Why I am not a Christian

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
No it is not. Science does not deal with things that can not have experiments made about them.

What about string theory and the existence of a zillion dimensions?

[Jon Miller]

yes I did

unless you missed my mention of the atom or string theory (you didn't miss my mention of the atom, you missed the point though - there was no evidence for a divisable atom because the mathematical model and hypothesis did not exist at the time of the first discovered radiation)

aether had an experiment to detect it, we have none for god(s)

as such it is fundamentally different, the ability to experiment is what does so (and science only deals with what can be experimented on)

aether has bounds on it, and there are (As I said) still scientists who will occasionally use it in theories

god(s) have no bounds placed by any experiment

beleiving in god(s) is sort of like beleiving in string theory, there is no scientific reason to or not to (And some very smart peopel beleive in it, and other smart people do not)

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


What about string theory and the existence of a zillion dimensions?

I gave string theory as in example

it is more properly mathematics, that a lot of physicists find promising, than physics

Jon Miller
(because as of right now, in order to test its conclusions, we would need an accelerator bigger than the universe)

(although there is hope that they will discover some way that it affects lower energy stuff, or that they can probe higher energy stuff somehow with blackholes...)

[Whaleboy]

Anyone who thinks that athiesm is at all more scientific than theism is a fool who doesn't understand what science is and therefore is just as much against science as creationists.

Ummm, I'm going to have to call BS, since by this definition atheism is a scientific theory. Scientific theory and "fact" assumes that you accept it provisionally, which has long been what I have said re. atheism.

So there are hypothesis's, that there is a God, or there is not a god or there are many gods. But where are the experiments that would prove or disprove it? I have not heard of a single scientific experiment that would set a lower bound or upper bound on the number of gods, much less show the existance or nonexistence of them.

Science in it's purest sense need not rely on experiment in the traditional sense, since all it requires is a theory that makes a testable prediction, and how you test it can vary between the experimental and the conceptual.

The whole point is the science is based upon repeatable experiments. Which just don't exist as far as the god question is concerned.

But that is insufficient for science, since you're neglecting a good part of scientific logic and philosophy (of science), not least Occams razor.

So I can behave like scum and be saved and I can behave morally and not be saved? Jesus' largest audience was the sermon on the mount where he taught people how to behave morally with no mention of believing in him as messiah.

It would certainly seem more consistent that way.

The only way to show something does not exist is the inability to find any evidence for that something. So far, we were unable to find any scientific evidence for any supernatural entities at all.

Not entirely... I dislike as a whole the denegration of rationality, in that because we cannot empirically experience God or lack of God, we cannot state the existence or nonexistence of them, since we are able to empirically experience the logical system that God must obey in order to exist in the manner claimed, i.e., we can test the predictions a theory makes against logical systems, which is why in my opinion God cannot exist as an infinite being, though I am willing to entertain the possibility of a giant alien of finite power .

By claiming that science supports atheism you weaken science as much as the renaissance catholic church (by trying to use it to support your own ideology).

To my mind that statement demonstrates poor knowledge of both the analytic philosophy and scientific philosophy at hand here. Not least general relativity . I'd ask you to read what has been said.

Develope a good experiment to look for evidence of a god, and I will concede that you are being scientific. However, there has been none created to date (and personally I feel it would be impossible).

God: Omnipotent, omniscient (infinite on both counts), created the world and can communicate with man at his whim
Infinite: An object of n-dimensions unbounded from the perspective of an n-1 dimensional set. In n dimensions is finite
Test whether object of n-dimensions can interact with n-1, if yes then God can exist, if no, then as far as we are concerned; no.
Test whether object of n->infinity dimensions can interact with n-1 dimensions, see above

Since we can model hyperspheres quite nicely, I'm holding out hope on this one

No it is not. Science does not deal with things that can not have experiments made about them.

Not so, if there is no evidence for something, science does not deem it "true contingent" as opposed to "true provisional". Occams razor renders it "false provisional", see atheism. Otherwise it contradicts itself, because a God of given properties and a "negative" god can be said to exist in the same space. Here be dragons.

Another example, atoms/molecules seemed to be undivisible for the longest time. There was no evidence that they could be devided. It wasn't that they couldn't be devided (As we now know), it was just that no experiment could be forumated that could test it. Science only says things about stuff that can be tested, that is why most physicists consider string theory to be more mathematics than science (at this point in time, because currently we can't forumlate an experiment to test it, I however beleive that in the future we will be able to).

I think this is mistaken since there is, and was, no logical barrier in so far as Einsteinian dimensions are concerned, to us splitting the atom. Note that string theory would not be called string theory if it did not predictions that could and have been tested (thus subject to experiment), otherwise it would simply be an unpublished hypothesis. From what you have given me the impression of, you would have the properties of gluons tested to verify Newtons laws of motion.

aether had an experiment to detect it, we have none for god(s)

But again the permitivity and permeability of a vacuum lies within a workable logical system. God lies within a testable logical system, disprove the existence of that system and by default you disprove all that supposedly resides within.

(although there is hope that they will discover some way that it affects lower energy stuff, or that they can probe higher energy stuff somehow with blackholes...)

Don't count on it, especially if you believe Hawkings latest about variable-state event horizons.

[Jon Miller]

Occams razor has long (at least for the last 100 years) not been considered good science.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Science does not exist without experiment. That is the heart and soul of science. You understand very little (And it is this misconception I find commonly among the nonscientists).

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

I think this is mistaken since there is, and was, no logical barrier in so far as Einsteinian dimensions are concerned, to us splitting the atom. Note that string theory would not be called string theory if it did not predictions that could and have been tested (thus subject to experiment), otherwise it would simply be an unpublished hypothesis. From what you have given me the impression of, you would have the properties of gluons tested to verify Newtons laws of motion.

Nope, as I have said, you think you understand a lot, but you fail to understand science at it's most basic.

String Theory is has made no predictions that can be tested (or that people expect to be ever able to test) (at this time).

There is a reason why there are a lot of scientists (And physicists) who do not beleive in it.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

You go and bring logic into the discussion. Logic /= science.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

When you talk about making theories and doing conceptual experiments (and only conceptual experiments) than you are doing philosophy not science.

The reason why this is upsetting to me, is that there is no difference between what you are doing and metaphysics. It is very different than what I and other scientists do.

Jon Miller

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Science does not exist without experiment. That is the heart and soul of science. You understand very little (And it is this misconception I find commonly among the nonscientists).

IOW, you do not consider mathematics to be a science?

[Whaleboy]

Occams razor has long (at least for the last 100 years) not been considered good science.

Strange, that is the first I've heard, and with all due respect, I would have heard . It is one of the most important tenets of scientific philosophy.

Science does not exist without experiment. That is the heart and soul of science. You understand very little (And it is this misconception I find commonly among the nonscientists).

Keep the insults out, and without wanting to blow my own trumpet, I took a CPD in astrophysics when I was 16 (equiv. ~ a third of a degree) so it's stretching it to call me a nonscientist. You seem to take experiment as an unquestioned premise, it is in fact the aspect whereupon one tests the predictions of a theory that gives the experiment scientific value, the rest is superfluous to any definition of experiment-based science.

String Theory is has made no predictions that can be tested (or that people expect to be ever able to test) (at this time).

The theoretical element has been surpassed by inflation theory. It was of course initially designed to solve the horizon problem, that variation in the strings' vibrations would somehow affect the speed of light, allowing the universe to expand at a rate we would call superlumial. That's BS, hence the hypothesis is something that people find more compelling. I, incidentally, do not concur with string theory at this time.

There is a reason why there are a lot of scientists (And physicists) who do not beleive in it.

Yes, brane theory.

You go and bring logic into the discussion. Logic /= science.

When you talk about making theories and doing conceptual experiments (and only conceptual experiments) than you are doing philosophy not science.

The reason why this is upsetting to me, is that there is no difference between what you are doing and metaphysics. It is very different than what I and other scientists do.

My apologies for upsetting you. What you, in turn, are doing is drawing artificial lines between the fields, and then implying that one has value whereas the other doesn't. That's a common misconception among nonphilosophers; that philosophical investigations have no value and cannot bleed into others, in this case that philosophical arguments cannot have scientific implications, that is plainly false. Metaphysics of course means "above physics", but to distinguish between the two requires a definition, namely empirical verification, have I not, in using logical systems, provided a means by which the one has implications for another? Or do you consider metaphysics to be a field not worthy of serious consideration, if so why?

IOW, you do not consider mathematics to be a science?

Yes I was going to say. Why do you say that "logic |= science"? Science in itself is premised in logic, just as analytic philosophy and mathematics. You seem to imply that the fields themselves are discrete, I do not.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

IOW, you do not consider mathematics to be a science?

It isn't.

JM

[Jon Miller]

No, science is different than logic. Same with mathematics. Now, I was taking issue with your beleif that atheism was more scientific. It is a different issue to argue that it is more logical.

Of course, that is what philosophy is, is arguing what is more logical. You know, I am sure, that most consider god to be an open question in philosophy.

Jon Miller
(3rd year Physics Graduate Student)

[Jon Miller]

When I say string theory I include M theory in with it (as everyone does who talks about it in this decade).

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Science uses logic, it is much more than that though.

Jon Miller