No universal constant.

[TMA_1]

many people say that we are to "reason" in this life, and that anything outside of reason is subject to illogical thought processes.

If that is so, why is reason logical? Reason is what we make of it. Now if we had a perfect human (even though we dont know what perfection truly is) then we could descern what is truth and what is untruth. Still though we are subject to our senses, and our senses are imperfect and therefore are questionable. The universe is not a perfect mechanical clock, and often our thoughts about the universe are subject to change. This is why we have the scientific method. This teaches us that we have no true constant! It shows us that there must be some objective truth, but that we will never know it. Still though we try to reason and slowly find more and more pieces of that truth for understanding and knowledge of this universe. I have talked to some people about this, a biology professor at Western Washington University, and a physics teacher here at my community college. They state that the search for a universe without God is exactly like searching for a universe that requires a God. they both said to my suprise that many scientists are theists. One of them said "Since there is no evidance of a true independant universe, a primal force is the only working explanation for the universe." They said that a good scientist is a theist, and that it is one of many working models for how this universe works. It is no worse than an athiest scientist that believes this universe is an independant one since they are all subject to lack of information. We cant travel back in time and find direct evidance either way so that theism is a good working model. It does not contridict any evidance out there so it isnt disproven.

I like how 3001 stated it. Written by aurther C. Clarke, it states that the model of beliefs is non-religious theism. Since there is nothing and probably never will be anything to explain the beginnings of this universe with direct evidance, than theism is one of the few working models.

I just thought about this and it isnt a silly idea. at least I dont think.

a little side note too. If a God does exist, in whatever manifestation it might have, it then truly exists. That is just plain logic, might sound stupid but its true. Therefore if a God does exist then religion isnt a required attachement to this God. Religion is a form of worship of this being, in any sort of fashion you wish to do this in. Why religion is attached to a God of any sort is beyond me. Religion is just one of many ways of searching for a primal force. Many people are flawed to think that a God requires a religion to follow whatever it may be. If a God does exist, than it is a reality and therefore is a truth if it does exist. So arguments against theism such as "you know they are talking about GOd" and other quotes taken from scientists show the silliness of some of them. That God does not require a religion if God is real.

[Acriku]

I don't think that the scientific method tells us that there is an objective truth out there, please explain further?

A good scientist is a theist? This is one of the most rediculous things ever muttered. Whether you apply your scientific methods to your personal beliefs or not, your personal beliefs may not have anything to do with the skill of your work. How does the theist model work? In what form does it work, and what comes out of this work?

Being a good scientist is not letting personal beliefs and agendas affect your endeavors and works, where you can achieve as much objective knowledge as possible. Where you can search the universe with as few as possible personal assumptions, no misuse or deliberate faulting of data, where whatever is found is found as-is, and left for the community to come to their own conclusions as you did yours. A theist can do this, and an atheist can do this (more easily, in my own opinion).

I beg to differ as to the beginnings of our universe. Technology is increasing, and our knowledge is as well. Scientists have been working on recreating the primordial soup, here, and while there is more work to do on it, it is very promising. It also tells us that we are still searching, and finding, more about our universe. So what told you that the truth of our beginning, universally, is untouchable?

I agree religion and God are not mutually inclusive, though.

[TMA_1]

the primordial soup theory is going out the window and you know it, they are moving more towards the idea of clay that contained high amounts of amino acids, it would be too volitile in a "soup".

It isnt a matter of personal agendas. Think about it this way. Since there is just heresay about the origins of the universe, and that we dont specifically know how it works, we can base the assumption that there was a primal force that started the ball rolling. till there is conclusive evidance, there is no need to attack that idea. I cant fully support this though as I am extremely biased with me being a christian and all.lol

The way I was taught in physics class is that the scientific method is there to constantly hold all theories of science under a watchful gaze, and to constantly retest and reprove, coming up with new and better ideas that seem to be more plausable and have more direct or indirect evidance supporting them. It is the way science stays pure and objective. It is the way in which there is no stagnation and that the search for the ultimate truth comes closer and closer, no matter how impossible that absolute truth is to find.

[Acriku]

the primordial soup theory is going out the window and you know it, they are moving more towards the idea of clay that contained high amounts of amino acids, it would be too volitile in a "soup".

That wasn't the point. That's the thing about science. Even if a theory is "going out the window", it is not going out the window. Parts of it can be kept, or the backbone of it. Nothing is buried. You should read the article, it's pretty interesting.

Since there is just heresay about the origins of the universe, and that we dont specifically know how it works, we can base the assumption that there was a primal force that started the ball rolling. till there is conclusive evidance, there is no need to attack that idea.

But there isn't hearsay. There's background radiation, star logs, radio waves, etc, and more is being discovered. But let's say we can find out what happened up to the .000000000000001 of a second afterwards, and anything before that is lost. Can we really base an assumption that a force started it? Sure maybe in your personal life, but what does that give us in the lab?

[TMA_1]

But there isn't hearsay. There's background radiation, star logs, radio waves, etc, and more is being discovered. But let's say we can find out what happened up to the .000000000000001 of a second afterwards, and anything before that is lost. Can we really base an assumption that a force started it? Sure maybe in your personal life, but what does that give us in the lab?

How does that disprove God? maybe you are interfering with your personal life.

[Acriku]

Who said anything about disproving any god? You claim a god exists, you prove it.

[TMA_1]

that is the whole reason why you posted.lol I was expressing that theism was a totally valid idea, you attacked against it, so I retorted. This isnt about disproving or proving that God exists, and it isnt about evidance since we dont have any direct evidance to prove that God did or did not help the process of creation. or that a God does or does not exist. you gave data that shows many features of the universe, but it doesnt have anything to do with the argument at hand.

[Acriku]

I attacked your friend's statement that good scientists are theists. And since we're on the subject of validity, I do not think theism is a valid idea. It's the belief, without evidence, the opposite of being valid.

And do you think mathematics is a constant?

[Caid Ivik]

Somewhere we have constants, somewhere not. But why there shouldn't be constants to count the variables? Like equations showing positions of lines in 3D+ space. This universe is limited, altough we know how to count only one, the beginning. We have borders, now its just a matter of time, until we'll find what we need.

[TMA_1]

so how you are speaking acriku, are the various laws that we have set on the universe fact?

Caid: Because how do we know our math is correct? some of the stuff we use is extremely hard to understand and has even been flawed many times.

This is what I mean. Newton for example believed that the planets were pushed along by angels. For example aristotle thought that space wasent a vacuum, but that it was inhabited by a fifth element called ether. For example, We thought that the universe was a globular one, only until radical theories like a flat universe or a bent universe did we see that the universe might be totally different. how many times do I have to say it. Science isnt exact, It changes along with the new changes in ideas that scientists have, based upon dismantling the old ones.

For example, scientists are right now trying desperately to prove einstiens theories on the universe wrong, and it is pretty apparent now that he did make some major mistakes. It isnt anything personal, it is just that science is based upon correcting and building upon the ideas of the past, so that we may be more accurate. You portray science completely differently.

There is no constant, if there was we wouldnt need to constantly evolve and rethink our science. we would set a pattern that the universe is based on and work from there. The universe is chaotic though, and that makes me assume there is no constant that we know of.

[Dude_Doc]

Hey, wasn't it Eisntein who said himself: "Religion without science is blind, science without religion is foolish"?

[TMA_1]

I dont particularly agree with that, since I think they are both similar paths to understanding god consciousness. I think that they can only be mixed into one, or not at all.

[Duneguy]

==From the ranting and raving of a tired, mt. dew wired, DUNEGUY!!!==

alright these are the times i think the best. alright the way i look at it.. if u are a scientist with religion, thats great, but everything has a begining. if you believe that god in fact made the universe, then what/who made GOD? had to come from somewhere......

also there are scientist out there who leave religion out. they look for hard facts. ages of star's systems' and every little nitty gritty thing they can find about the universe, and its origins..

but hey, neither has SOLID facts of either once being true. no one will ever know yet we will still search. its just a matter of opinion on what u believe.

i am neither with or against the ideas, yet part of me is with each one of them. the thing is ok everything has a begining, what did that stuff start with.. what did the stuff that the stuff made with come from and so on and so forth. its a never ending struggle for knowledge that we will most likely never gain. we will think we have found the reason but years later someone else will come prove it to be totally wrong and the quest continues for more years back and forth..... never ending..

anyhow there is no universal constant.............hell i dont even remember what this thread is about by this time.. well adios..

[Dude_Doc]

alright these are the times i think the best. alright the way i look at it.. if u are a scientist with religion, thats great, but everything has a begining. if you believe that god in fact made the universe, then what/who made GOD? had to come from somewhere......

The question "from what" is impossible. If there would always be something prior to the present (prior to the creation of the universe etc.), then we would never find out where everything started, because there is no start because there must always be something before the start. That's where (my, at least) beliefs comes from. I belive "Heaven", as many of us would like to call it, is timeless. It's a little bit hard to explain, but it is only us humans that are limited to this universe. Maybe that's why we all have souls, we use them when we "accomplish" this life.

[nemafakei]

"There is no constant, if there was we wouldnt need to constantly evolve and rethink our science. we would set a pattern that the universe is based on and work from there. The universe is chaotic though, and that makes me assume there is no constant that we know of"

Whatever the exact rules of the univverse are (and they are probably most precisely using the concept of the 'small fast' view of the universe - quantum relativity), just because we are far from knowing them, and our views change constantly does not mean that the rules themselves change, only that we are not very good at working it all out.

You'll also find that it is mostly a case of refining our models; the 'solar system' model of an atom is good enough for a lot of chemistry, whereas we have developed closer models which still explain the previous, but are more detailed, to account for complicated things like the Photo-electric effect.

[DukeLeto]

Hey, wasn't it Eisntein who said himself: "Religion without science is blind, science without religion is foolish"?

Ah, but Thomas Edison said: "Religion is all bunk."

Karl Marx: "Religion...is the opium of the masses."

etc...

[Dante]

I admit, I haven't read all of the above posts (I'm in something of a hurry), but I do have a point to make.

We were considering this in Philosophy class recently, and I came away from it with the impression that there are in fact two universal truths. I.e. There are two rules that no matter what, will always be true.

1) The Merovingian's Causality, copied from Newton. action, reaction. Cause, and effect. When an action, any action happens, there will always be a reaction. Something will happen. Even if that something is nothing, nothing will have happened, and so therefore that is a reaction too, if an unlikely one.

2) There will always be an action. No matter what, there will always be something happening. Even in the depths of space gravity is pulling, inside an atom electromagnetism crackles (not literally). Before the beginning and after the end (not in a religious sense), there will have been and will be actions and reactions from the past, future and present.

[Egeides]

"Good scientists are theist" vs "Good scientists are detached from what their beliefs"

I say the problematic is perhaps un-universalized in the first quote and not answered correctly in the second:

"Good scientists are the one attached to truth", not the one who are detached!

Some mathematicians would add "attached to beauty", but this is perhaps more complex... ???

[Dude_Doc]

Even if that something is nothing, nothing will have happened, and so therefore that is a reaction too, if an unlikely one

But that doesn't explain the upcoming of the universe. Something must have had a bigger action, to make a bigger reaction, which is our universe.

[sneezer3]

Not really. If you look at God has an infinite beeing he requires no cause....

[SurlyPIG]

Using that logic it could also be true that the universe is infinite and requires no cause...

Of course, "infinite" in this sense refers to time and not size.

[TMA_1]

God exists out of time and is therefor timeless. it isnt like he was sitting there for millions of years and went, "hmm, I should create something".lol Think about it in the sense that to GOd, he see's in the future and past all in the now, but not really like that, in a totally different perspective, he also understands things we cant comprehend like existing outside of timespace ocnstraints.

[Caid Ivik]

Hey, wasn't it Eisntein who said himself: "Religion without science is blind, science without religion is foolish"?

Einstein was a Jew. He believed in some absolute truth, but wanted also to find a rational description of it. He thought this absolute truth can be found even in science, in physics. For whole life he was searching for some ultimate equation. We have one for matter, maybe it could be used for time too. It is his Talmud, for the already written Tora of world - science doesn't create, it descripts.

[Acriku]

When we couldn't reach the moon, we thought the heavens and god to be in the skies. When we saw nothing, we put god and the heavens outside of space. What hole will the theists dig next?

Me: I have a friend troll that only I could see.

Skeptic: But I can't see him.

Me: He's invisible except to me.

Skeptic: But I can't hear him.

Me: He's very silent, and he floats.

Skeptic: But I can't smell him.

Me: He's not matter, he's a spirit troll, thus doesn't smell.

Skeptic: But how can you only see him?

Me: I have troll sight, an unbeliever cannot understand troll sight and will never see the troll.