Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Universe
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697 		  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Universe
    Posted: 23-Feb-2009 at 09:23
Originally posted by edgewaters

In most models it isn't endless. It has finite boundaries at any given point in time. The law of conservation of energy demands it, and the expansion of the universe confirms it. However, because space-time is only a side-effect of light and matter, it is not expanding into an empty space, it is space and it's expanding space itself.

True of course, but by the end of our lives these models probably will have changed a few dozen times.
No, not really. How could it be any other way? Nothing living can survive in deep space, so I would never have occurred there. Unless there is life that has evolved using other heat energies like, say, geothermal processes inside dark bodies (asteroids etc) far outside of solar systems.

I'm not saying it could be any other way. I'm saying that having a sun is pretty amazing.
Originally posted by Goocheslamb

size matters because it explains how small we are. For example ancient people thought that the earth was the center of universe

So what if we are small?
why do you religious folks think that god will be challnged and rebel by a small creature called satan, surely God must be bigger then the universe right?

No on two accounts.
1) Shaytan (Satan) cannot, and did not challenge God (in Islam). Shaytan operates only as God permits it.
2) God is not necessarily bigger or smaller than the universe. The question itself is flawed.

I think you have an anthropo-centric misunderstanding of God. Both what it is, and what is does.
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091 		  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Feb-2009 at 23:28
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

No on two accounts.
1) Shaytan (Satan) cannot, and did not challenge God (in Islam). Shaytan operates only as God permits it.
2) God is not necessarily bigger or smaller than the universe. The question itself is flawed.

I think you have an anthropo-centric misunderstanding of God. Both what it is, and what is does.
 
I would substitue He for "it", but I believe that otherwise this is another similarity between Christianity and Islam. You are quite correct to note that "the question itself is flawed."
 
Although there is a common misperception in the Christian tradition -- I cannot speak for Islam -- that Satan is some kind of adversary of God, this is quite incorrect. God operates as He wills, and according to his own standard, being the stand of being. Satan operates only as He permits, and within the Divine Economy. If Satan has any "adversary" within Christianity, it would be the archangel Michael, who by virtue of his obedience to God is far more powerful than Satan. Satan certainly does not "challenge" God; rather he seeks or believes that he challenges God as a result of his own arrogance.
 
And, as alluded to earlier, the question of whether God is "bigger" or "smaller" than the universe is completely meaningless; rather, He is the standard of Being under which the universe operates -- another belief I believe Christianity and Islam share. Make no mistake: there are differences. Still, the Abrahamic faiths are of one accord with regard to the fundamentals. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Omar, as I very well may be.)
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
Goocheslamb View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 16-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 40 		  Quote Goocheslamb Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 01:09
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Originally posted by edgewaters

In most models it isn't endless. It has finite boundaries at any given point in time. The law of conservation of energy demands it, and the expansion of the universe confirms it. However, because space-time is only a side-effect of light and matter, it is not expanding into an empty space, it is space and it's expanding space itself.

True of course, but by the end of our lives these models probably will have changed a few dozen times.
No, not really. How could it be any other way? Nothing living can survive in deep space, so I would never have occurred there. Unless there is life that has evolved using other heat energies like, say, geothermal processes inside dark bodies (asteroids etc) far outside of solar systems.

I'm not saying it could be any other way. I'm saying that having a sun is pretty amazing.
Originally posted by Goocheslamb

size matters because it explains how small we are. For example ancient people thought that the earth was the center of universe

So what if we are small?
why do you religious folks think that god will be challnged and rebel by a small creature called satan, surely God must be bigger then the universe right?

No on two accounts.
1) Shaytan (Satan) cannot, and did not challenge God (in Islam). Shaytan operates only as God permits it.
2) God is not necessarily bigger or smaller than the universe. The question itself is flawed.

I think you have an anthropo-centric misunderstanding of God. Both what it is, and what is does.
 
so please tell what is God exactly? it seems you know a lot about God
 
My point is valid because i admit that i dont know any thing about this universe because i am so small. I dont know what is the truth and what is not.
 
My problem with religious people is that they think they know every thing about god, life, universe etc..  and the problem is thier religions are so vague in descriptions of any thing.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Goocheslamb View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 16-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 40 		  Quote Goocheslamb Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 01:10
Originally posted by Goocheslamb

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Originally posted by edgewaters

In most models it isn't endless. It has finite boundaries at any given point in time. The law of conservation of energy demands it, and the expansion of the universe confirms it. However, because space-time is only a side-effect of light and matter, it is not expanding into an empty space, it is space and it's expanding space itself.

True of course, but by the end of our lives these models probably will have changed a few dozen times.
No, not really. How could it be any other way? Nothing living can survive in deep space, so I would never have occurred there. Unless there is life that has evolved using other heat energies like, say, geothermal processes inside dark bodies (asteroids etc) far outside of solar systems.

I'm not saying it could be any other way. I'm saying that having a sun is pretty amazing.
Originally posted by Goocheslamb

size matters because it explains how small we are. For example ancient people thought that the earth was the center of universe

So what if we are small?
[quote]why do you religious folks think that god will be challnged and rebel by a small creature called satan, surely God must be bigger then the universe right?

No on two accounts.
1) Shaytan (Satan) cannot, and did not challenge God (in Islam). Shaytan operates only as God permits it.
2) God is not necessarily bigger or smaller than the universe. The question itself is flawed.

I think you have an anthropo-centric misunderstanding of God. Both what it is, and what is does.
 
so please tell what is God exactly? it seems you know a lot about God
 
My point is valid because i admit that i dont know any thing about this universe because i am so small. I dont know what is the truth and what is not.
 
My problem with religious people is that they think they know every thing about god, life, universe etc..  and the problem is thier religions are so vague in descriptions of any thing, how can they possibly know about these things?
 
also what is so flawed about question about God being bigger or smaller then universe? care to explain? how can the creator of universe be smaller then the universe?
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by Goocheslamb - 24-Feb-2009 at 01:13
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091 		  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 02:05
Originally posted by Goocheslamb

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Originally posted by edgewaters

In most models it isn't endless. It has finite boundaries at any given point in time. The law of conservation of energy demands it, and the expansion of the universe confirms it. However, because space-time is only a side-effect of light and matter, it is not expanding into an empty space, it is space and it's expanding space itself.

True of course, but by the end of our lives these models probably will have changed a few dozen times.
No, not really. How could it be any other way? Nothing living can survive in deep space, so I would never have occurred there. Unless there is life that has evolved using other heat energies like, say, geothermal processes inside dark bodies (asteroids etc) far outside of solar systems.

I'm not saying it could be any other way. I'm saying that having a sun is pretty amazing.
Originally posted by Goocheslamb

size matters because it explains how small we are. For example ancient people thought that the earth was the center of universe

So what if we are small?
why do you religious folks think that god will be challnged and rebel by a small creature called satan, surely God must be bigger then the universe right?

No on two accounts.
1) Shaytan (Satan) cannot, and did not challenge God (in Islam). Shaytan operates only as God permits it.
2) God is not necessarily bigger or smaller than the universe. The question itself is flawed.

I think you have an anthropo-centric misunderstanding of God. Both what it is, and what is does.
 
so please tell what is God exactly? it seems you know a lot about God
 
My point is valid because i admit that i dont know any thing about this universe because i am so small. I dont know what is the truth and what is not.
 
My problem with religious people is that they think they know every thing about god, life, universe etc..  and the problem is thier religions are so vague in descriptions of any thing.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I will go ahead and beg Omar's forgiveness for stepping into the conversation, but I felt an obligation to clear up something that you obviously misunderstood.
 
Nowhere did Omar claim to know "a lot about God". Indeed, the whole point of everything he has posted thus far is that you cannot know "what is God exactly." The whole nature of a revelatory tradition is that we know no more than what is revealed to us. And yes, there is vagueness where things have not been revealed; this is the nature of apophatic theology.
 
In fact, it is the very nature of transcendence, which you seem to have missed. And this whole "I know nothing" thing gets tiresome once one has heard it in more than a few cafes from more than a few angst driven teenagers; if you know nothing, then why post in the first place? To show how intelligent you are for admitting your agnosis? If you have humbling questions and show no interest in humbly searching for answers, I fail to see what you plan to accomplish. And yes, we have all heard how Socrates was the wisest of the Greeks because he realized that he knew nothing; charming. Honestly, I think they really ought to stop teaching the classics in school if students are only going to absorb a single story. Wink
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
Goocheslamb View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 16-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 40 		  Quote Goocheslamb Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 02:27
I still say i know almost nothing about the universe except what little science has thought me ( i am being truthful here). And the reason i am posting here is not too impose any thing. My first post was simply about the size of this universe, how is that imposing a view?
 
my argument here is not neccesarly with omar, but i am talking about the religious people i have met in general. They think they know every thing about every thing and simply from my view this is not true at all. They just know what thier religion has told them about the universe not more then that


Edited by Goocheslamb - 24-Feb-2009 at 02:28
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091 		  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 03:29
Originally posted by Goocheslamb

I still say i know almost nothing about the universe except what little science has thought me ( i am being truthful here). And the reason i am posting here is not too impose any thing. My first post was simply about the size of this universe, how is that imposing a view?
 
my argument here is not neccesarly with omar, but i am talking about the religious people i have met in general. They think they know every thing about every thing and simply from my view this is not true at all. They just know what thier religion has told them about the universe not more then that
 
Well, you are trying to impose your belief that "religious people" think they "know everything", even when they claim that they manifestly do not. Review your last post in response to Omar, if you don't believe me. The last sentence in your most recent post is more to the point: we, who hold to revelatory traditions, do hold that we know that which our "religion has told [us]," but those who make a study of the subject realize the limits of such knowledge.
 
I suppose I would put the question to you thus: You claim that you "know nothing about the universe except what little science has taught [you]"; precisely how much is that? And are the depths of knowledge that science can probe the only depths to be explored? And if they are not, then to what discipline does this deeper exploration fall? My problem is not so much with your initial question as with the context in which you have sought to establish it. It is not simply enough to say "I don't know anything, and anyone who claims they do is mistaken"; rather, if we do not know, we must ask several further questions: "Am I meant to know? How may I learn? etc."
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 04:18
From a majority of the "religious" people's posts in this thread one could deduce that religious people do not deem themselves invested with infinite knowledge. 
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394 		  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 04:31

Originally posted by Akolouthos

And are the depths of knowledge that science can probe the only depths to be explored?

To this I would say a couple of things: if it lies outside science, we can probably never "know" it with any certainty. Intuitive feelings and knowledge are different things.

We do not know the depths which science can probe. 100 years ago, it would have been unimaginable that science could measure the effects of a cheerful compliment or a pleasant melody; a threshold it is in the process of crossing today. 100 years from now, who knows what thresholds science will be crossing? Science is so young, it has only been with us for the blink of an eye. If the time from when the Great Pyramid was built to now were a one foot ruler, the modern scientific method has been with us for less than an inch.

If a thing has any effect on the universe whatsoever, it is measurable, and if it is measurable, it can potentially be probed by science. If it is not measurable, it has no effect on the universe and for all intents and purposes does not exist.

The size of the universe may invoke a sensation of awe, but it is not knowledge, just a sensation. If we were bacteria, we might be awed by some bum striking a match, but it is not really an awesome thing once understood. If we lived on subatomic particles rather than planets, our universe might be a crusty bit of mucus coming out of said bum's nose; no doubt it would seem awesome but only because of our ignorance, our unawareness of the truly banal and trivial nature of our experience.



Edited by edgewaters - 24-Feb-2009 at 04:36
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091 		  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 04:41
Originally posted by edgewaters

To this I would say a couple of things: if it lies outside science, we can probably never "know" it with any certainty. Intuitive feelings and knowledge are different things.

We do not know the depths which science can probe. 100 years ago, it would have been unimaginable that science could measure the effects of a cheerful compliment or a pleasant melody; a threshold it is in the process of crossing today. 100 years from now, who knows what thresholds science will be crossing?

And since we are continually either progressing or regressing in knowledge -- that is to say, since we never know what we feel we know -- we will never know the extent to which any other discipline will be able to probe the depths of potential knowledge that exist. I do have a problem with identifying any unquantifiable knowledge with "intuitive feelings"; after all, revelation simply claims a different authority, and surely doesn't rest upon how one "feels" about it. You may dismiss the methodology, but you may not claim that there is no methodology. I think Omar put it well earlier in this thread, when he said something to the effect that the complexity of the universe led him to the exact opposite conclusion (opposite to the earlier statement that it rendered belief in the divinity absurd). And who knows what thresholds philosophy, theology, or any other discipline will cross in the next hundred years?
 
Originally posted by edgewaters

If a thing has any effect on the universe whatsoever, it is measurable, and if it is measurable, it can potentially be probed by science. If it is not measurable, it has no effect on the universe and for all intents and purposes does not exist.
 
Well, that seems to be a quite dogmatic statement, and quite outside the sort of claim that the scientific discipline could make on it's own. After all, we can't simply dismiss knowledge because it lies outside of our chosen discipline. I might as well say that the laws of physics don't exist because they don't bear directly on the state of one's soul. Care to clarify?
 
-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 24-Feb-2009 at 04:42
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697 		  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Feb-2009 at 03:36
Originally posted by Goocheslamb

so please tell what is God exactly? it seems you know a lot about God

I certainly wouldn't say I know a lot about God. All I have done is read the Quran, a handful of Hadith & parts of the bible. Nothing that is exactly out of your reach. Similarly we cannot say what God is exactly, because we possess no linguistic or perceptional tools in which to do this. I have learnt that you either get it, or you don't, and I am not entirely sure that its even possible to teach someone to get it. Certainly the people who get it aren't confined to a single religion, or religious upbringing.
God is the underlying order, creater and controller in the universe. Both the closest thing to you, and the furthest away. Don't just think of the "beard in the sky" also think of "mother earth" - bearing in mind that niether are correct.
My point is valid because i admit that i dont know any thing about this universe because i am so small.

Being small has nothing to do with it. You don't know anything about this universe because you have never studyied physics. (If you had studyed physics you'd know you know a little bit
My problem with religious people is that they think they know every thing about god, life, universe etc..  and the problem is thier religions are so vague in descriptions of any thing, how can they possibly know about these things?

There are people who think like that. Some of them are atheists. They aren't really relevant to the discussion.
What so many people fail to understand is the purpose of the faith is not as an engineering manual, and it is not to describe how, or why the universe exists. Its purpose is to teach people how to live a good life.
also what is so flawed about question about God being bigger or smaller then universe? care to explain? how can the creator of universe be smaller then the universe?

Are you using bigger and smaller in a way that has nothing to do with size? Firstly, we currently have 11 dimensions* size is at most three of them. Secondly, what units of measurements are you using to define 'bigger'. Or do you wish to compare apples with oranges?** Thirdly, mate if you think you have to be bigger than something to create it you must be living in a damn small house.
I still say i know almost nothing about the universe except what little science has thought me ( i am being truthful here).

Strictly speaking "science" hasn't taught you anything. Your science teacher may have tried.

*We lost one a couple of years back
**Nice phrase, but wrong, because we can measure apples & oranges in lots of ways. In fact, this would be more like comparing an apple with all the empty space in existance.


Originally posted by edgewaters

To this I would say a couple of things: if it lies outside science, we can probably never "know" it with any certainty. Intuitive feelings and knowledge are different things.

I wonder Edgewaters if you know that you made a religious post. I have noticed recently that people have faith in "science". There is no such thing as "lying outside science", it can lie outside our current fields, but we can always change that. What you mean to say it that it lies outside measurement. A subtle but important difference. Just because we haven't figured out a way of measuring a phenomenon doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that we aren't intuitively aware of it.
If a thing has any effect on the universe whatsoever, it is measurable, and if it is measurable, it can potentially be probed by science. If it is not measurable, it has no effect on the universe and for all intents and purposes does not exist.

Scientific method is only a way of figuring out problems. Intuitively, (or mathematically) we know that gravitational waves should exist. If they don't General Relativity will have a few problems. We haven't yet measured a gravitation wave are you saying they do not exist, and have no effect on the universe? Are we going to have to have an Eistine vs Edgewaters show down? Belief in science vs the Scientific method?
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394 		  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Feb-2009 at 03:45

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Scientific method is only a way of figuring out problems. Intuitively, (or mathematically) we know that gravitational waves should exist. If they don't General Relativity will have a few problems. We haven't yet measured a gravitation wave are you saying they do not exist, and have no effect on the universe? Are we going to have to have an Eistine vs Edgewaters show down? Belief in science vs the Scientific method?

No, there is nothing "intuitive" about our models of gravity (in fact, they are quite counterintuitive!).

The model of gravity itself is just a construct, an equation to explain and predict measurable effects. It doesn't really exist per se, any more than the number "3" exists independant of some phenomena. It is a human invention. But the effects which it explains and predicts are quite real. You don't need to believe in gravity for the dropped ball to hit the floor in X units of time with X amount of force, it will do so. That's what we know - the measurement of the effect. The model is just a useful tool, an instrument.

Again: if a thing exerts an effect, it is potentially measurable. Gravity exerts an effect, which is measurable. If it exerted no effect, it would not be measurable: but it may as well not exist, if it has no effect on the universe.

I wonder Edgewaters if you know that you made a religious post. I have noticed recently that people have faith in "science".

Epistemology isn't religion (necessarily).

The kind of "knowing" I'm talking about is the kind of knowledge that can be demonstrated empirically, and is falsifiable. To me, that's "known" as opposed to "believed". Gravity can be demonstrated empirically, and the idea is falsfiable - therefore it is "knowledge". There is no faith involved - gravity is a model that is extremely succesful at predicting a phenomena, to mathematical precision. It has utility in practical problems. Should a better, more useful model come along to deal with the same problems, it will be adopted instead. Faith implies loyalty independant of utility.

The soul or god or any of that is neither empirically demonstrable nor falsifiable. It is not known. It is belief. It is also faith, because the religious believer needs neither proof nor utility. The believer's faith is (ideally, from a believer's perspective) not shaken by a lack of utility or proof.

Belief does play a role in science - for instance, a hypothesis might be believed to be correct, but it is not known to be. There is no faith involved here, for the hypothesis is hastily abandoned when its predictions turn out to be incorrect. There is no loyalty.

That is not to say that science is the solution to all our problems ... it's just to say that it is far more useful than religion at explaining the world around us. Religion's explanations rarely have practical utility to the sailor or the engineer or the doctor.

Just because we haven't figured out a way of measuring a phenomenon doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that we aren't intuitively aware of it.

If it exerts an effect, it is potentially measurable. Obviously we are constantly developing new tools and new methodologies to measure new effects.

Our intuitive awareness is not knowledge. Intuition is often incorrect and cannot be trusted as fact. For instance, if you are riding a horse, your intuitive sense is that the horse's feet are only in brief contact with the ground during a gallop, but in fact, when stop-motion photography is used, it can be seen that the horse's feet are actually always in contact with the ground. There are many, many things in the world that are counterintuitive.



Edited by edgewaters - 25-Feb-2009 at 04:47
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697 		  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Feb-2009 at 09:24
Originally posted by edgewaters

The model of gravity itself is just a construct, an equation to explain and predict measurable effects. It doesn't really exist per se, any more than the number "3" exists independant of some phenomena. It is a human invention. But the effects which it explains and predicts are quite real. You don't need to believe in gravity for the dropped ball to hit the floor in X units of time with X amount of force, it will do so. That's what we know - the measurement of the effect. The model is just a useful tool, an instrument.

I'm not talking about gravity, I'm talking about gravitational waves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves). Gravitational waves have not ever been measured, yet in order for general relativity to work they should exist. As I don't understand the maths, I only have faith that those who do did their sums right.
Again: if a thing exerts an effect, it is potentially measurable.

Only in a ultra simplified world. Theoretically, yes that would be logical. Practically, your intuition has failed you. There are so many effects, and we wouldn't even being to be able to identify all the things to look at.
We need to know what to measure, how to measure it, and what the results mean. That is only possible for a very small number of things. Think of the butterfly effect.
There is no faith involved here, for the hypothesis is hastily abandoned when its predictions turn out to be incorrect. There is no loyalty.

Ideally that is true, my point is that it is not true. Its not within the scientific community, and its certainly not within the wider community. People have faith in what scientists say is true, they treat them as a priesthood of a religion.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2445180.htm
it's just to say that it is far more useful than religion at explaining the world around us. Religion's explanations rarely have practical utility to the sailor or the engineer or the doctor.

Niether science nor religion has anything to do with explaining the world around us. Science is only two things, a documentation of what happened, and a model to predict what will happen if you do it again. Religion is only one, a textbook on how to lead a good life.
Our intuitive awareness is not knowledge. Intuition is often incorrect and cannot be trusted as fact.

Intuition is usually based upon experience. It can't be trusted but it is usually the starting point. So much Engineering & scientific advancement is based upon intuition. You think that if you do this, so-and-so will happen, and only after then do you investigate it to check that your right (if you aren't you may have a 'major discovery' on your hands)
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211 		  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Feb-2009 at 23:21
Couldn't help myself OmarEmbarrassed. Though I had some "spots" ont this thread I couldn't help myself to notice your remarks. Mind if I come in?(especially since you're a declared muslim?)
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

(....)Only in a ultra simplified world. Theoretically, yes that would be logical. Practically, your intuition has failed you. There are so many effects, and we wouldn't even being to be able to identify all the things to look at.
We need to know what to measure, how to measure it, and what the results mean. That is only possible for a very small number of things. Think of the butterfly effect.
If you mean to state something significant with the last phrase ten I will welcome you to join my discussion about complexity vs religion. Otherwise it only looks like a provocation.
Ideally that is true, my point is that it is not true. Its not within the scientific community, and its certainly not within the wider community. People have faith in what scientists say is true, they treat them as a priesthood of a religion.
Just because religious people accept some kind of "priests" it doesn't mean that people who are not religious are taking the same stance. Nor that it doesn't mean that some people who are not "religious" fall into the mistake you outlined. But that's not the point.
Neither science nor religion has anything to do with explaining the world around us. Science is only two things, a documentation of what happened, and a model to predict what will happen if you do it again. Religion is only one, a textbook on how to lead a good life.
I've bolded your part of the reply to look downwards for what I have to say about it.
Intuition is usually based upon experience. It can't be trusted but it is usually the starting point. So much Engineering & scientific advancement is based upon intuition. You think that if you do this, so-and-so will happen, and only after then do you investigate it to check that your right (if you aren't you may have a 'major discovery' on your hands)
But.. The Quran is the word of GodDeadConfusedTongueClapSleepyOuchWinkSmileCryBig smileEmbarrassed !. Then why is it holding data(LOL) about the Genesis?
"Howtoleadagoodlife" ?!?!, is this significant to the Universe? I think the starter of the thread meant in the end to question why religious standards are so .. absurd, when compared to what the Universe means. Maybe a few direct and agressive questions would have been better, like: "If I do my prayer with a 2 radians error is this going to mean trouble for all those who match my direction?" Maybe it sounds "stupids!", but you Muslims do some orientation* before praying, don't you?. So why is it that the direction you're facing is significant for the  Universe?
*What if the Saudis get the first astronaute on Mars? What will be his "target" when kneeling for the prayer?


Edited by Cezar - 26-Feb-2009 at 23:33
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394 		  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2009 at 00:10

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

I'm not talking about gravity, I'm talking about gravitational waves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves). Gravitational waves have not ever been measured, yet in order for general relativity to work they should exist.

Again, they are a model used to explain and predict measurements of natural phenomena. If there was no measurement, there would be no theory of gravitational waves as there would be no effect or phenomena to be predicted.

People have faith in what scientists say is true, they treat them as a priesthood of a religion.

Sure, the masses don't comprehend the difference. That doesn't mean there is no difference.

Intuition is usually based upon experience.

Yes, but it is inductive rather than deductive, and therefore often erroneous.

It can't be trusted but it is usually the starting point. So much Engineering & scientific advancement is based upon intuition. You think that if you do this, so-and-so will happen, and only after then do you investigate it to check that your right (if you aren't you may have a 'major discovery' on your hands)

Engineering - yes. Science - no. Science (and math) requires proofs. Intuition might lead you in a certain direction, might help you come up with a hypothesis, but ultimately it won't get you any farther than a hypothesis (which is considered a mere conjecture, and is not established as a useful model of reality).

Religion is only one, a textbook on how to lead a good life.

Sure, but it's not about the nature of the universe then. It's just a philosophy regarding the human experience in the realm of ethics etc.

Just as science is about the nature of the universe but it is not about how to lead a good life (except perhaps in the sense of good health, but not the ethical sense). Philosophy is the secular alternative to religion in terms of ethics and moral well-being.



Edited by edgewaters - 27-Feb-2009 at 00:17
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697 		  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2009 at 00:36
Of course you may Cezar!
If you mean to state something significant with the last phrase ten I will welcome you to join my discussion about complexity vs religion. Otherwise it only looks like a provocation.

I'm just pointing out the complexities of the world, and that human measurement is quite limited.
Just because religious people accept some kind of "priests" it doesn't mean that people who are not religious are taking the same stance. Nor that it doesn't mean that some people who are not "religious" fall into the mistake you outlined. But that's not the point.

I'm religious and I don't accept any preists so I'm certainly not saying that all non-"religious" people do. They definitely don't conciously.
I'm saying that "the people" treat science now in exactly the same way they used to treat religion. Science should be a way of learning, devoid of faith and belief, instead for alot of people its something you believe in.
If a Bishop and a Scientist say two different things many people will choose which to believe based not upon their own judgement but upon their belief. They will believe that the Scientist is saying this based upon some infallible research, or believe that the Bishop is saying this based upon some infallible moral position.
Then why is it holding data(LOL) about the Genesis?

To convince you of the truthfulness of the message, not to teach you about creation.
"Howtoleadagoodlife" ?!?!, is this significant to the Universe?
(...)
but you Muslims do some orientation* before praying, don't you?. So why is it that the direction you're facing is significant for the  Universe?

It's significant to people. I have to live a life, regardless of how big the universe is. Similarly, orientation matters to people. Human psycology to a differing degree requires ritual. Any system that is for people in the end has to deal with people. Even if philiosophically we think humans are meaningless in the grand scheme of things. In reality humans have a lot to do with humans.
What if the Saudis get the first astronaute on Mars? What will be his "target" when kneeling for the prayer?

When the mongols attacked Baghdad the Khalif was debating which way to face if praying on the moon. For 800 years it has been a sign of his decadence. Now it is actually a practical question!
I wonder what his decision was?
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959 		  Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Feb-2009 at 00:03
Originally posted by Reginmund


Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

<span style=""></span><span style="">I think this was the main reason behind my decision to become an atheist at the tender age of 12-13. When one understands how mind-bogglingly huge and old the universe is and how new and insignificant we are in it, there is no way you can believe the fairy tales in Quran or Bible. Their incredible pettiness is suddenly revealed by the bright light of truth, and the mind breaks its shackles and goes free from such primitive superstition. </span>
It's good to see we're in perfect agreement for once. LOLNo matter how I twist and turn it, I can't see religious faith as a sign of anything other than lack of comprehension, peer pressure or fear of what lies beyond, possibly all three combined.


Like I said there are no atheists in fox holes!!


I can understand your allergy to organized religion though but to look at the universe and say there is absolutely no creator is the folly and arrogance of man. I am not saying you because it is your right!! Now that I live in the desert the stars are abundant and I cannot help but believe there is at least some impersonal super computer type creator out there. I was once an agnostic until I really could not prove there is not a God and the fact that I have spent a lot of time in the wilderness of North America (BC Canada- USA 11 states) has enforced this. Looking at the stars makes me wish I lived in a Star Trek era. Beam me up scotty

By shallowend on Flickr
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
Back to Top
patres123 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 23-Mar-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote patres123 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Mar-2009 at 17:07
Let me just throw this out. If we have proven that the universe has endpoints, how can something with barriers not have something on the other side? I understand there are ideas in which the universe is basically an inside out vacuum. "Nothingness" surounds everything. I have also heard that the universe is expanding. This makes things even more interesting. If the Universe is expanding, where is it expanding to? Perhaps, the supposed vacuum that surounds it is shrinking. Anyone want to weigh in on this issue? Finally, In the words of a great thinker: The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.
Socrates

Edited by patres123 - 23-Mar-2009 at 17:20
Back to Top
Northman View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 30-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4262 		  Quote Northman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Mar-2009 at 23:30
We haven't proven anything about endpoints of the universe - nor beginnings. Some scientists set up theoretic models, involving between 3 to 9 additional dimensions, to make the model work.      
Infinity is a keyword here, but most significantly in the sense - our knowledge about the universe is infinitely small - albeit a fraction bigger than 2000 years ago, but not much.
 
In my opinion, at our present stage of evolution, the human brain cannot conceive or understand an infinite physic universe as suggested - we can play with a scientific theory - but as a physic entity without bounds, no.
Mankind has its limits, just like a dog has its limits and cannot be trained to solve a trigonometric equation.  
We are still stuck with the same physic laws Newton and others gave us hundreds of years ago. And they only work in a narrow earthly scenario.
 
If there is a greater maker, a higher intelligence, I'm sure she never meant us to know as much as she does anyways. So why should she create us capable of learning it?
I'm deliberately using "she" because no male could ever create anything half as beautiful and mysterious as the universe Wink
 
Back to Top
Goocheslamb View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 16-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 40 		  Quote Goocheslamb Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2009 at 00:26

I personally think that we are part of some thing really huge, may be even a living being. may be our whole galaxy is like only one cell of some thing really huge. I know its sounds weird but any thing could be true about this huge mysterious universe
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.