Reasoning faith

[cyberpi]

I sense something right and something wrong in that Tao of Babel and Tower of Yurtles.

 

[wil]

Thank you Tao, that was as fine a compliment as I've ever received! But heck yeah, I'll take the brownie- and thanks!

...We have observed that there is a stack of turtles ...All the turtles seem to have a purpose, and that is...getting stacked. ...
Chris

maybe a bit premature

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

The brownie?

Chris

 

[Tao_Equus]

I can't ignore it... I make use of it. I am an engineer. It is involved in all aspects of engineering. Everything requires energy, including every measurement. If you know of another way then I submit that engineering schools all across the world and scientists would like to hear of it.

In the case of quantum particles that create mass and energy when they miraculously appear as pairs sharing the same information, then disappear without trace again, what laws of thermodynamics are you going to use to explain it? Or in the case of super-cooled fluids or super-dense supercooled matter like that a black hole is composed of as I understand it the laws of thermodynamics and gravity go to pot. So while in your field of engineering it may well be these 'laws' are important but they are not universal. Even in human endeavour we have found exceptions.

As long as you see that you are then opposed to calling anything a proof or a scientific law, and that everything empirical including all of measured science favors those two statements. I agree with you that faith or blind hope is involved in all things simply for the fact that people do not and can not test everything and see everything at every time and at every place. However, for example Newton's measurement of laws have withstood many tests. Every day that I have woken up I have felt gravity. The laws measured by science have been upheld when they have been tested, or new theories are developed to account for differing observations. Nothing I have learned in college or tested on my own has defeated either one of those two statements.

You see I am not a scientist, nor an engineer, nor a theologian. I am just me putting my own thoughts down on things based on the best, most logical ideas I see floated. I have no blanket reverence for what science says but I do see some of its ideas turned into practical experiments based on theories that evolve by generation. In our lifetimes we have seen amazing advances in almost every field and I think this is in large part due to us over the past 2 centuries removing theology from the equation.

Thomas seeks to reverse this, he attempts to regurgitate the long rejected, that simply never worked except by those committed to believe in supernatural dogmas.

The science I am most attracted to is that that tries to fathom the true nature of space/time. Because after all there is no bigger question. And in some senses it is a quest to disprove God. Science is a long way from doing this, currently our model is forced to invoke the existence into our universe of some 96% of dark matter and energy, as a percentage of total mass, to make any sense of gravity. Its the trendy theory but I think its crap and its about time they did away with the idea of the Big Bang being the cause of the universe. As I have stated elsewhere I tend toward the idea that the Big Bang event to be a local event causing local distortions (laws). And recent observational data supports certain things I have been saying for some time, such as basing size and velocity on type 1A supernovae and red shift readings to be a flawed method. I think the true nature, the underlying nature, of things cannot and will not be discovered by the study of local laws. Of course local laws are fundamental to our existence and we can measure them to great accuracy but increasingly we discover they are not universal. This is my point.

But I am quite certain that it is possible... by God.

Not the tooth fairy or santa ?

As an engineer I strive to design to perfection, which involves determining what a person wants or needs. They tell me the degree of perfection in the results and I compare it with my own measure.

This is not the definition of perfection Aquinas intended and you know it. Stop trying to move the goalposts to suit your need. Incidentally, you will never achieve perfection...agreed?

I did not ignore your words, "No they do not", but I am happy to if you wish. If there is ANY natural body in the world that does not act for ends, then I'd surely like to hear of it. Hopefully you have empirical evidence posited or possible to posit? I seek your evidence for your statement, "No they do not". Please provide.

A rock is a natural body. What is its ends? How does it act to achieve them? Given the level of understanding of basic local laws such as gravity that Aquinas had try and answer them in his flat Earth thinking. Good luck.

Tao

 

[flowperson]

Mmmmm...brownies ! Local or non-local ?

 

[cyberpi]

In the case of quantum particles that create mass and energy when they miraculously appear as pairs sharing the same information, then disappear without trace again, what laws of thermodynamics are you going to use to explain it?

Quantum mechanics like the rest of science has it that energy is neither created nor destroyed.

Or in the case of super-cooled fluids or super-dense supercooled matter like that a black hole is composed of as I understand it the laws of thermodynamics and gravity go to pot.

To cool a liquid requires removing the heat. The theories of Black holes have been made by applying thermodynamics to them:
Black hole thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So while in your field of engineering it may well be these 'laws' are important but they are not universal. Even in human endeavour we have found exceptions.

What exceptions? No evidence provided? It strikes me as odd that to defend a religion of science you now have to deny that it applies to everything.

In our lifetimes we have seen amazing advances in almost every field and I think this is in large part due to us over the past 2 centuries removing theology from the equation.

Possibly, or the advances came from God. Afterall, the innovative ideas don't just grow on trees... do they?

Thomas seeks to reverse this, he attempts to regurgitate the long rejected, that simply never worked except by those committed to believe in supernatural dogmas.

Determinism was rejected by experiment in the 20th century, yet you are holding onto it as if it were a fact.

The science I am most attracted to is that that tries to fathom the true nature of space/time. Because after all there is no bigger question. And in some senses it is a quest to disprove God.

Study away... I see science verifying God.

Of course local laws are fundamental to our existence and we can measure them to great accuracy but increasingly we discover they are not universal. This is my point.

So much for this religion of science then. By your words faith or blind hope is a necessity.

A rock is a natural body. What is its ends? How does it act to achieve them?

Maximum entropy. Following thermodynamics.

Given the level of understanding of basic local laws such as gravity that Aquinas had try and answer them in his flat Earth thinking. Good luck.

What Aquinas was saying is that while his body obeys gravity like a rock, that he is somehow different than the rock. Per your request, he provided 5 reasons:

1. He can will to move rocks without being moved by rocks.
2. He can will to cause rocks to move other rocks, without being one of the rocks.
3. He can will to move rocks without reason.
4. He can will to move rocks until they meet a degree of his perfection.
5. He can will to reject rocks, and they still somehow become the key stones.

It all looks scientifically reasonable to me.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Quantum mechanics like the rest of science has it that energy is neither created nor destroyed.

Good. So you are saying that Gods plan is a soup of particles that have reached thermal equilibrium / maximum entropy and in which nothing but nothing can happen. I would call that death. You sure you like this God guy?

To cool a liquid requires removing the heat. The theories of Black holes have been made by applying thermodynamics to them:
Black hole thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hawkins is a theorist and most of his work has not yet been validated by observational data. The Hingepin especially, Hawkins radiation, remains illusive. There is some data from stellar mass black holes but it has not been verified in larger bodies. That aside, it is difficult to imagine a place in which the laws of thermodynamics and entropy do not apply, perhaps modified in some way to be in harmony with the other local rules. Just as these laws you understand much better than I do are subject to change according to the prevailing wisdom. What we call laws are nothing of the kind really, they are no more than the best model we have. That is all science is. But give me that any day over the hocus pocus of theology.

What exceptions? No evidence provided? It strikes me as odd that to defend a religion of science you now have to deny that it applies to everything.

You calling science a religion is indicative only of your own blinkered mindset. Just because you need something to believe in does not mean we all do.
An exception to gravity for example. A Bose-Einstein condensate defies gravity and light speed relativity of a photon passing through.

Possibly, or the advances came from God. Afterall, the innovative ideas don't just grow on trees... do they?

But sometimes they fall out of them. Like for Newton. But on the whole ideas "evolve", yes I know its a horrible nasty word for you to read. It is a fact tho without invoking the faeries.

Determinism was rejected by experiment in the 20th century, yet you are holding onto it as if it were a fact.

Well God knows where you get that idea... oh yeh your hocus pocus polluted mindset. The only persons promoting determinism here are theists.

Study away... I see science verifying God.

And the devil too?

So much for this religion of science then. By your words faith or blind hope is a necessity.

Wrong again. It is you that has to measure everything via your superstitions. I have none. I have no hope and no faith and do not require them. I gave up my sucky blanket when I was 3.

What Aquinas was saying is that while his body obeys gravity like a rock, that he is somehow different than the rock. Per your request, he provided 5 reasons:

1. He can will to move rocks without being moved by rocks.
2. He can will to cause rocks to move other rocks, without being one of the rocks.
3. He can will to move rocks without reason.
4. He can will to move rocks until they meet a degree of his perfection.
5. He can will to reject rocks, and they still somehow become the key stones.

It all looks scientifically reasonable to me.

lol, well it would wouldnt it. You see what you want to see. Don't make it right. And just so you do not get away scott free with it.. I asked as you started about the rock not about Him or him.

I am grateful to you. You are giving me no choice but to go make a decent study of thermodynamics and entropy. I did look over the laws of thermodynamics last time you started trying to beat me into submission with them. I will go a little deeper this time. But forgive me if i do not attach your superstitions to them. Wish me figment of your imagination speed!!!

Tao

 

[cyberpi]

Good. So you are saying that Gods plan is a soup of particles that have reached thermal equilibrium / maximum entropy and in which nothing but nothing can happen. I would call that death. You sure you like this God guy?

That is what Science teaches, and where there is life there must be a potential energy or a non-equilibrium.

Just as these laws you understand much better than I do are subject to change according to the prevailing wisdom. What we call laws are nothing of the kind really, they are no more than the best model we have. That is all science is.

That is all that religion is too. It asserts some laws and are you are either willing or unwilling to learn whether or not they are true.

You calling science a religion is indicative only of your own blinkered mindset. Just because you need something to believe in does not mean we all do.

You express to me science as a religion. Maybe you have a point because I can see that you personally need something to believe in. You jump to subjects like black holes which neither you, nor I, can directly experiment or interact with. It is as if you don't like having me, or science, tell you the way it is... correct?

An exception to gravity for example. A Bose-Einstein condensate defies gravity and light speed relativity of a photon passing through.

The speed of light is less even in air and in water and that is something you can directly experiment with, just like your relationships with people.

But on the whole ideas "evolve", yes I know its a horrible nasty word for you to read. It is a fact tho without invoking the faeries.

You will not evolve anything without first learning it and that is Science 101. It is Science that is largely opposed to 'blind evolution'. Look at the fretting over drug resistance. Look at the fretting over climate change. How many people enjoy an evolving cancer, flu, or computer virus? Evolution is blind my friend.

Wrong again. It is you that has to measure everything via your superstitions. I have none. I have no hope and no faith and do not require them. I gave up my sucky blanket when I was 3.

Then I would expect you to personally perform every experiment that you believe in rather than to place Faith in a scientist and religionist like me.

I am grateful to you. You are giving me no choice but to go make a decent study of thermodynamics and entropy.

Thank you and you have my sincerest welcome. If you like I will ship you a copy of a thermodynamics book that I learned from in a college of engineering.