discussion on the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

[El Mamerro]

energy is created and can be destroyed or burned off

 

Energy is constant and cannot be destroyed or created, only transferred to and from a constant amount of matter.

 

Except in very tiny subatomic spaces, where quantum mechanics takes hold, and energy is constantly being created (out of NOTHING) and destroyed almost immediately, yielding the net constant amount we see in the large scale world.

[StephenHarper]

 

 

Allah is All mighty , All wise and does what he will for whatever purpose he sees fit. I would hardly call multiple revelations for different groups of people in different times irrational and inconsistant because he consistantly sent the same message to people since people were created, the only things that ever changed through the times were laws and prohibitions based on the level of that particular peoples understanding. In other words Allah, created them, He knows them best. He does ot place burdens on them more than what they can bear so the law coincides with the peoples needs. The messsage has always been the same with all of the prophets, Muhammad, Jesus, Moses , Noah, Abraham, Adam, etc. etc.

 

and that it to worship the one true God , the creator of the heavens and earth, alone and to reject false dieties. simple. consistant and rational.

 

"Another aspect of the irrational nature of Allah's will is that he often makes offensive or misleading statements in order to "prove" men or stir up unbelievers to contradict the revealed word (Surah 74:31; 17:46)."

Seems to me like Allah runs around in circles changing his mind and covering his tracks by decieving others. One moment he promotes peace and the next he promotes killing off the infidels. Please explain to me how this demonstrates a rational, consistant God?

[the.crooked]

Energy is constant and cannot be destroyed or created, only transferred to and from a constant amount of matter.

 

Except in very tiny subatomic spaces, where quantum mechanics takes hold, and energy is constantly being created (out of NOTHING) and destroyed almost immediately, yielding the net constant amount we see in the large scale world.

 

I've got a crazy old article on zero point energy if your interested.

[russell jones]

That's not a question that a muslim would even attempt to answer. That's something like going to your dad and asking him is there another guy boning your mom.

 

it's just not like that, Allah is the creator, he always was and always will be. He has no beginning or no end.

Einstien belived this about energy, and energy is not even considered an intellegent life form, so then what about the creator of eveything who is all knowing all seeing?

 

Do you believe a fuzzy haired Jew or God. (no offense , Mar)

 

You would not attempt to answer it because you cannot answer it. But yet you asked the same question earlier, you asked how the universe came to exist without a creator. Well I ask how God came to exist without someone creating him? If you ask one question you must necessarily ask the other.

 

The problem with these questions is that there is no rational answer to them. By saying, "God has always existed and he has no beginning or end," you are not answering the question rationally, you are simply stating your faith in an eternal creator. But if you are trying to make a rational argument that the universe needs a creator to exist, then it is only rational to ask if the creator has a creator. The questions are endless, leading to no end. Rationally, that is the only way to go.

 

The concept that one cannot rationally point to a source of anything is called "emptiness" by Buddhists. Everything in the universe is empty because one cannot pinpoint what the universe depends on for its existence.

 

 

I do not personally believe in any sort of God, or more generally, any sort of absolute. But I am fuzzy haired!

[¤Shark¤]

I could get very deep and long winded here, but I won't.

I can't say you are an evil person. I don't even know you. I never said you were an evil person.

I understand disbeleif in God because I lived it for 25 years of my life until one day that changed for no particular reason. I didn't fall from a tree and live or survive a car wreck or go to jail or whatever, I just started to study things and reflect more and it just came to me.

I'm not saying your evil. don't get me wrong I'm not here for that, sometimes I may come off the wrong way because of the strong phrases I choose or my straightforward approach but if you knew me I'm not judgemental and I don't want to be.

I have non muslim friends that I have known for years and I don't call them evil. Of course I could debate you until one of us dies and you might get the impression that I think you are evil during the course of that discussion, but in fact only God knows your reality. So that's what I'm here to say today because I just wanted to clear that up so you didn't have a false impression of what I said.

 

You sir, Mr Dawood, are truely SCREWED IN THE HEAD. Don't take me the wrong way though, i wouldn't think your an "evil" person, just that sometimes i choose "Strong phrases" to use. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

If you think you have a "straightforward" approach you are screwed in the head.

 

And the example of those who disbelieve, is like the one who shouts to the flock of sheep that hears nothing but calls and cries. They are deaf, dumb and blind. So they do not understand. (Al-Baqarah 2:171)

 

How can THIS have ANY merit in this debate whatsoever!!!

You could have pulled this out of your arse, your head, or a book, and yet it makes no difference. like i said before this, history gets changed over time, im pretty sure these werent the exact words written down hundreds of years ago, for people to follow.

 

but in fact only God knows your reality

Really? thanks for that. would he care to share it with me?

 

FOR FUCKS SAKE Dawood. Think about what you have committed yourself to. A belief....a belief is ONLY THAT. thats why they call it that. I belive god is real, I believe you will be saved and go to heaven. BLAH BLAH BLAH

Science has proven more in the universe than what GOD would ever be capable of...and how...because...there is a GOD isn't there?

 

All you seem to be doing Dawood is talking about beliefs...as in, allah is this, i was taught that....not one have you ever mentioned FACT.

AND thats the thing about god....its not FACT, and never will be, it is PURE BELIEF...thats all. Thats why human minds are so screwed up. to have an imagination, to believe in something that is not real, has no proof, and no facts....im a pretty "straight forward" person aswell if u havent noticed...

 

and i COMPLETELY agree with everything Russell Jones has said.

 

Lock this topic already...we all know god isnt real.

[Dawood]

 

"Another aspect of the irrational nature of Allah's will is that he often makes offensive or misleading statements in order to "prove" men or stir up unbelievers to contradict the revealed word (Surah 74:31; 17:46)."

Seems to me like Allah runs around in circles changing his mind and covering his tracks by decieving others. One moment he promotes peace and the next he promotes killing off the infidels. Please explain to me how this demonstrates a rational, consistant God?

 

 

ok, Mr Harper, In life there are these things called details and explanation so hopefully some of what I say will rest your heart at ease.

 

Firstly the origin of Islam and what Allah is saying in the quran is peace. I can ok, hold on , I will give many examples....

 

OK, I went to a quran database called www.thenoblequran.com and typed in peace. 117 entries came up with the word peace, then I typed in the word kill and looked at the context of what was being said and found out that most , if not all of them were speaking of killing in a negative light, warning people of killing unjustly and that killing one person is as if he killed all of humanity etc etc.

 

So , to understand a thing , you should understand it's context. the few and I repeat few verses in the quran that talk about fighting do not even add up to an eighth of the verses that talk about peace. And the ones that refer to fighting give the beleivers permission to fight the disbelievers who are oppressive and who have stolen their land, and property or have attacked the beleivers etc. It is a permission to defend themselves so how is this irrational? Please, for the sake of my time when you speak about something like Allah or islam have knowledge of what you say.

[Dawood]

why do I sit here day after day talking to a wall?

 

Allâh has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearings, (i.e. they are closed from accepting Allâh's Guidance), and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment. (Al-Baqarah 2:7)

[StephenHarper]

"Believers, why is it that when you are told: ‘March in the cause of God,’ you linger slothfully in the land? Are you content with this life in preference to the life to come? . . . If you do not go to war, he [God] will punish you sternly, and will replace you by other men" (Surah 9:38-39)

 

"Believers! Shall I point out to you a profitable course that will save you from a woeful scourge? Have faith in God and his messenger, and fight for God’s cause with your wealth and with your persons. . . . He will forgive you your sins and admit you to gardens watered by running streams; he will lodge you in pleasant mansions in the gardens of Eden. This is the supreme triumph" (Surah 61:10-12)

 

Dawood it seems to me like you choose to believe in the watered down, nice version of Islam for North America. If Allah created all humans then why would he incite his followers to kill those who don't believe? Why do Sunni's and Shiites kill each other in the name of God? Tell me how do they (Sunnis and Shiites) justify killing each other?

[the.crooked]

FOR FUCKS SAKE Dawood. Think about what you have committed yourself to. A belief....a belief is ONLY THAT. thats why they call it that. I belive god is real, I believe you will be saved and go to heaven. BLAH BLAH BLAH

Science has proven more in the universe than what GOD would ever be capable of...and how...because...there is a GOD isn't there?

 

All you seem to be doing Dawood is talking about beliefs...as in, allah is this, i was taught that....not one have you ever mentioned FACT.

AND thats the thing about god....its not FACT, and never will be, it is PURE BELIEF...thats all. Thats why human minds are so screwed up. to have an imagination, to believe in something that is not real, has no proof, and no facts....im a pretty "straight forward" person aswell if u havent noticed...

 

and i COMPLETELY agree with everything Russell Jones has said.

 

Lock this topic already...we all know god isnt real.

 

This will get you into trouble. What is a fact? Are you speaking specifically to 'emperical' facts? There is a large question as to what one can consider fact.

 

There are very few things we can make claims as to whether they are facts are not and they usually tend to deal with simple statements like "1+1=2," etc. They are things that are true independent of any experience, and statements that may be true given experience. The unfortunate thing is that in any discussion that makes such expansive, staunch and divisive metaphysical claims, as the one taking place here, is the inability to substantiate the totality of these ideas in any factual sense. Thus we arrive at belief as the base unit of appreciability for any given theory there in discussed. That we believe is good enough.

 

To go further, there are things which I assume you take to exist that are just as questionable as God's existence. Do you believe in electrons? Have you ever witnessed them? Yes, we have certain statements which express a knowledge of this supposed entitie's causal relations to reality, but again, it is not a matter of fact. My belief in things called electrons is tantamount to Dawood's belief in God. I think there are certain relations of specific bodies that as base units of reality structure the rest of our metaphysical world. Dawood thinks that God, as it were, does just the same. God, for Dawood (and correct me if I am wrong here Dawood) is that same base structure for our metaphysical reality. The terms used to express this relationship however are subject to much more scrutiny than, say, the terms used to express what electrons in fact are and what they do.

 

 

All of this to ground this discussion in its possible epistemological issues. All of us need to recognize that while we use the word fact, the application to the word for its truth value is often misused. I think the use of Belief is correct here and should continue.

 

This is not to say that facts have no place in this discussion, but that we should be careful what "facts" we use as refutation or repudiation of a given idea.

[russell jones]

To go further, there are things which I assume you take to exist that are just as questionable as God's existence. Do you believe in electrons? Have you ever witnessed them? Yes, we have certain statements which express a knowledge of this supposed entitie's causal relations to reality, but again, it is not a matter of fact. My belief in things called electrons is tantamount to Dawood's belief in God. I think there are certain relations of specific bodies that as base units of reality structure the rest of our metaphysical world. Dawood thinks that God, as it were, does just the same. God, for Dawood (and correct me if I am wrong here Dawood) is that same base structure for our metaphysical reality. The terms used to express this relationship however are subject to much more scrutiny than, say, the terms used to express what electrons in fact are and what they do..

 

I think any credible scientist would consider the existence of electrons to be a fact. I do not think that belief in electrons is related to belief in God. Electrons are physical things that have been proven to exist in many different ways using physical evidence. God, on the other hand, as defined by Dawood, is separate from the physical universe, therefore can never be proven to exist using evidence from the physical world.

 

I am not sure if I understand what you are trying to say in the last sentence. Perhaps you could explain?

[Dawood]

the physical world is ITSELF evidence enough.

[Dawood]

"Believers, why is it that when you are told: ‘March in the cause of God,’ you linger slothfully in the land? Are you content with this life in preference to the life to come? . . . If you do not go to war, he [God] will punish you sternly, and will replace you by other men" (Surah 9:38-39)

 

"Believers! Shall I point out to you a profitable course that will save you from a woeful scourge? Have faith in God and his messenger, and fight for God’s cause with your wealth and with your persons. . . . He will forgive you your sins and admit you to gardens watered by running streams; he will lodge you in pleasant mansions in the gardens of Eden. This is the supreme triumph" (Surah 61:10-12)

 

Dawood it seems to me like you choose to believe in the watered down, nice version of Islam for North America. If Allah created all humans then why would he incite his followers to kill those who don't believe? Why do Sunni's and Shiites kill each other in the name of God? Tell me how do they (Sunnis and Shiites) justify killing each other?

 

For the record, Presently, I do not reside in North America. And I previously mentioned that the fighting mentioned is regarding the permission that was given to the beleivers to fight the opressors and to rid the earth of all types of wrongdoings.

 

so let's move on to another surah where Allah mentions

 

And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery, etc.) to threaten the enemy of Allâh and your enemy, and others besides whom, you may not know but whom Allâh does know. And whatever you shall spend in the Cause of Allâh shall be repaid unto you, and you shall not be treated unjustly. (Al-Anfal 8:60)

sound pretty mean, huh, like muslims are taught to just kill, kill, kill, right? well, no, the next the ayat says

But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and (put your) trust in Allâh. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower. (Al-Anfal 8:61)

so I guess Allah wants us to be prepared huh? That sounds pretty reasonable to me. But then he says to make peace is better. It's better if you don't try to pick at my religion and demonize it like your government does, I know it a lot better than you and you won't suceed in demonizing it through the quran , which leads me to another thing.

What will succesfully bring the image of Islam down in peoples eyes is when ignorant muslims do things like kill eachother in the name of Islam like what we have with Shia and sunni (the sunnis not being the true sunnis, just sunni by name)

I always say, you can't attack Islam by way of looking at muslims because George Bush is a christian so lets end that discussion before it begins. It's a dead end street.

The only reason I come here is that I feel like I can be a voice for muslims (while i'm checking out the new burners and productions) I'm a writer, I know writers, I like writers and we all have different opinions. I know I'm probably not going to turn 12 oz into a nation of muslim writers, but at least we can all walk away learning something and understanding different cultures better. Understanding is the key to ending the mess, unfortunately, the people who run the worlds counties understand but they don't work in our best interest.

 

 

[russell jones]

the physical world is ITSELF evidence enough.

 

 

There is no evidence in the physical world that points to the existence of a God separate from the physical world. How can there be? If you believe that God is separate from the universe, and is not a physical being, then how can the physical world be used to prove the existence of God?

[the.crooked]

I think any credible scientist would consider the existence of electrons to be a fact. I do not think that belief in electrons is related to belief in God. Electrons are physical things that have been proven to exist in many different ways using physical evidence. God, on the other hand, as defined by Dawood, is separate from the physical universe, therefore can never be proven to exist using evidence from the physical world.

 

I am not sure if I understand what you are trying to say in the last sentence. Perhaps you could explain?

 

On the contrary, the existence of unobservable particles is quite debatable.

 

What do we say is an electron, let alone any of the three main sub atomic particles? That they are what an atom consists of? But is an electron a particle? or does it have some such components that compositely compose the electron? Is a particle divisible? Do we have any idea of what an electron looks like? I ask these questions to point out the difficulty in expressing what it is we actually think electrons to be. And if we have such a hard time even conceptually pinning down the essential nature and form of an electron, it serves even less well that we have never "seen" one. We concieve of what we think are 'electrons,' but without an emperical referrence they maintain as purely a set of predictive causal statements.

 

This is why I say belief is just the same. We accept certain theories in science, and to an extent we believe or disbelieve in the entities they speak of. This is exactly the case with an electron. The level of your acceptance of a realist account of certain metaphysical theory entails your belief in the existence of electrons without the emperical referrent to speak of.

 

The gold foil experiment is not even a good example of emperical evidence, for it is only the after effects of something. Also, a cloud chamber is again not an emperical observation of the existence of unobservable particles, but is in fact again just the visual displacement of certain molecules which we say has something to do with these unobservable particles.

 

I, as you can tell, am moving more and more to anti-realism in science. I think that while we may use the right theoretical language (math) we will always be subject to the limitations of our emperical observation and also fucked because of underdeterminability in meaning. That is not to discredit the progression of science or physics in any way. I just think the ontological telos of it all may be a little bit different than most ascribe to. Particularly I think it is the progression itself that we can only ever strive for. It is the contradiction that we use to propose new theory that is all we can gain. Furthering our observational precision will only continue the path of reduction to smaller and smaller parts. To qoute Hawking, "Did quarks exist before we looked for them?" That is to say, as we continue to gain emperical data which doesn't quite fit the contemporary theoretical mold, we will strive to explain it in new ways. New theory is born of contradiction to old, and it is that contradiction that we will ever find. We may refine persistently until the end of humanity, but we will never refine our theory to match the natural state of reality.

[StephenHarper]

It's better if you don't try to pick at my religion and demonize it like your government does, I know it a lot better than you and you won't suceed in demonizing it through the quran

 

Ignorant Muslims eh? I willing to bet that most of those Immans training suicide bombers and preaching violence have studied the quran their whole lives and have a pretty good handle on it.

Anyways lets move on to Allah's view on women.

 

The Quran in Sura 4:34 says:

 

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and greay.

 

The Quran in Sura 65:1, 4 says:

 

65:1 O Prophet, when you (and the believers) divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed waiting-period and count the waiting-period accurately . . . 4 And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet. As for pregnant women, their period ends when they have delivered their burden.

 

So men are allowed to hit women and marry prepubescent girls? What I'm wondering is how you can justify basing your life and beliefs around a religion that encourages such things?

[¤Shark¤]

Again. i completely agree ^^^^

 

All it seems like your doing Dawood, is taking the pieces/ versus of text that you find to be meaningful to YOU. not anything that will help this overall argument.

 

You write that:

So , to understand a thing , you should understand it's context. the few and I repeat few verses in the quran that talk about fighting do not even add up to an eighth of the verses that talk about peace.

 

It doesn't matter how much is written about killing, peace, or war. eaither way, whats written is written. You choose to follow it, so therefore you choose to follow the whole of the teachings. The highlight is, StephenHarper has explained the "other" more distant side of these teachings, and yet none the less you follow it. you can not say that you dont, because to not follow part of a religion would be selective, and choosing a faith or religion is the only thing you choose. you cannot choose which "section" to follow because then you would not be committing yourself to that religion. So using the quotes that StephenHarper has exctracted, you cannot say you do not agree or do not follow them, because that would be disrespectful to your religion. This alone shoots your argument to shit, and every other thing you have commented about in this whole thread.

[the.crooked]

Shark? where do you think different forms of islam came from? or different forms of christianity? they came from selective focus on specific readings and interpretations there in. It is rediculous to claim that a person's belief in their respective religion is encompassing to every passage and literal interpretation there of. Fuck that. Dawood, I completely respect your attempt to show the peaceful side and teachings of Islam. We all talk about why do extremist seem to bound to faith and where in Islam does it condone these things, well it's ignorant statements like yours Shark that propels the concept that it is a war mongering religion... Retarded...

[the.crooked]

Also, again, consideration of the time these things were written should be given. Archaic language and cultural norms of given times do not and shouldn't reflect contemporary beliefs about those texts. That Dawood chooses to excersize the more benine and peaceful aspects should be lauded, not used as ammunition against him.

 

Ethical judgements are pretty hard to claim as argument against religion I think. The statements laid down in the quran regarding human action do not, even if not agreed with, change the fact that God may or may not exist. It merely reflects the respective ideologies that God supposedly was connected with by the people who wrote the original text.

 

Cmon people, consider things before you act like assholes.

[the.crooked]

I am not saying this to say we should not discuss the ethical fallacies or comparative norms between the culture texts purport to suppose and ours, but I think we should be careful in our haste to ascribe all of those ideologies to the people who practice the religions.

 

Just as we pick and pull from scientific "fact" in our beliefs so does Dawood with the Quran. Let him do it. You chastize him for picking specific passages relevant to him, yet, what do we do? We pull specific articles from different science sources, etc. We are just as specific in the texts we present. We just assume that some air of objectivity seperates us from him in the inherit validity of the respective texts we claim, but epistomelogically, we are just as fucked as him.

 

I just want to keep this discussion alive and without the bullshit that seems bout to go down. This is not a thread to hate religion, etc, it is a place to discuss the possible implications of those religions and their metaphysical claims. get it right or get out.

[Dawood]

Let me clarify that nowhere did I ever pick and choose relevant verses of the quran to the exclusion of others because all of the Quran is relevant and I beleive in every word of it. The science of the quran is that scholars will deduce rulings from it, based on the evidence within it (and the sunnah of the prophet, his sayings and actions and actions of his companions in his prescence.)

So, what if one verse in the quran contradicts another? well, i guess the whole religion is out the window, then , huh? No, not at all, because there is no contradictions in the quran only understanding. The scholars of the religion will take any given issue (like jihad for example) and take the WHOLE quran and the WHOLE sunnah and then make a ruling based on all of it along with the present circumstances. This is how we understand the quran, it is a guideline for the muslim, not every muslim follows it 100 %, I don't follow it 100% all the time either, not becuase I don't beleive in it, it's just because i'm human and fall short.

But let's get it straight I don't pick and choose from the book, I accept it all and ask Allah to make me act on it , all of it.

[Dawood]

Shark? where do you think different forms of islam came from? or different forms of christianity? they came from selective focus on specific readings and interpretations there in. It is rediculous to claim that a person's belief in their respective religion is encompassing to every passage and literal interpretation there of. Fuck that. Dawood, I completely respect your attempt to show the peaceful side and teachings of Islam. We all talk about why do extremist seem to bound to faith and where in Islam does it condone these things, well it's ignorant statements like yours Shark that propels the concept that it is a war mongering religion... Retarded...

 

 

I know, sometimes people will ask me "where are the muslims condemning terrorism"? I'm like , Here I am, I condemn terrorism, as a matter of fact every muslim I know condemns terrorism. But these same people have support our troops stickers on their suv's and I know of too many muslims that have been terrorised by those people they're openly supporting but because I pray to god 5 times a day , my religion=terrorism and it don't matter how many times I condemn it and clarify the meanings of the quran, people like shark do not want to hear that. Some people need a boogieman to be afraid of.

[russell jones]

On the contrary, the existence of unobservable particles is quite debatable.

 

What do we say is an electron, let alone any of the three main sub atomic particles? That they are what an atom consists of? But is an electron a particle? or does it have some such components that compositely compose the electron? Is a particle divisible? Do we have any idea of what an electron looks like? I ask these questions to point out the difficulty in expressing what it is we actually think electrons to be. And if we have such a hard time even conceptually pinning down the essential nature and form of an electron, it serves even less well that we have never "seen" one. We concieve of what we think are 'electrons,' but without an emperical referrence they maintain as purely a set of predictive causal statements.

 

This is why I say belief is just the same. We accept certain theories in science, and to an extent we believe or disbelieve in the entities they speak of. This is exactly the case with an electron. The level of your acceptance of a realist account of certain metaphysical theory entails your belief in the existence of electrons without the emperical referrent to speak of.

 

The gold foil experiment is not even a good example of emperical evidence, for it is only the after effects of something. Also, a cloud chamber is again not an emperical observation of the existence of unobservable particles, but is in fact again just the visual displacement of certain molecules which we say has something to do with these unobservable particles.

 

I, as you can tell, am moving more and more to anti-realism in science. I think that while we may use the right theoretical language (math) we will always be subject to the limitations of our emperical observation and also fucked because of underdeterminability in meaning. That is not to discredit the progression of science or physics in any way. I just think the ontological telos of it all may be a little bit different than most ascribe to. Particularly I think it is the progression itself that we can only ever strive for. It is the contradiction that we use to propose new theory that is all we can gain. Furthering our observational precision will only continue the path of reduction to smaller and smaller parts. To qoute Hawking, "Did quarks exist before we looked for them?" That is to say, as we continue to gain emperical data which doesn't quite fit the contemporary theoretical mold, we will strive to explain it in new ways. New theory is born of contradiction to old, and it is that contradiction that we will ever find. We may refine persistently until the end of humanity, but we will never refine our theory to match the natural state of reality.

 

I think I know what you are getting at, but despite the fact that I am no expert in particle physics, I think you may be slightly off in your thinking. The definition of what an electron is exactly is debatable, whether or not it can be broken into smaller parts is debatable, but the fact that something exists that can be separated from an atom that carries an electrical charge cannot be debated, because there is plenty of evidence to show that these things exist.

 

I think what Hawking is speaking of when he says "Did quarks exist before we looked for them," is not meant to be taken literally. I think what he was speaking of is our perception of reality is determined by our definitions of it. Whether or not quarks exist as we describe them is a problem, whether or not there is some sort of physical reality is not a question of science, but of philosophy. If you would like to question the materialist basis of science, then it should probably be called something else, rather than science. Perhaps come up with a new word for your anti-realistic science.

 

Ever since Heisenberg's uncertainty principle became accepted, science has known that it does not reflect reality perfectly and that it never can. Science can only, like you said, come up with more refined approximations, but it can never fully describe reality. I fully accept indertimanism is science because I believe that there is not a fundemental reality. In my mind, those that believe in God think there is a fundamental reality. I think the very concept of a fundemental reality is unscientific.

 

Correct me if I am misinterpreting your thinking crooked.

[the.crooked]

No, you pretty much got most of it.

 

The definition of the electron is the important part. If the definition is what governs our conception of its physical presence then surely the fact that we can not even agree on what the physical definition of electron 'is' appears quite problematic. The thing that I will accept is this; "there is some phenomenon that we say acts a certain way in concordance with certain causal rules that we call an electron." To say that there is actually a body that takes up space that is called an electron is just not possible. Especially when taking HUP, as you mentioned, into consideration. That we now concieve of electrons not even as points that orbit but probablity clouds of where they might exist, should alone suggest the inherent problems in trying to assign it as an actual physical entity.

 

There are only one or two things I want to clarify. The debate over realism and anti-realism in science has gone on since the 1950's and somewhat earlier. There is a specific standpoint by a guy named Bas Van Frassen that you should look at. Constructive empericism. I think thats pretty much were I stand.

 

Basically all it states is that: all a theory needs to be accepted is that it be emperically adequate and account for predictive measure. Emperical adequacy is basically a statement that the theory can account for all emperical observations and occurances to date. The belief in the entities entailed is not necessary. It is very much a pragmatist view of science.

 

Speaking to the Hawking qoute, I think that you basically got the gist of what I meant. I was trying to suggest that we will continually find newer and smaller things to say comprise larger phenomena. The suggestion I took from Hawking is that perhaps we will always seek for smaller things and never find the base unit we think we are looking for.

[the.crooked]

Some people need a boogieman to be afraid of.

 

 

it's the american way

[the.crooked]

Oh, one last thing. Russel. Science itself does not entail realism. The scientific process is only a method of generating theory and observation to map theory on to. Science itself as a process has no stance on the rightness or wrongness of a theory.

[russell jones]

Speaking to the Hawking qoute, I think that you basically got the gist of what I meant. I was trying to suggest that we will continually find newer and smaller things to say comprise larger phenomena. The suggestion I took from Hawking is that perhaps we will always seek for smaller things and never find the base unit we think we are looking for.

 

Crazy to think isn't it? I can almost conceive of an infinity of bigness, but the think of an infinity of smallness is truly mind blowing. It means we have no borders to our reality, it is almost mystical in a way.

 

Also, if you we continually look for smaller and smaller units, and yet never find them, perhaps we are truly creating a physical reality, not just a definition of one. When you think of the processes that are used to discover sub-atomic particles, by using increasingly more powerful particle accelerators, perhaps were are molding a new reality rather than discovering what is already there. I wonder what implications that may have. Perhaps our minds are the only undeniable reality, as Descartes said.

[the.crooked]

I don't disagree at all. I think your comin round to my side...

 

Your absolutely right though, concieving of the infinitely small is amazing. I personally put thinking of a point and concieving of void as the same thing really. Imagine trying to think of a point, an ever increasingly small definition of position in space and time. Purely conceptual and infinitely small. If you try to think of only one of those, what is left around it? What is the space you create when you continually zoom in on that ever furthering point? The void. You are left with an infinite space. Its amazing how the one is the other.

[the.crooked]

This is why I have been way into Spinoza and trying to reconcile this idea of the infinite with HUP and quantum theory. I don't know enough of the math, etc. but I am trying to just do with what I know.

 

Sometimes I wonder what it is even worth to discuss all of this if we will never be able to get it right. It pains me to know I want ultimate truth just as much as anyone else, even though I recognize that I will never have it. That want was why I started with physics, but as I move forward, I come more and more to the realization that it is a futile search. I am leaning towards my faith in art more than ever before.

 

Iono, I need to read sooooo much more. It's so hard to have any faith in your own ideas when you realize how much has been considered before you. It hurts to even consider the concept that I may never come up with an original idea.

[GnomeToys]

Post 1500,

 

And god is still staying far the fuck away from this thread.

 

Raptor Jesus might enjoy it though:

[StephenHarper]

Ignorant Muslims eh? I willing to bet that most of those Immans training suicide bombers and preaching violence have studied the quran their whole lives and have a pretty good handle on it.

Anyways lets move on to Allah's view on women.

 

The Quran in Sura 4:34 says:

 

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and greay.

 

The Quran in Sura 65:1, 4 says:

 

65:1 O Prophet, when you (and the believers) divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed waiting-period and count the waiting-period accurately . . . 4 And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet. As for pregnant women, their period ends when they have delivered their burden.

 

So men are allowed to hit women and marry prepubescent girls? What I'm wondering is how you can justify basing your life and beliefs around a religion that encourages such things?

Dawood? Now your saying "I accept it all and ask Allah to make me act on it , all of it." So you accept those verses?