Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[mikkel_the_dane]

I want a more general view that can be tested and verified.

To say it is 'the' more general view suggests there is only one way to generalize. That is clearly wrong.


Absolutely. Which is why the requirement of testability is so important. We all make mistakes, so there needs to be a mechanism for repairing them.

I insist on a certain type of testability that has been shown to help eliminate mistakes over time.

Well, that methods of your as science has a limit if everything is not objective, but only a part of it.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[YoursTrue]

You are venturing the realm outside 'ordinary language' into the science of Quantum Mechanics and Physics, and a basic knowledge in the topic is essential. There is also the problem of your religious agenda and a bias against the science as in the question of physics, Quantum Mechanics and evolution. The language I use concerning Quantum Mechanics, research sources like Hawking are in language of the layman level of understanding, and you do not seem to understand this. The source cited concerning Quantum Mechanics refers to layman level sources with explanations.

You make broad statements asking for evidence. This does not work without a basic level of the science involved in Quantum Mechanics.

IF you have a specific question concerning a phrase I used please ask a specific question and cite the phrase and I will respond. So far your request was general and not specific concerning a request for evidence.

Ok I hope you are able to explain certain things I would need to understand before I accept what you or "science" says. Thank you.

Sorry, that posted wrong. I said that last sentence, not you. I said, I hope you are able to explain certain things I would need to understand before I accept what you or "science" says. Thank you.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, that methods of your as science has a limit if everything is not objective, but only a part of it.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

Yes, of course. Science is limited to those things that can be tested and verified. It cannot deal with goals, or morality. It cannot determine aesthetics, or legality. It cannot determine what we *should* do.

What it *can* do is inform us of *some* of the consequences of our actions. But it cannot determine whether those consequences are desirable or undesirable.

In essence, science can determine truth, but it cannot determine opinion.

 

[Polymath257]

It is ok for you to find it silly.

And it is OK for people to believe silly things. But they cannot ask others to accept them as fact.

 

[Polymath257]

You are saying I am making claims, but I am only responding to your claims.

You are making claims. For example, you claim that my views are only because of my limited atheistic beliefs.

You claim that there is a spiritual side that goes beyond a personal self.

You claim that you think without concepts.

These are ALL claims that you have not supported.

Often, when you 'respond' to the claims of others, you make a claim yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, of course. Science is limited to those things that can be tested and verified. It cannot deal with goals, or morality. It cannot determine aesthetics, or legality. It cannot determine what we *should* do.

What it *can* do is inform us of *some* of the consequences of our actions. But it cannot determine whether those consequences are desirable or undesirable.

In essence, science can determine truth, but it cannot determine opinion.

I find it ironic that others that sometime accuse people of following scientism request those people to support their claims in a manner that would be scientism.

Science has its place and it is clearly not scientism when one uses the sciences that way. Understanding our universe and how it got to its present state is clearly not scientism. Using for goals and morality would be. How does not prove scientifically that one's actions are moral? That is an easy question to answer. One does not do that scientifically.

 

[YoursTrue]

And it is OK for people to believe silly things. But they cannot ask others to accept them as fact.

The problem is that for something to be a fact, it needs to be true. No?

 

[YoursTrue]

There are 100 billion stars in our galaxy and billions of galaxies. All stars have planets around them. The possibility of life being in some stage of evolution somewhere is very high.

You and others may think so. I don't.

 

[YoursTrue]

Just look up the history of quantum theory. Try googling “ultraviolet catastrophe”, “photoelectric effect” and “Rutherford-Bohr model”. Nobody can be expected to give you a tutorial on all the evidence by means of posts on a discussion forum. You need to do some reading for yourself. If you want to do that and revert with questions, I would be delighted to help out.

No, I can't look up these things because the explanations use terms I am not familiar with. I have questions and have asked them and often I get more complex answers that lead to other complexities. So if I have a question in the future and I read one of your posts, I will certainly attempt to ask. Thanks. (P.S. - I thought about taking a course in college about some of these things -- but the teacher probably doesn't have enough time to answer my questions and who knows? maybe not really know the answers anyway.)

 

[exchemist]

The problem is that for something to be a fact, it needs to be true. No?

What problem?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The truth is contradictory.

Not by my definition of truth. Contradictory items are mutually exclusive, meaning that at least one of them is wrong. I think you know that, so I can't imagine what definition of truth you are using or why you are using it.

Everyone's conclusions about the truth of reality are based on reason and evidence.

Disagree again, unless, of course, you have a private meaning of reason to go with your private meaning of truth.

If we would all just realize that we are somewhat right and somewhat wrong, and accept the other points of view as amendments, we might actually broaden our understanding.

Disagree yet again. Why should one accept other people's points of view without evaluating them? How do their wrong ideas broaden understanding except of how wrong some people can be, which is not news.

If the evidence is there, there is no belief. I don't have belief in evolution, I accept the evidence.

It seems like you're using the word belief the way I use the phrase faith-based belief. For me, a belief is anything considered correct, which includes both justified (empirically) and unjustified (faith-based) beliefs. By this reckoning, I hold a belief about the theory of evolution, namely, that is correct beyond reasonable doubt.

By that definition atheist have belief about god.

Only if you consider no opinion regarding their existence (agnosticism) an opinion.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yet another bare assertion .

ETA: Anybody can go on repeating this sort of assertion endlessly about literally anything at all. It adds exactly nothing. You might as well just say "I'm right and you're wrong, so there!"

You are endlessly doing that.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Really? The meaning seems perfectly clear to me.

There was no '?', it was a statement.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Fair enough. In that case, I don't find any reason to accept views about spirituality as something more than simple emotional expression.

For me, truth is determined by objective evidence and testability. Opinions are those beliefs (ideas we accept) that cannot be tested or verified.

So, for example, it is my opinion that tomatoes are vile. Other people have a different opinion about this and there is no objective way to express this, so it is an opinion with no truth value.

Some people have deep emotional experiences that they label as spiritual. I do not deny that experience. But I am skeptical about the *interpretation* of that experience and whether it has an objective (i.e, truth) content, or whether it is all opinion (personal belief).

I don't hold the BB beliefs religiously. When and if evidence comes out that shows the BB model to be wrong, I will happily change my mind. But, given the weight of the evidence, I find it highly unlikely that the basics (expanding universe, for example) will be disproved. In that way, it is similar to my belief that the Earth orbits the sun and not the other way around. The cumulative evidence is so strong that any other interpretation is highly unlikely.

And, furthermore, it is my *opinion* that certain systems of belief are actually unproductive or even dangerous. This is a value judgement (like all opinions). Those belief systems that ask people to accept without evidence are much more likely to be unproductive and/or dangerous.

Those that can get us to believe absurdities can get us to commit atrocities.

Fair enough. In that case, I don't find any reason to accept atheist views about spirituality as anything more than simple emotional expression.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And you speak from your own limited theistic belief.

You believe your view is more encompassing than the atheistic one, but the atheists simply see your beliefs as wrong.

Your atheist beliefs are limited, that's all, reality is on the other side of belief.

 

[YoursTrue]

What problem?

Let me rephrase. In order for something to be a fact, would you say that 'fact' would have to be true?
A poster said, "But they cannot ask others to accept them as fact." So the question is, if something is called a 'fact,' does that mean it's true? Or does it mean that if something is true, it might not be called a fact?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And it is OK for people to believe silly things. But they cannot ask others to accept them as fact.

Agreed, one must realize truth, belief is not enough.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Polymath257 about tomatoes -- while it is a 'fact' that some people consider tomatoes as vile (I"m not a big fan but I do like pizza with tomato sauce) - it seems that a tomato is a tomato, isn't it? Vile or not. Or that a page in a book is a page in a book. Them's facts.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are making claims. For example, you claim that my views are only because of my limited atheistic beliefs.

You claim that there is a spiritual side that goes beyond a personal self.

You claim that you think without concepts.

These are ALL claims that you have not supported.

Often, when you 'respond' to the claims of others, you make a claim yourself.

The observation that atheist beliefs are limited is elementary dear Watson Polymath.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The observation that atheist beliefs are limited is elementary dear Watson Polymath.

Once again, if it is "obvious" or "elementary" then you have no excuse for not supporting your claims. I have a strange feeling that you will only fail again.