Go Back   AFA Forums > Welcome > Getting started

Getting started New to atheism or still in the process of removing those final theistic indoctrinations?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 20th August 2014, 04:58 PM
Blue Lightning's Avatar
Blue Lightning Blue Lightning is offline
"Mr Charles Darwin had the gall to ask"
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 6,104
Default Re: ex JW points to clarify

Hey Danoob - I've fleetingly thought of posting this in response to a few aspects of your posts, and most recently in relation to your remarks both about other universes (about which there is vast approaching complete, uncertainty) and, more basically, about science being honest enough to face up to the fact of uncertainty. Having thought about it several times, I'll do it:





"The map is not the territory!". And "Hang out with those who seek the truth. Run, as fast as your legs can carry you, from anyone who claims to have found it!"

Evid3nc3 has many other good videos, too. The whole of his "De-conversion" series is worth a look

Cheers, BL
__________________
"Just stick to the idea that science is just about making descriptive models of natural phenomena, whose emergent predictions are tested to destruction" - Woof!
"Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves" - Richard Feynman

Last edited by Blue Lightning; 20th August 2014 at 05:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 20th August 2014, 05:28 PM
the_gelf the_gelf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 1,917
Default Re: ex JW points to clarify

Quote:
Dannoob said View Post

Is there any reason to assume that the laws we observe in this universe hold in all possible universes?
There is no reason to assume that. Nor is there a reason to assume there are any other universes. We can only draw hard conclusions on evidence. Right now, we have no evidence to support such a hypothesis.

Quote:
Dannoob said View Post
Can our observable laws have any implications beyond (or before) our universe or is the universe our reference frame?
All manner of universes could exist, but what would be the point? If none of them ever intersect our own, and never have an effect on the outcomes of our universe, they may as well not exist.

In the literal sense, universe means "all things"

In a scientific sense, to separate the set of "all things" from "observable" we will do just that and claim "observable universe". And we are quite sure that the known laws of physics apply to everything in the observable universe.

Our observable laws have implications - but in theory only. For example, we know the value of planck's constant, and we can theorise what would happen if it were different - but that doesn't imply a stable or eventful universe exists with this slightly-different value.

Quote:
Dannoob said View Post
This was the untestable I was referring to. The elder i was speaking to was making the first cause argument. I'd just never heard anyone use thermodymanics to prove it.
I'm confused between the leap between thermodynamics and 'first cause' and how it's supposed to tie in.

I think I know where this is heading, to which the reply is:

What's north of the north pole?
__________________
Ever the vanguard against hubristic ignorance
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 20th August 2014, 05:28 PM
Logic please's Avatar
Logic please Logic please is offline
Wonder if the beer tastes as good?
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Melb (capital of The Nanny State!!!)
Posts: 16,206
Default Re: ex JW points to clarify

Quote:
Dannoob said View Post
Thanks again for the reply. I'll try to sort out the quote+.
Quote:
A law is something we know to be as true as possible. It does not describe something "that is forever and immutable" It is absolutely 100% testable. That's why it's a law. It means that for all conditions you specify, the behaviour holds true.

A very good example of this is the law of gravity.
Galilieo devised a way to measure gravity.
During Newton's era, he devised the law of gravity between two bodies.

A few hundred years later, Einstein posited that gravity works differently than had been first though, however tehcnology had not caught up with his idea.

The observation was proved when it was shown that light is affected by a large mass (in his case, using the sun as a lens to observe a distant light source (star)

Newton's law wasn't wrong, it just defined a conclusion on observations within a specific frame of reference. The frame of reference was expanded in Einstein's theory to include light (which Newton had not considered to be particle in nature - nor could he have ever known)
Is there any reason to assume that the laws we observe in this universe hold in all possible universes?
Can our observable laws have any implications beyond (or before) our universe or is the universe our reference frame?
This was the untestable I was referring to. The elder i was speaking to was making the first cause argument. I'd just never heard anyone use thermodymanics to prove it.
Is that so? May I ask which law(s) of thermodynamics were used for the argument, and how they were deployed?
__________________
*Gods* are not only a legal fiction, but a fiction in every way. Just ask the nearest hippie...
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 20th August 2014, 11:48 PM
Strato's Avatar
Strato Strato is offline
What Me Deluded?
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The Bellarine, Geelong.
Posts: 5,599
Default Re: ex JW points to clarify

I hope you feel you have found a home here on the AFA Forums Danoob.

I haven't seen yrtemmyscritemmysa here for a while now. I trust he is doing fine. He was a JW a long time, I recall.
__________________
We can know something only if it is both true and knowable, Thinking Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman, 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 21st August 2014, 09:29 AM
Dannoob Dannoob is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 21
Default Re: ex JW points to clarify

Quote:
There is no reason to assume that. Nor is there a reason to assume there are any other universes. We can only draw hard conclusions on evidence. Right now, we have no evidence to support such a hypothesis.

All manner of universes could exist, but what would be the point? If none of them ever intersect our own, and never have an effect on the outcomes of our universe, they may as well not exist.
I've heard Brian Greene say that the math we use to explain our observable universe does seem to imply a multi-verse. I don't understand the math so i'm happy to say i don't know.

Your comment reminded me of one of my favorite Tracy Harris statements, "A God who in undetectable is indistinguishable from a God who doesn't exist."


Quote:
I'm confused between the leap between thermodynamics and 'first cause' and how it's supposed to tie in.
This confused me too. When he started with the 2nd law i was expecting him to follow with evolution. I think he was referring to the linear nature of entropy(in a closed system), then saying that an infinite regress wouldn't be possible therefore the point of maximum order must have been "created" by something eternal.


Quote:
Logic please said View Post
Is that so? May I ask which law(s) of thermodynamics were used for the argument, and how they were deployed?
Highlighted above.

[QUOTE]
Quote:
wadaye said View Post
Hi Dannob
The racism is implicit in the idea that a handful of white men from New York can tell everybody else in the world how to think and live, and send out missionaries to convert them to this way of thinking.
I can see how that could seem racist. It may well be. I can't speak to their motives but we were encouraged to talk to anyone who would listen to us. Even to learn another language if possible. They seemed more concerned about gaining more followers than where the followers came from, race or socioeconomic status.

Quote:
My late wife was a JW so I know well what is involved in "bible studies". It's all about sitting down being told this or that absolute truth.

When a person can recite back the correct code and abandon every other principle in life, they are ready for baptism. When they fitted themselves into this intellectually backward mold completely and can sprout it with conviction, then the men among them are ready for positions of leadership as elders, overseers, etcetera, I forget the exact terminology.
This I would totally agree with. From the outside looking in, it looks like a robot factory now.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 21st August 2014, 09:34 AM
Dannoob Dannoob is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 21
Default Re: ex JW points to clarify

Quote:
Blue Lightning said View Post
Hey Danoob - I've fleetingly thought of posting this in response to a few aspects of your posts, and most recently in relation to your remarks both about other universes (about which there is vast approaching complete, uncertainty) and, more basically, about science being honest enough to face up to the fact of uncertainty. Having thought about it several times, I'll do it:





"The map is not the territory!". And "Hang out with those who seek the truth. Run, as fast as your legs can carry you, from anyone who claims to have found it!"

Evid3nc3 has many other good videos, too. The whole of his "De-conversion" series is worth a look

Cheers, BL
Thanks for the link. I find this information addictive.

[QUOTE]
Quote:
Strato said View Post
I hope you feel you have found a home here on the AFA Forums Danoob.
All the advice has really helped. Thanks again.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 21st August 2014, 10:28 AM
the_gelf the_gelf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 1,917
Default Re: ex JW points to clarify

Quote:
Dannoob said View Post
I've heard Brian Greene say that the math we use to explain our observable universe does seem to imply a multi-verse. I don't understand the math so i'm happy to say i don't know.
There is the 11-dimensions theory (that's ties into string theory) and sometimes this is referred to as the 'multiverse' theory. There is also the 'many worlds' theory. The thing about math is, it's math. In describing the universe, Math is not immutable - physics have some phenomena that deny mathematical quantification e.g. we haven't come up for a 'math word' (formula) for everything. An example of this is the rate of accretion of matter due to the shear spin on a supergiant star.

But 5 dimensions is difficult enough for us to understand, let alone 11.
__________________
Ever the vanguard against hubristic ignorance
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 22nd August 2014, 11:27 PM
DanDare's Avatar
DanDare DanDare is offline
Religion or Reality, choose...
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 7,453
Default Re: ex JW points to clarify

Quote:
Dannoob said View Post
I can back up my agnostic atheism far better then any religious view i've ever held.
You win 1,000,000 internets for the correct use of the term agnostic.
__________________
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government".
-Thomas Jefferson

Burden of proof is the obligation on somebody presenting a claim to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant). Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing "side" to show the evidence presented is not adequate. If claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true.

History isn't written by the victors. It's written by the people with the time machines.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 23rd August 2014, 07:46 PM
Strato's Avatar
Strato Strato is offline
What Me Deluded?
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The Bellarine, Geelong.
Posts: 5,599
Default Re: ex JW points to clarify

[/QUOTE]

It was Carl Sagan's 'Dragons Of Eden,' lent to me by the psychologist I needed to see (a very cool and hip and patient person) that got me into reading popular science. Never looked back.

Sagan the educator is the Sublime Doctor. The dude who put up the clip is your stereotypical nerd. He's hip to Sagan (big deal) and Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata (Germanic depression) but clearly he needs to get a root.

People who can perfectly execute a really marvelously expressive rendition of some 'classical' piece of repertoire, have been apprenticed in pedagogy, cannot play at all when you take away the music. If a fly were to deposit a turd upon the staff-lines of the score, they would play that note and not even know it. The music was written centuries ago, has been recorded and performed ad nauseum.

How about relocate to New Orleans and learn how to play the friggin' piano?!
__________________
We can know something only if it is both true and knowable, Thinking Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman, 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 24th August 2014, 08:38 AM
Dannoob Dannoob is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 21
Default Re: ex JW points to clarify

Quote:
the_gelf said View Post
There is the 11-dimensions theory (that's ties into string theory) and sometimes this is referred to as the 'multiverse' theory. There is also the 'many worlds' theory. The thing about math is, it's math. In describing the universe, Math is not immutable - physics have some phenomena that deny mathematical quantification e.g. we haven't come up for a 'math word' (formula) for everything. An example of this is the rate of accretion of matter due to the shear spin on a supergiant star.

But 5 dimensions is difficult enough for us to understand, let alone 11.
Are the 11 dimension or many worlds theories actually a theories in the scientific sense or is it a hypothesis? If it is a theory, what kind of evidence can I point to that supports it? Am I better off suggesting them as a possibility not more likely explanation?

I'm also finding it hard to explain why his(the elder) use of inductive reasoning doesn't hold for his first cause argument. I've tried a couple of approaches but he seems bewildered be the arguments. He does seem to be genuine in understanding my point of view.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 06:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.