THX_1138 Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 Yes you, the world we live in, the Universe , the stars and Galaxy all of which just didnt come to be , something or someone created them and started Time. Can you tell me briefly how you would explain how Time started, what was before it, in other words the starting point? ever heard of st. aquinas? this is the problem with demonstrating a non falsifiable statement: you are stuck with the vestiges of dead and forgotten men who left behind incomplete and inaccurate arguments that must be recycled, reprocessed and re-presented since your side of the argument is so utterly devoid of any new creative ideas. ignoring for a moment that the current universe came into existence from the intersection of symmetry planes, partly because i dont know exactly how to explain it adequately, if the stars and galaxies must require a progenitor, then must this progenitor not require a prior? or do you refuse to apply your hypothesis to this progenitor? stars and nebulae cannot exist out of nothing, but this progenitor can? please macj, you are obviously well read, and fairly intelligent. please make the effort to read a book or two that broadens your perspective. there is much room for eloquent and well versed individuals such as you on this side of the fence. whereas, on the side you currently reside, the ability to recite centuries old literature (and how much money you can part with) is regarded as the supreme qualification for edification.
satishg Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 If Gavaskar says something about cricket ill listen. Likewise Newton and Einstein were scientists who believed in God , so id pay heed to their reasoning. i think couple of posters before me have pointed out this fact, anyway i would reiterate it..Einstein din believe in God, although he was extremely clever when posed questions about his belief in a supernatural force..his agnostic approach could not be easily seen through initially with reference to his comments but once u get to know the mans mind(which is really really tough) a bit more, his statements become extremely clear and does prove the point that he doesn believe in God.. Richard Dawkins has explained this particular thing wrt Einstein outstandingly well in this book. please if u do get time and if u are an open minded person, i suggest u shd give this book a read..its worth it..infact everyone shd read this book is my opinion..
punjabi_khota Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 Actually this demonstrates exactly why you are completely in the dark about some blatantly obvious facts. In the scientific community, there are no sacred cows. there is no particularly revered individual who is believed or touted to be correct on all occasions. Newton was fervently religious for a multitude of reasons, and one of them was his inability to explain/solve the multi-body problem that had presented itself in the form of planets revolving around the sun. he solved the two body problem, invented calculus in the process, solved the three body problem, but thereafter he crumbled. faced with a problem that required signficant computational power, the greatest genius ever surrendered. I am sorry but thats wrong. Newton did not come close to solving the 3 body problem. Poincare was the first one to get ANYWHERE w.r.t 3 body problem, and in process, created the field which we know as chaos theory.(which is btw, my research area) :icflove::icflove: The jump from 2 body to 3 body is what caused all the problems and required whole new mathematics to understand. Unlike 2 body problem, the general 3 body problem has no closed form solution. At best, you can get series solutions with bad convergence properties over long time. To understand it physically though, you need tools from chaos theory (or more correctly, dynamical systems theory), which basically involves some geomtery and analysis. :two_thumbs_up:
THX_1138 Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 I am sorry but thats wrong. Newton did not come close to solving the 3 body problem. Poincare was the first one to get ANYWHERE w.r.t 3 body problem, and in process, created the field which we know as chaos theory.(which is btw, my research area) :icflove::icflove: The jump from 2 body to 3 body is what caused all the problems and required whole new mathematics to understand. Unlike 2 body problem, the general 3 body problem has no closed form solution. At best, you can get series solutions with bad convergence properties over long time. To understand it physically though, you need tools from chaos theory (or more correctly, dynamical systems theory), which basically involves some geomtery and analysis. :two_thumbs_up: i was not aware of that, i thought he finished the three body problem, evidently i was mistaken. and curious, where are you doing your research, i took a course in chaotical dynamics but our university's torch bearer in that field just left this past semester!
THX_1138 Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 i think couple of posters before me have pointed out this fact, anyway i would reiterate it..Einstein din believe in God, although he was extremely clever when posed questions about his belief in a supernatural force..his agnostic approach could not be easily seen through initially with reference to his comments but once u get to know the mans mind(which is really really tough) a bit more, his statements become extremely clear and does prove the point that he doesn believe in God.. Richard Dawkins has explained this particular thing wrt Einstein outstandingly well in this book. please if u do get time and if u are an open minded person, i suggest u shd give this book a read..its worth it..infact everyone shd read this book is my opinion.. what you might have meant to say is that einstein subscribed the spinoza-n notion of god. i.e. label the un-understood, unexplored as a 'god' and thereafter employ resources to explain and understand the workings of this divine entity. that is not a belief is god, its just what one refers to as "the god of gaps" approach, without the elaborate literature. but i commend you for an honest portrayal of the facts, often people here twist and turn stuff to fit their rhetoric. i am sure i am guilty of the same at some point of time, but i assure you, now is not one of those occasions.
triam Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 Yes you, the world we live in, the Universe , the stars and Galaxy all of which just didnt come to be , something or someone created them and started Time. Can you tell me briefly how you would explain how Time started, what was before it, in other words the starting point? Me and outsider created everything one day (some thousands years ago) after we got bored talking to each other, it hardly took us half a day. Time started when we said together "Deus Ex Machina". Now either prove me wrong or pay your obesiance.
satishg Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 what you might have meant to say is that einstein subscribed the spinoza-n notion of god. i.e. label the un-understood, unexplored as a 'god' and thereafter employ resources to explain and understand the workings of this divine entity. that is not a belief is god, its just what one refers to as "the god of gaps" approach, without the elaborate literature. but i commend you for an honest portrayal of the facts, often people here twist and turn stuff to fit their rhetoric. i am sure i am guilty of the same at some point of time, but i assure you, now is not one of those occasions. dude, i have followed your thoughts on atheism for quite some time in this forum and i have certainly admired most of your posts on this particular topic. Although i am an atheist, i certainly lack the credentials to qualify for a well rounded debate on this topic compared to you or triam or CC1981 (well i think CC is more of an agnostic kind than atheist) with the theist group. Anyway what i am trying to say is, you guys have given me more food for thought on this particular topic and its been a pleasure to read the posts you guys make on spirituality and also offer a reasonable scientific point of view to your thoughts :two_thumbs_up:
pan_walla Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 Me and outsider created everything one day (some thousands years ago) after we got bored talking to each other, it hardly took us half a day. Time started when we said together "Deus Ex Machina". I can confirm the above story. I was there and saw it all from behind the bush :two_thumbs_up:
triam Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 I can confirm the above story. I was there and saw it all from behind the bush :two_thumbs_up: Pan_Walla, we hereby authorize you to go forth and spread our message to the people of the world, for this you will be granted eternal gratification, with unlimited access to alcohol and hooters girls.:angelic::angelic:
The Outsider Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 Me and outsider created everything one day (some thousands years ago) after we got bored talking to each other, it hardly took us half a day. Time started when we said together "Deus Ex Machina". Now either prove me wrong or pay your obesiance. Ok I've had enough. You are trying to plagiarize my teachings yet again. I refer this to Flamy and h4te who created us both. :giggle:
triam Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 dude' date=' i have followed your thoughts on atheism for quite some time in this forum and i have certainly admired most of your posts on this particular topic. Although i am an atheist, i certainly lack the credentials to qualify for a well rounded debate on this topic compared to you or [b']triam or CC1981 (well i think CC is more of an agnostic kind than atheist) with the theist group. Anyway what i am trying to say is, you guys have given me more food for thought on this particular topic and its been a pleasure to read the posts you guys make on spirituality and also offer a reasonable scientific point of view to your thoughts :two_thumbs_up: Dude Im small fry, the real bigwigs are Dhondy, the prof aka outsider etc, CC was good too (although I have had my differences with him.)
triam Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 Ok I've had enough. You are trying to plagiarize my teachings yet again. I refer this to Flamy and h4te who created us both. :giggle: ahhh, h4te and flamy the original alpha and omega. I surrender:pray:
DomainK Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 This discussion will lead us nowhere. We will anyways hold on to our own beliefs .... unless something happens in our lives to shake us out of that belief. Atheism and theism, for the common man, is always based on an assumption. Not on proof. Its different for scholars who have tried to find proof either way and base their belief on the findings. Gautam Buddha was an atheist, but not without knowledge. A saint had said, "If you think God exists, prove it. If you think God does not exist, prove it. In finding the proof, you will gain knowledge. If you find God, you will become Shankaracharya. If you don't find God, you will become Gautam Buddha. But either way, you will gain invaluable knowledge of the ultimate truth.
THX_1138 Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 This discussion will lead us nowhere. We will anyways hold on to our own beliefs .... unless something happens in our lives to shake us out of that belief. Atheism and theism, for the common man, is always based on an assumption. Not on proof. Its different for scholars who have tried to find proof either way and base their belief on the findings. Gautam Buddha was an atheist, but not without knowledge. A saint had said, "If you think God exists, prove it. If you think God does not exist, prove it. In finding the proof, you will gain knowledge. If you find God, you will become Shankaracharya. If you don't find God, you will become Gautam Buddha. But either way, you will gain invaluable knowledge of the ultimate truth. to an extent yes. beyond a certain age, only catastrophic events can reinforce a previously existent, though possibily subdued belief. but the transition is rarely ever from absolute atheism to theism. the slippery slope of rationality only permits one way traffic: from ignorance to rationalism and acknowledgment of a remarkable possibility - this is the only life we shall ever lead, there is no judgment thereafter, except during this life, and at the end of the day one is as alone as the number one.
THX_1138 Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 This discussion will lead us nowhere. We will anyways hold on to our own beliefs .... unless something happens in our lives to shake us out of that belief. Atheism and theism, for the common man, is always based on an assumption. Not on proof. Its different for scholars who have tried to find proof either way and base their belief on the findings. Gautam Buddha was an atheist, but not without knowledge. A saint had said, "If you think God exists, prove it. If you think God does not exist, prove it. In finding the proof, you will gain knowledge. If you find God, you will become Shankaracharya. If you don't find God, you will become Gautam Buddha. But either way, you will gain invaluable knowledge of the ultimate truth. while i completely agree that if one thinks that god exists, one must prove it if they advertise that particular belief, any attempt to do so will at the very least lead to a considerable gain of knowledge... on the other hand, i am not sure if i agree with the statement that if one does not think that god exists, one must prove it, regardless of how much they advertise or dont advertise their belief. the existence of an all powerful progenitor is a significant claim and must be supported with a legion of evidence, since the probability of such an entity not existing is much higher. furthermore, the lack of evidence is self sufficient and does not require further evidence to the contrary. let me put it this way, if a particular statement is not supported by evidence, there is no need to conclusively demonstrate that the statement is false. the lack of any supporting evidence is adequate in abasing the statement to a much lower, insignificant level. i know a few of you people will be quite displeased by the above, even label it duplicitous, but its just it! everything that you do not observe to be possibly true, you do not set out to disprove! we dont see any evidence to suggest that plants communicate with each other, yet, there has never been an attempt to conclusively disprove the statement that "plants communicate with each other". however, if one believes that "plants communicate with each other", and chooses to prove it so, the subsequent study of botany and cell biochemistry is likely to be very enlightening!
THX_1138 Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 dude' date=' i have followed your thoughts on atheism for quite some time in this forum and i have certainly admired most of your posts on this particular topic. Although i am an atheist, i certainly lack the credentials to qualify for a well rounded debate on this topic compared to you or triam or CC1981 (well i think CC is more of an agnostic kind than atheist) with the theist group. Anyway what i am trying to say is, you guys have given me more food for thought on this particular topic and its been a pleasure to read the posts you guys make on spirituality and also offer a reasonable scientific point of view to your thoughts :two_thumbs_up:[/quote'] you give me too much credit. i only reprocess previously gained knowledge. little of what i say is my own creation! being erudite is not equivalent to being intelligent. most of the approaches i employ to attempt to dispel arguments for theism are handiwork of philosophers such as spinoza and the numerous others who have analyzed descartes, with a few physicists tossed into the mix.
triam Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 This discussion will lead us nowhere. We will anyways hold on to our own beliefs .... unless something happens in our lives to shake us out of that belief. Atheism and theism, for the common man, is always based on an assumption. Not on proof. Its different for scholars who have tried to find proof either way and base their belief on the findings. Gautam Buddha was an atheist, but not without knowledge. A saint had said, "If you think God exists, prove it. If you think God does not exist, prove it. In finding the proof, you will gain knowledge. If you find God, you will become Shankaracharya. If you don't find God, you will become Gautam Buddha. But either way, you will gain invaluable knowledge of the ultimate truth. Domainink, I agree that changing beliefs is not easy and nobody should be coerced into that, converting a theist to an atheist is possible but I would not do it, it is life altering and people can be really affected by that. This discussion was more specific in that, be it a theist or atheist, you cannot support creationism being taught as science and in schools. Secondly, the bolded part of your statement is wrong, you cant prove a negative, can you disprove this statement "Some bears somewhere in the world live inside some refrigerators" ?? it is practically impossible to open and check all the refrigerators in the world to check for a bear, and even if you do it is easy to rebuff to say that the bear stepped out when you checked a refrigerator. So the solution is to make a rational leap, after observing some bears and some refrigerators, to make the statement "Bears dont live in refrigerators", now the onus is on the people who claim that bears live in refrigerators to prove their statement and not the other way around. Hope this helps.
DomainK Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 First, thats not what I said, I quoted someone else (nameless). Second, there is a difference between "I don't believe God exists" and "God does not exist". When you negate what a majority of people in this world so strongly believe, you just don't dismiss it without ever trying to find out the alternative possibility. I am not saying that the majority is always true....after all once upon a time it was a majority opinion that the world is flat or that the sun revolved round the earth. I would never ask you to go and prove that God does not exist because I myself never took the pain to try and prove conclusively that God does exist. Who am I to tell another about God? That's for scholars, learned people who have taken the pains to find things out. In a discussion like this, I just state my opinion and don't venture beyond that.
THX_1138 Posted June 23, 2009 Posted June 23, 2009 First, thats not what I said, I quoted someone else (nameless). Second, there is a difference between "I don't believe God exists" and "God does not exist". When you negate what a majority of people in this world so strongly believe, you just don't dismiss it without ever trying to find out the alternative possibility. I am not saying that the majority is always true....after all once upon a time it was a majority opinion that the world is flat or that the sun revolved round the earth. I would never ask you to go and prove that God does not exist because I myself never took the pain to try and prove conclusively that God does exist. Who am I to tell another about God? That's for scholars, learned people who have taken the pains to find things out. In a discussion like this, I just state my opinion and don't venture beyond that. the statement that is being made is not "I dont believe god exists" or even "god does not exist", the observation (not statement) is that "There is no evidence to suggest the existence of god". now that permits one to conclude (till the arrival of new evidence) that the god concept is flawed. yet there is no neccessitating need to establish firmly the statement: "god does not exist". I hope you understand what i am trying to state! its not that i am negating any statement! I am simply stating that if there is no evidence to suggest the existence/truth of a particular hypothesis, that is not a proof that the hypothesis is incorrect or flawed. it simply suggests that the hypothesis is insignificant. it might one day be established as fact, or it might have supporting evidence to merit a re-examination, but today is not that day.
Recommended Posts