Proof of the non-existence of God

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Funny how the same man who struggles to find scientific truths can be so sure of himself when it comes to supernatural ones, isn't it?

Apparently you haven't been keeping up with the conversation.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Mathematics is an art not a science. Mathematics relies on axioms, science on experiment. Essentially mathematics does not have to relate to anything in the real world, it just has to follow the rules it sets for itself.

With that in mind I´d be interested to see some examples of mathematics that suddenly stopped working.

Actually, mathematics is both. Check out the definitions and you will see that it quite capably straddles the requirements for both areas.

As stated, hypothesis, conjectures, theories and the like have been popping up for years, all looking for someone to prove or disprove the same. It is a field that demands correction from its students' expanding expertise in order to thrive. I'm sure you are aware of the prize money held out for finding proofs?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Mathematics is an art not a science. Mathematics relies on axioms, science on experiment. Essentially mathematics does not have to relate to anything in the real world, it just has to follow the rules it sets for itself.

With that in mind I´d be interested to see some examples of mathematics that suddenly stopped working.

….Mathematics is an art not a science..…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science_of_mathematics

….Mathematics relies on axioms, science on experiment
..…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_mathematics

…Essentially mathematics does not have to relate to anything in the real world
.…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_mathematics

“…areas of mathematics that are applicable to real-world problems.…”

You appear to have several odd misconceptions here. However:

…I´d be interested to see some examples of mathematics that suddenly stopped working...…

Good point!

FreakyKBH

-so FreakyKBH, can you give us these examples?

Reminder of one of your quotes from one of your previous posts;

….The field is replete with examples of math that worked--- for awhile--- and then it didn't.
.…

Mmmmmm -“then it didn’t“? when and where didn’t it?
For example:

(x + y )(x + y) = x^2 + 2xy + y^2

Is it possible that this couldn’t ever be true in the future? -if so, explain how so.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Apparently you haven't been keeping up with the conversation.

The conversation has been an exercise in futility, if I read it right. You are trying to make the case that Biblical truth is more reliable than Scientific truth, yes?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Actually, mathematics is both. Check out the definitions and you will see that it quite capably straddles the requirements for both areas.

As stated, hypothesis, conjectures, theories and the like have been popping up for years, all looking for someone to prove or disprove the same. It is a field that demands correction from its students' expanding ex ...[text shortened]... money held out for finding proofs?
This post is also in reply to Andrew Hamilton above

When you want to modify the course of an argument it´s sometimes worth taking a stronger position than you actually hold - I just wanted to make the point that it is not like other sciences in that mathematical theorems really don´t have to reflect anything going on in the real world. Being true in a ¨you can see it in this natural example¨ really isn´t a requirement. If the axioms do map to a real world problem then that is all to the good as then the theorem is useful, if not it´s still true in the mathematical sense. The starting point for mathematics was probably accountancy and stock control, but once the axiomatic method got started all that matters are the axioms and the logical steps you apply to them.

Conjectures are just that. An example of one which was proved wrong is the Pólya conjecture which states that more than 50% of the natural numbers less than some cut-off have an odd number of prime factors (in this 18 has 3 factors = {2,3,3}). This was proven wrong in the 50s. But, that was a conjecture, not a theorem. Once a theorem has been proven (assuming no problem with the proof) then the only way it can be wrong is if the axioms change. The fact that new theorems are being developed just means the field is expanding, it doesn´t mean that there´s anything wrong with the old stuff.

Yes, well the Yang-Mills mass gap and the 3 dimensional Navier-Stokes problems are problems in physics/applied maths. These really are tough problems. It´s interesting to note that the prize hasn´t been awarded for the one Millenium problem that has been solved: The Poincaré conjecture, Although partly I suspect that this is because Grigori Perelman would probably turn it down anyway. He seems to think mathematics is a corrupt field.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This was not a discussion about the workings of science, as you describe--- and you know it. That science (in all of its fields) is [b]constantly and continually fine-tuning, changing and correcting its perspective was the first part of the issue. At long last, you admitted the same.[/b]

Yes I admitted to that, in fact I never denied it in the first place. But that is a far cry from the clearly false claim that all scientific knowledge is false or even that the change of some knowledge renders other knowledge in the same grouping false.
jaywill's joke implied that all scientific knowledge eventually turns out to be false which is nonsense.

The second part of the discussion was whether one should put their trust in man's ability to sort things out, as well as if he even knows the right questions to ask in getting things sorted out. History shows us that man in every scientific field gets it wrong a woefully large portion of the time, even as he confidentally insists that--- this time--- he has it right.
No, that wasn't ever part of the discussion that I have been involved in. I certainly don't remember discussing man sorting anything out, nor have I made or discussed the proportion of things that man has historically got right or wrong. You certainly never made an argument from history to me, you instead made the argument that new information somehow rendered previously held perspectives false.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes I admitted to that, in fact I never denied it in the first place. But that is a far cry from the clearly false claim that all scientific knowledge is false or even that the change of some knowledge renders other knowledge in the same grouping false.
jaywill's joke implied that all scientific knowledge eventually turns out to be false which is nonsens ...[text shortened]... made the argument that new information somehow rendered previously held perspectives false.

You continue to misapply what I have clearly said.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You continue to misapply what I have clearly said.

And you continue to misapply it too. The problem is that you are trying very hard to claim that what you have clearly said is what we both agree upon, but then you throw in some conclusions that simply do not follow. On top of that you continually try to misrepresent science with your mistaken view that scientists were wrong about the number of planets in the solar system.

Lets get back to the core argument:
Do you believe that the existence of Pluto is questionable?
Do you believe that the existence of any of the currently known planets/moons or other solar system objects is questionable?
Do you or do you not think that the majority of knowledge considered by scientists to be generally accurate will in future found to be false?
Do you have any reasonable argument to back up such a belief?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And you continue to misapply it too. The problem is that you are trying very hard to claim that what you have clearly said is what we both agree upon, but then you throw in some conclusions that simply do not follow. On top of that you continually try to misrepresent science with your mistaken view that scientists were wrong about the number of planets in ...[text shortened]... ill in future found to be false?
Do you have any reasonable argument to back up such a belief?

And you continue to misapply it too.
I see. I’m misapplying my own words that are otherwise clear to me. Sure, that makes sense.

The problem is that you are trying very hard to claim that what you have clearly said is what we both agree upon, but then you throw in some conclusions that simply do not follow.
I guess the only response to this would be: Huh?
Whatever level of effort you attribute to me, you have made a 180 degree turn in your stance. When I first said that science is constantly changing and correcting its view--- and specifically making corrections that conflict with earlier views--- you steadfastly held to the indefensible idea that such corrections were merely compliments to already-established ‘truths.’ Moreover, your stance has been that science is never really wrong since it never holds to anything all that tightly in the first place… at least nothing that could embarrass those in the field for doing so.

On top of that you continually try to misrepresent science with your mistaken view that scientists were wrong about the number of planets in the solar system.
Wrong? What does that mean in your vocabulary, exactly?
They were either wrong before or they are wrong now. You tell us: which is it?

Lets get back to the core argument:
This is not the core argument. The core argument is that you have taken a position which is in complete contrast to mine. Namely, I maintain that--- given science’s vacillation and complete about-face changes in the past--- reliance on science as an arbiter of reality is a dicey proposition. You say such a stance is nonsense, as science’s only changes are merely augmentation of long-established facts.

Do you believe that the existence of Pluto is questionable?
Don’t really give it much thought, really.

Do you believe that the existence of any of the currently known planets/moons or other solar system objects is questionable?
Hasn’t been a burning question in my mind of late. Or ever.

Do you or do you not think that the majority of knowledge considered by scientists to be generally accurate will in future found to be false?
I believe that the majority of knowledge (so-held) at any given time will ultimately be revealed as wanting. While bits and pieces will hold, most will be shed when the new skin is donned.

Do you have any reasonable argument to back up such a belief?
History.

======================================
I believe that the majority of knowledge (so-held) at any given time will ultimately be revealed as wanting. While bits and pieces will hold, most will be shed when the new skin is donned.
==========================================

And sometimes the skin shed can be very bad skin. For example the eugenic scientists of America and Germany who claimed scientific proof of superiority of races over other races giving fuel to the Nazis.

Preceeding the gas chambers that murdered millions were the "scientifically" based orders to kill the mentally ill or cripple who might otherwise tarnish the evolved super race - Aryans. The next steps were forbidding sex between any Jew and Aryran raced person. Then the extermination of the Jews in whole.

These facts are recorded in a book entitled DNA by Noble Prize winning scientist James D. Watson. Among other things Watson traces the history of Eugenics and its support by the Nazis in Germany and the racists in the US.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]======================================
I believe that the majority of knowledge (so-held) at any given time will ultimately be revealed as wanting. While bits and pieces will hold, most will be shed when the new skin is donned.
==========================================

And sometimes the skin shed can be very bad skin. For example the e ces the history of Eugenics and its support by the Nazis in Germany and the racists in the US.[/b]

….I believe that the majority of knowledge (so-held) at any given time will ultimately be revealed as wanting. While bits and pieces will hold, most will be shed when the new skin is donned.
.…

This was in response to the question:

(1) “Do you or do you not think that the MAJORITY of KNOWLEDGE considered by scientists to be generally accurate will in future found to be false? “ (my emphasis)

Which is a perfectly reasonable question.

You then give examples of where scientist support eugenics -but you fail to see that this is irrelevant because you fail to see the fact that science says nothing about what actions we SHOULD support (whether it be eugenics or murder or saving lives or whatever) because science cannot ever say anything about morality. Thus the idea by some that we SHOULD support eugenics is NOT part of scientific KNOWLEDGE (i.e. it is not part of scientific knowledge that we SHOULD support eugenics) and, also, the vast MAJORITY of scientist would surely agree that the idea that we SHOULD support eugenics is NOT part of scientific knowledge.

Therefore, this issue of the existence of a small proportion of scientists supporting eugenics (there are always going to be a few bad apples in any profession) is totally irrelevant to question (1); thus the implied suggestion raised by this question still stands:
The fact remains that the majority of knowledge in these modern times considered by scientists to be generally accurate will be extremely unlikely to be found to be false in the future. That’s because scientific fact is scientific FACT.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
….I believe that the majority of knowledge (so-held) at any given time will ultimately be revealed as wanting. While bits and pieces will hold, most will be shed when the new skin is donned.
.…

This was in response to the question:

(1) “Do you or do you not think that the MAJORITY of KNOWLEDGE considered by scientists to be generally acc ...[text shortened]... likely to be found to be false in the future. That’s because scientific fact is scientific FACT.[/b]

You say the word 'fact' almost like it's a fact. Silly. That's exactly what has been in contention here.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You say the word 'fact' almost like it's a fact. Silly. That's exactly what has been in contention here.

So you are denying here the existence of scientific facts?
What are considered to be scientific facts have been as far as scientists can RATIONALLY judge by the evidence/reason to be proven to be “fact” -that’s why they are called scientific FACTS and not just theories.

Is it not a scientific fact that water molecules each have one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms?
-if so, can you explain how so?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You say the word 'fact' almost like it's a fact. Silly. That's exactly what has been in contention here.

The problem being that the example you gave turned out not to be related to scientific facts but rather kindergarten 'facts'.
It is a scientific fact that Pluto exists.
The solar system having exactly 8 or 9 planets has never been and still is not a scientific fact.
If you had admitted your mistake earlier on, I might have taken your argument more seriously, but as it is it seem to be almost entirely built on an attempt at avoiding admitting that you were wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The problem being that the example you gave turned out not to be related to scientific facts but rather kindergarten 'facts'.
It is a scientific fact that Pluto exists.
The solar system having exactly 8 or 9 planets has never been and still is not a scientific fact.
If you had admitted your mistake earlier on, I might have taken your argument more seri ...[text shortened]... s it seem to be almost entirely built on an attempt at avoiding admitting that you were wrong.

This absurd part of your defense ought to be fairly easy to prove, so one wonders why you've taken so long to address it.

According to your rationale, science--- true science--- has always held that the number of planets in the solar system is subject to change. Further, also according to your stance, the only audience which received dogmatic instruction on the issue was the general populace... with an emphasis on pre-school children.

That being said, it should be relatively easy for you to cite the sources--- pre-2006, mind you--- which held to a non-static perspective of the planets.

Moreover, such a position is still held by scientists in the field... at least, according to you. What makes your job tough, however, is that at a time which would have been the most advantageous to the supposedly secretive folks at IAU to shed light on their ambiguity over how many planets are in the solar system--- 2006--- they instead opted to say with rock-solid certainty that the solar system's planetary number has been reduced to eight. Officially.

If anything, that "fact" is more likely to see a reduction than an addition, given the three guiding principles used when classifying planets.