Yep, and that has nothing at all to do with faith. Which is why I objected. Realizing you can’t prove X is true, doesn’t make mathematics faith based. If we can’t prove X is true, we (mathematicians) simply just don’t use X; problem solved! It is about as close to the opposite of faith as I think you can get.
It is how we can say math is the logic of certainty because if there is any uncertainty about something, we don’t use it. For what it is worth: I don’t think you can find another human endeavour that has this property.
Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is, as far as I understand, a conceptual cousin of Turing’s theorem on the unsolvability of the halting problem. For the uninitiated, the halting problem is the problem of determining whether an arbitrary computer program + input will finish running or if it will run indefinitely. So even with the halting problem in mind, this does not make computer programs not useful, not usable, or not useful tools. And you certainly don’t need faith to use computer programs as useful tools. In the same way as mathematics is a useful tool that does not require faith. And theoretically determining whether the computer program making up the AR forum halts or not is, quite frankly, an uninteresting problem. In much the same way as the knowledge that there exist a mathematical truth “X” that is unprovable. So what if X is not provable, it does not reduce the utility of mathematics as a tool. Just like the halting problem does not reduce the utility of algoritms and software as tools.
Oh, I find that stuff super interesting. Also P vs. NP is a very interesting problem. I tried to write a computer program to “solve” sudokus with linear algebra (instead of brute force), but I could never quite figure it out. Years later I read about the N vs. NP problem and realized that is why I was having such problem with my program (if my program had worked, it would itself be proof P = NP).
So what do you think of Newton’s laws of motion? How about Kepler’s laws of planetary motion? What about Galileo’s contribution to science? History seems to be forgotten and the reasons why these scientists ever thought science could be done.
Newton was an alchemist who believed in the fountain of youth and the philosopher stone. If Newton’s success with physics is an indication that Newton’s magically beliefs are accurate, then forget Christianity, lets become alchemists!
In reality, I don’t care what stupid reasons he had for doing what he did. I only care about his results.
You say that like it’s a bad thing, or, somehow, demeaning.
Maybe we can make our purpose to strive to give meaning to this “pitiless indifference” by our actions.
The God of The Bible says “Dust thou art, and to dust shall you return.”
When all is said and done, you object to the scientific view of the Universe simply because of your own ego . . . which is in contradiction to your own Biblical values.
Uh….thanks for the completely unrelated response to my post.
it is impressive that you can employ multiple fallacies at once, AND completely blow past the original point. I hate to repeat myself, but,
you are dishonest and disingenuous.
Good luck with the squirrel problem.
.
.
Edit to bury nuts(again)
Since I’ve already dealt with a major lie of yours in another thread, It’s time to deal with this one.
First of all, much of prebiotic chemistry deals with chemical reactions producing molecules too simple to be a part of any selection process, of the sort that influences genetic molecules. The generation of sugars, lipids and amino acids pre-date the emergence of natural selection, possibly by 100 million year or more. Chemists seeking reaction pathways producing these molecules never mention natural selection in their papers. Instead, they ask questions such as “what chemical reactions will move from step A to step B under prebiotic conditions, and can we demonstrate this in the laboratory?” Which they duly set about doing. No “improbabilities” or “paradoxes” involved, virtually all of which are specious creationist fabrications, two major examples of which I’ve dealt with at length.
Second, it’s obvious you either don’t understand what natural selection actually is, or are wilfully misrepresenting it the continue propagandising for your brand of creationist lies and bullshit. Given your track record here, I suspect the latter, as do many others here.
Since you need the relevant schooling here, I’ll provide it. Quite simply, any testable natural process, no matter how mindless or deterministic, that acts to favour one set of outcomes over another, is a selection processby definition. It isn’t “magic”, it isn’t a “demigod”, or any of the other lies you’re spewing here, it’s simply a process that acts as a filter upon outcomes. That filter could be as simple as, for example, allowing low mass molecules to pass through a gap, while restricting the passage of high-mass molecules, which can be achieved pretty simply if the gap is shallow, while connecting two much deeper bodies of water. Molecules that are heavy enough to sink before they reach the gap won’t pass through said gap. No fucking “intelligence” required.
What matters here, as others have stated, is whether or not the results were in accord with observational reality, and as a corollary, possess utility value. What motivated the individuals to generate these results is ultimately irrelevant, epecially if said motivation was misplaced.
If you’re trying to resurrect the tiresome and repeatedly destroyed assertion known as “science was invented by Christians so that we could know God better”, then you’re in for a shock. First of all, the Greeks were making seminal contributions to empirical science 300 years before your sad little brand of mythology fanboyism even existed. Aristotle provided a good few of these, despite the limitations of his historical epoch.
Second, a good few of your fellow mythology fanboys in the past, actively engaged in the suppression of scientific findings, especially if said scientific findings were considered to contradict religious doctrine. Seeing you present Galileo to try and propagate the “Christians invented science” myth is hilariously ironic. But we’re used to seeing your ilk exhibit utterly palsied instances of ignorance and absence of self-awareness of this sort. I don’t even need to bring in Giordano Bruno at this point, though of course a good few here will have him in mind as they read this, and of course he is relevant to what is to follow …
Third, in case you never paid attention in history classes, one of the main reasons that scientists in the past made sycophantic noises about your imaginary cartoon magic man, was for reasons of personal safety. Namely, they didn’t want to end up being barbecued by murderous mythology fanboys, as happened to Giordano Bruno. Whose major “offence” was to offer up a scientific hypothesis, that has been confirmed in spectacular fashion by modern astrophysicists. Namely that the Sun is merely one of untold millons of stars in the universe, and that it’s entirely possible that many of those other stars have planets orbiting them. Apparently, some of your past fellow mythology fanboys had their piss boiled by this suggestion to such an extent, that they thought turning him into a human bonfire was an appropriate response.
Meanwhile, what do we find, now that this threat of being roasted alive by murderous mythology fanboys has been removed from developed societies? Oh wait, what we find is that scientists are tossing your imaginary cartoon magic man into the bin in record numbers. As we learn in this article in the peer reviewed journal Nature, viz:
[Citation: Leading Scientists Still Reject God by Edward J. Larson & Larriy Witham, Nature, 394: 313 (23rd July 1998)]
Note that the paper is a free download from the journal (click the PDF link at the top left of the page).
Learn quickly this lesson - reality destroys the smug, complacent myths you’re coming here to propagandise for.
Just noticed more bullshit to deal with from our mythology fanboy.
Complete and utter bullshit.
Mathematics deals in proof of consistency with axioms and prior theorems, established by a rigorous deductive process. No fucking “faith” involved.
Astronomy deals in observational data. No fucking “faith” involved.
Once again, stop lying.
You obviously don’t understand what Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem actually states. Strap yourself in for the requisite education
What said theorem actually states, is that any formal axiomatic system at least as powerful as elementary number theory, is consistent only if it is incomplete. He proved this by demonstrating that there exist propositions of such formal systems, whose truth value cannot be derived within the same formal systems. It doesn’t for one moment state that those propositions cannot be thus elucidated in a different formal system, because each formal system has its own unique collection of undecidable propositions.
Indeed, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem actually provides astute mathematicians with another avenue of attack with respect to hard problems. This is how it works. When Gödel formulated his Incompleteness Theorem, he defined the Gödel Number as a number corresponding to a proposition that was provably true within the formal system in question. He defined a Boolean function, S(x), which is true if and only if x is the Gödel number of a provably true proposition within the formal system under consideration. His proof came about by demonstrating that there existed a special proposition P, such that ~S(x) is true, given a suitable value of x. It turns out that the special proposition P is actually ~S(p), where p is the Gödel number corresponding to ~S(p) itself.
Now since we know that p is the Gödel number corresponding to ~S(p), this means that ~S(p) is true if and only if ~S(p) is undecidable.
As a corollary, undecideable propostions under the Gödel construction are in a sense true, but they cannot be determined to be thus directly within the formal system giving rise to them. However, if you can use analysis in a different formal system, to determine that the proposition of interest is undecidable within the previous formal system, then this constititues a de facto proof that said proposition is indeed true.
Using Gödelian undecidability as a roundabout method of proving the truth of difficult propositions, has been a tool in the armoury of astute and sophisticated mathematicians for decades.
Oh, and another approach mathematicians have taken, is to derive new formal systems, in which the undecidable propositions of an earlier formal system are AXIOMS in the new system.
Once again, no fucking “faith” involved.
Er, no.
Let’s take dark matter. I’ll leave dark energy to one side until I’ve read up properly on the subject, so that I’m speaking from a position of knowledge instead of hubristic ignorance. Dark matter, on the other hand, I already know something about. Once again, strap yourself in.
The concept of dark matter arose in an interesting manner. Basically, using known details of the operation of gravity, and applying them to simulations of galaxies into which the observable, visible mass was introduced, led to an unfortunate discovery. Namely, that said simulations did not reproduce observed galaxy rotation curves.
Needless to say, scientists were not best pleased with this finding, and told them that they were missing something in their models. At which point, one enterprising scientist decided to try, purely as an experiment, adding a spherical halo of extra mass to the model. When this was done, lo and behold, the model reproduced with high fidelity, the galaxy rotation cirves observed from real galaxies.
It was this development that led to the concept of “dark matter”. Simply adding mass to your model isn’t an extraordinary step to take on its own, because we already know that entities possessing mass exist, and in abundance. What was new, however, was that the missing mass introduced into the model, did not correspond to any prior observable. Why hadn’t astronomers seen that extra mass in their telescopes?
That’s when the dark matter hypothesis was launched.
Now we know, from the world of particle physics, that there are a range of elementary particles. We also know that some of those particles have interesting behaviours. Let’s take neutrinos, for example. Being electrically neutral (zero charge), they don’t engage in interactions with the electromagnetic force, and indeed are so inert in this regard, that they can pass right through the entire mass of Planet Earth without being brought to a halt, except on very rare occasions. One force that they do interact with is the weak nuclear force, and it’s interactions therewith that result in the occasional neutrino being brought to a halt. But, those interactions with matter are occasional, and very rarely observed.
In addition, attempts to detect neutrinos interacting with matter are complicated by the manner in which other interactions can produce deceptively similar signals, if they are not weeded out. Which is why neutrino detectors are sensitive, sophisticated and very expensive pieces of equipment constructed several miles beneath the Earth’s surface, in order to screen out the myriad of other interactions that could result in false positive signals.
As a corollary, we already have a precedent for a particle that does not engage in interactions with the electromagnetic force, in the form of the neutrino. Postulating the existence of another such particle, therefore, is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis, given that we already have said precedent.
Now of course, from the standpoint of the Standard Model of Particle Physics, we do have a problem. Namely, that model describes, with at times terrifying accuracy, the behaviour of all the observable particles thus far reliably encountered. The dark matter hypothesis, in effect, constitutes a declaration that the Standard Model is incomplete, and that there exists at least one new type of particle with a completely new behaviour. Namely, that the only force it interacts with is gravity. Which is the reason why it hasn’t been observed before - it simply doesn’t engage in any direct interaction with photons at all.
But, the hypothesis that it does interact directly with gravity, and by dint of possessing mass, induces observable spacetime curvature, means that we can test for its existence, by looking for said observable spacetime curvature, via various gravitational lensing phenomena. Indeed, Einstein told us quite handily in past work, what sort of imagery to look for in our telescopes, in order to determine if gravitational lensing actually takes place in the real, observable universe, and lo and behold, gravitational lensing instances connected with other phenomena have been catalogued in some abundance.
Gravitational Lensing: A Unique Probe Of Dark Matter And Dark Energy by Richard S. Ellis, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 368: 967-987 (13th March 2010) ([Full paper readable directly online here, also downloadable from the same page via the PDF button at right]
was one of the first published to predict the utility value of gravitational lensing as a means of detecting the presence of dark matter. For the diligent, a useful exposition on the matter is handily provided by NASA here. Another paper, this time an arXiv preprint, can be found here, again dating from 2010, which has since appeared in a journal, hence the following citation:
The Dark Matter Of Gravitational Lensing by Richard Massey, Thomas Kitching and Johan Richard, Reports on Progress in Physics, 73(8): 086901 (8th July 2010)
The authos open their exposition with:
Note the part in bold above - namely, that the requisite lensing measurements can tell us much about dark matter density, and the mass and physical volume of individual dark matter particles.
Before moving to the relevant part of the paper, I’ll briefly highlight this earlier part:
The bottom of page 9 onwards covers the measurements that place constraints upon relevant physical parameters of dark matter particles, and though it’s a long and technically intricate read, it’s still highly informative with respect to what astrophysicists learned even 13 years ago.
Meanwhile, more recent literature covers a fair abundance of candidates for what dark matter catually consists of, one interesting candidate consisting of bound pairs of gravitons, which, if this is the case, would not involve extension of the Standard Model, as the graviton is postulated to exist therein. Indeed, one of the interesting outcomes of particle physics, is that only one, unique spin-2 particle can exist, and therefore, the moment such a particle appears in a particle accelerator experiment, that particle is the graviton. Bound graviton states existing independently of surrounding baryonic matter would be possibly the most elegant solution to the matter of what dark matter actually consists of, but of course, elegance doesn’t necessarily imply correspondence with reality. The moment we have hard experimental data telling us this, however, we’re obviously in completely different territory.
So, some questions about dark matter have been answered. The remaining unanswered ones aren’t an excuse to peddle lies about “faith”, especially as scientists are labouring to answer those remaining questions, and with hard experimental data where possible.
So, finally, we come to:
Why do I smell another quote mine here? Provide a detailed citation for where you got this “quote”, or else I’ll be calling for sanctions.
It is from the Micheal Guillen (I’m pretty sure); the 1997 Pigasus scientist award winner. It is awarded to “the scientist who said or did the silliest thing relating to parapsychology in the preceding twelve months”. Guillen won for “work” on astrology and psychokinesis. He is a crackpot.
What on earth is “origin of life people” it sounds like gibberish to me. Natural selection is supported by all the scientific evidence from over 162 years of global scientific scrutiny, even the largest richest most powerful church that’s ever existed has had to accept this fact long ago, though they still try to imply unevidenced magic with no explanatory powers at all is involved of course, as that’s the core of the snake oil they peddle.
You have used known logical fallacies relentlessly, and this one is called an appeal to authority fallacy. You do know everyone is sniggering when you use the word logic and imply it supports your position right?
You do know he was an atheist?
Why are you telling me, you’re the one claiming absolutes, not me, I have told you repeatedly I don’t believe absolutes are possible. You have failed pointedly to offer one as well, hilariously offering physical death, the irony of you believing in an afterlife make that a truly hilarious own goal.
Which part of that are you claiming is incorrect, and what objective evidence can you demonstrate to support your position? Of course peddling a deity with limitless power and knowledge would make it entirely culpable for and indifferent to all suffering, I find that far a far more repugnant notion than the fact we live in an insentient universe that is indifferent to life.
That’s not a fallacy, you are conflating evidence with proof, they’re not the same. The simple fact remains I was not alive for billions of years before I was born, and there is ample evidence to support this position, and none to support your claim I was alive before I was born, wich is of course the larger claim to boot.
Life
noun
the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
Meanwhile, on a totally different topic, but one that’s still relevant to the dismantling of mythology fanboy bullshit …
Over on the AR Facebook page, one of the usual memes mocking the “global flood” drivel was posted, and a poster by the name of Dean Forster came up with an interesting idea.
Namely, that after around 18 months at sea on an extra 9,000 metres of water, what’s the likelihood that the fantasy floating petting zoo would still be in the vicinity of the Middle East, when the “flood waters” finally receded?
His guess was that it would more likely end up thousands of miles away, and suggested Japan as a possible terminal point for the journey.
At which point I suggested this would make a wonderful opportunity to trash the whole “global flood” drivel via a computer simulation. Set a boat adrift on the simulated “flood waters”, and see where it ends up after 18 months drifting on the surface.
I suggested this could even be turned into a sweepstake style game - place your bets and guess where the boat will end up.
Atheism is built on logic and science. All truth claims can be tested by logic or science. As logic has no place at its table for God, you chose science. Where exactly does God fit into science, except as an unnecessary hypothesis?
Ohhhhh, I think perhaps that should be limited to a personal declaration. I’ve met atheists who were batshit crazy, on here some of them. Also all newborn babies are atheists, and I doubt their lack of belief has anything to do with science or logic. I think science and logic certainly don’t evidence any deity, and many claims religions make are demonstrated to be false by various scientific facts.
Well logic can certainly tell you if a claim or assertion is sound, and this can only be the case if both it’s premises and conclusion are true. Science is limited to empirical data, so it can’t test the truth of claims that offer none obviously. This is why falsifiability is a basic requirement of the method, and unfalsifiable claims are discarded as unscientific, since there is no way to know if they are false or not.
Well that depends on the deity being discussed, and the associated claims, not all claims about deities are unfalsifiable of course, for example based on the overwhelming objective evidence it is an irrefutable scientific fact that all living things evolved slowly over vast periods, ispo fact they are at odds with myths depicting humans being created in an instant in their current form using inexplicable magic, that itself has no explanatory powers whatsoever. Though of course I would disbelieve such a claim as a matter of course anyway, even without any explanation to counter the claim with.
The geological record demonstrates unequivocally that no global flood has ever occurred, this falsifies the Noah flood myth, So in both cases unless you’re prepared to either torture the texts into a new meaning that differs entirely from what is written, or subjectively interpret it as metaphor, which to me refutes entirely the claim it is the immutable word of a perfect deity, with limitless power and knowledge. Again I would disbelieve the claim anyway, as no objective evidence can be demonstrated for it at all.
