the way?
Anyway this will be my last post in this point, and you are free to comment or ignore it. I will move to the remaining of your post after that:
EDIT: Let me just say that ith time then a theory such as Natural selection will not be valid.
I hope it is clear now.
You are correct in what you said, we would not know what we know about the Universe if these laws were constantly changing, that still doesn't rule out the possibility that all of that could change. If there is one thing we can say for certain about the Universe, it is in a constant state of change. You can't rule anything out really. All we have is best guess. These Laws (Laws of physics, Laws of evolution, whatever...) are in a constant state of change also. Again, take nothing as given...
Originally posted by MarinkatombBut, we do know that the laws of physics couldn't have been that much different from what they are now, or the universe wouldn't look the way it does.
Let me give an example (i've touched on this in my main post earlier). Imagine a Universe with one thing in it. Does time exist? Does Gravity exist? These things are measurements of things in relation to other things. If the Universe did indeed start with a singularity (as some people believe) then the Universe didn't act the way it does now from ...[text shortened]... lution, whatever...) are in a constant state of change also. Again, take nothing as given...
3 edits
Originally posted by Marinkatomb[/i]I don't put God into the mix for a simple reason, God does not live
I am making no assumption, that was the point of my post. I wouldn't be surprised if the 'Laws of Physics' have been constant since the dawn of Time, what i am saying is we cannot assume that this is the case without evidence. That is all. The point of my post can be summed up thus..
Assume nothing.
EDIT: Sorry missed the last question..
[i]What your thoughts on that? I need a mathematician to comment on this (very basic) idea...
in the physical realm we do with the limitations we have, therefore
many of the limitations upon us and the entire universe do not apply
to God. Within this universe we do live in, it seems to mean that
all things require a reason or cause, I personally believe our closed
system of all things in this universe was caused by something out
side of it as in not bound to it. To me this is a better explanation
than a singularity which is really something not nothing with no
time before it blew up and all things are now what and where they
are.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadI did some reading from wikipedia about:
I do not need to. All I need to do is to show that physics does not claim that everything has a cause.
[b]The physics I know talks about actions and reactions. And all what we see is action/reaction chain. But it seems you have another idea.
You clearly haven't got very far in physics. You are still studying Newtonian Mechanics I suppose.
As I s ...[text shortened]... actions is largely unknown. In fact a particles movement is unpredictable or random in nature.[/b]
1- Quantum mechanics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
2- Uncertainty principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
After quick reading I found your statement
As I said, in modern physics the exact location of particles and their exact movements are not only unknown but the cause of their movements or actions is largely unknown. In fact a particles movement is unpredictable or random in nature.
not accurate:
1- First Quantum Mechanics has nothing to do with the cause. That is not what this theory address. It try to predict the position and momentum of a purticle in a free space (Initialy it was for the electron movement around the nuclure), the part, but the cause of their movements or actions is largely unknown, I can say is not correct.
2- The part In fact a particles movement is unpredictable or random in nature. is not a fact, it is incorrect: I will copy this part from the article about Quantum Mechanics:
It should be noted, however, that in quantum mechanics, "random" has come to mean "random for all practical purposes," and not "absolutely random." Those new to quantum mechanics often confuse quantum mechanical theory's inability to predict exactly how nature will behave with the conclusion that nature is actually random.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
Actually what that is all about is that the measurement of any system can't acuratly define the position and momentum and what can get is a predection of them at any moment of time. In other words, we can't at any moment of time say where a specific particle is and what is its momentum but we can give a propability of predection. These properities are high for larg objects (mircoscopic scale) so that we can ignore that effect and we can say we actually know where they are. But with small paricles (electron for example) the effect is large and we can't define both position and momentum. But we can define one of them given that the other will be completly unknown.
All of that doesn't mean those particles move at random. No, but their movement is not predictable, and may be with some other measurment methods we can 100% predect it (That is what Eineshtine said).
----------------
Any comments?