The official Apolyton Reason VS Faith thread

[yavoon]

the speed limit of the universe isnt a law of nature? what on god's(HAHA) earth makes u think that?

[Dr Strangelove]

I'd like to abolish the term "laws of nature" and replace it with "properties of nature". The later is more accurate.

Faith and reason often go together.

[Dauphin]

Fundamental 'constants' are no more a law of nature than the transcendental numbers are laws of mathematics.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
The whole foundation of physics requires things to remain the same. All theories are meaningless if they change from one moment to another.

No, the theories just change and alter as new evidence and ideas comes about.

[Dauphin]

I'm not talking about the theories changing, I'm talking about the laws themselves.

An electron doesn't say "I am moving in an electric field, the theory says I should react thus" before it reacts. It just does. I am refering to the just doing, which has nothing to do with our theories or their accuracy.

[Kramerman]

Remember, theories only matter if they work for a certain model. If the mmodel expands, often they fail, such as Newtonian physics at extreme relative speeds and extreme forces . Relativity is then a new theory that deals with this. Yet on an even larger model, that encompasses the very small, relativity breaks down and an individual theory of quantum physics must work alone. It is the hope of amny that some day a theory of everything that works on a model of the whole picture may be found some day.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
I'm not talking about the theories changing, I'm talking about the laws themselves.

An electron doesn't say "I am moving in an electric field, the theory says I should react thus" before it reacts. It just does. I am refering to the just doing, which has nothing to do with our theories or their accuracy.

which laws change? and if they do change, a new theory can be made to compensate.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kramerman


which laws change? and if they do change, a new theory can be made to compensate.

You have faith in science to be able to do that? Suppose there is no logical reason for it to change and no theory can be used to decribe it.

[yavoon]

ur being utterly convenient. ur saying because something acts that way at a certain time and position that it will always act that way in that time and position.

I give examples of laws changing over time(speed of light) or over space(black holes) but u don't care. cuz ur definition is so ridiculously narrow.

[Elok]

A "reason versus faith" poll is kinda like a "food versus air" poll. You shouldn't swallow oxygen any more than you should inhale a bag of fritos. They're both useful but in ways that are, or ought to be, completely independent of each other. If you define your ideals in terms of theses and dissertations, or plan all your tasks around the hope of divine intervention, you or someone near you is in for a lot of grief. Why compare the two?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


You have faith in science to be able to do that? Suppose there is no logical reason for it to change and no theory can be used to decribe it.

All i know is that on my scale of things (everyday life), science has been quite able to identify the theories that make my life easier and more enjoyable.

Never to my knowledge have "Laws of Nature" changed, if they did, they wouldnt be "Laws". I suppose, if a Law of nature did change, it wouldnt be too hard to develope a new model using the new Law of Nature. I think this has more to do with faith in the human ability to reason and think than it does with faith in science.

If a law changed for no logical reason, and a no theory could be made to formulate it, then my faith in the human abilty of thought had been misplaced. Like i said before however, unless this affects my menial and insignificant (in the perspective of the universe, of course ) everyday life, ultimately i could careless if the Speed of light changed a few thousand meters per second 14 billion years ago.

Kman

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by yavoon
ur being utterly convenient. ur saying because something acts that way at a certain time and position that it will always act that way in that time and position.

I give examples of laws changing over time(speed of light) or over space(black holes) but u don't care. cuz ur definition is so ridiculously narrow.

I hope your not talking to me. Because if you are you have completely misunderstood me.

[yavoon]

no big crunch, my bad.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kramerman

If a law changed for no logical reason, and a no theory could be made to formulate it, then my faith in the human abilty of thought had been misplaced. Like i said before however, unless this affects my menial and insignificant (in the perspective of the universe, of course ) everyday life, ultimately i could careless if the Speed of light changed a few thousand meters per second 14 billion years ago.

I almost fully agree (I am in no way refering to the human capacity to describe things), I am not saying that you shouldn't for I do the same thing. I am just pointing out that there is a presumption that science will win out.

ur being utterly convenient. ur saying because something acts that way at a certain time and position that it will always act that way in that time and position.

I give examples of laws changing over time(speed of light) or over space(black holes) but u don't care. cuz ur definition is so ridiculously narrow.

My definition is not narrow, its just that you are using examples that have no relevance to my point.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


You have faith in science to be able to do that? Suppose there is no logical reason for it to change and no theory can be used to decribe it.

If, for some inexplicable reason that happened, the difference between Science and Faith would shine through. Science would continue trying to discover a reason for the sudden change through rational means, and Faith would simply ascribe the change to some supernatural force or entity. That is why there is no faith in science.

That being said, people can have faith if they want to; it's a great emotional support structure. But not everyone needs it.

Hmm, I'm pretty sure that sounded horribly condescending. Grr, I don't intend for it to sound that way. But it's true, one of the great things about Faith is that it provides people with a method of coping. A cynical person might call it the "opiate of the masses."

Personlly, I am able to use friends and family as support structures. But I'm an odd individual.