Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well how about looking at a Book that describes a person who will appear in the future. And there are about 300 prophecies that speak of Him, and all three hundred prophecies are fulfilled. I would say a 100% fulfillment of those prophecies would be equally convincing.
Sorry, ambigious myths and stories that can be interpreted to mean any old thing someone wants them to, are not scientific evidence. And yes, I've aleady read your East Gate et al posts.
So are you saying you don't think anyone would get their limbs regrown if they prayed?
Wrong. Science has constructed a mathematical model of the universe, and experimentation has shown this model to be extremely accurate. The way the universe actually work may or may not be translatable in mathematical terms - though it's basically irrelevant because we can never attain such perfection, being limited to an empirical approach. Indeed, it is impossible to prove that there isn't an element of perfect randomness, deep down.
I disagree. My point is the following: there is in principle no reason to expect that in a non-mathematically structured universe, events can be sistematically predicted through mathematical equations.
In a non-mahematically structured universe we should have the following situation:
suppose we analize experimental data. We can certainly find a mathematical function or equation to represent such data. Then we perform new experiments, and the new data do not fit in our previous equations.
So we need revise them. But when we perform new experiments, again the new data do not fit, and we have to revise again our equations.
There is no reason to expect that a new experiment will give data compatible with our equations; in fact,in principle, the possible outcome for our data are infinite numerical values, so the probability to find the predicted values is zero (a finite number divided by infinite)
But this is the opposite of what has occurred in science.
The point is that the Quantum Mechanical equations were established studying a few simple systems; we have performed millions and millions of experiments on different systems, and no revisions of the equatons were necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roxolan
Ridiculous. Mathematics can be used to approximate very well all sorts of things that do not in fact follow strict mathematical laws. For example, the growth of a population of bacterias can be accurately predicted with differential equations or statistics, even though there is no reason to believe that the bacterias obey a mathematical law when they reproduce. It is merely an emergent behaviour of the whole population.
Wrong conclusion. In fact the behavior of bacterias is determined by the laws of physics, which are mathematical equations, and this is the reason why oit is possible to find a mathematical model for the growth of bacterias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roxolan
The equations are very accurate. That does not mean they are perfect. For example, universal constants, which are at the very foundations of all physical equations, evolve as our instruments become more precise. Some of them may turn out not to be constants at all, or to be dependent on one another. Some of our equations may well need to be completely rewritten at some point. How, then, can one be so certain that natural phenomena really do obey our equations? Only for a given value of "certain".
As I wrote above, in principle, the possible outcome for a new experiment are infinite numerical values, so the probability to find the predicted values is zero (a finite number divided by infinite). The fact that we sistematically find the predicted values proves that the universe is governed by specific mathematical equations.
As far as the possibility to rewrite the laws of physics, I have some consideratians to give:
The laws of physics consist of a system of mathematical equations. Their mathematical structure exclude the possibility that these equations can be modified; in fact, even a slight change in a mathematical equation would generates radical changes in all its solutions. We have already found billions and billions of correct solutions from the laws of physics; if we changed them, we would suddenly cast away all these correct solutions. On the other hand, every day we find a systematic experimental confirmation of the laws of physics on ever new systems. To hypothesize that the laws of physics are wrong would be equivalent to say that all these billions and billions of systematic and quantitative experimental confirmations are only a lucky coincidence. In these last decades, we have done many more experiments than in all history, but the laws of quantum electrodynamics, discovered in the beginning of last century, have never been changed. On the basis of the number of experimental tests, we can say that quantum electrodynamics is the oldest scientific theory in history.
Since the laws of physics are the foundations of all modern science, I think that the hypothesis of a new set of laws of physics represents a jump out of science into the field of phylosophical speculations; the fact itself that those who want to deny the existence of the soul are forced to hypothesize a new set of laws of physics proves the incompatibility between science and materialism.
Advances in science has never dethroned and can never dethrone well established facts, supported by billions and billions of systematic and quantitative experimental data. It would be equivalent to hypothesize that one day science will discover that the earth does not orbit around the sun, but it is motionless at the center of the universe. The statement "maybe one day science will discover that..." is no longer a rational statement, because of the wide and systematic experimantal confirmation obtained by the laws of physics. The laws of physics establish some firm points, which must always be considered when we make a rational and scientific hypothesis.
This is going in the wrong direction / deflection!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
Forgive me, I thought that answered prayers or fulfilled prophecies could be considered under statistical analysis. And answered prayer could be considered brought about, either by chance, or assignable cause. Which would involve math to some degree. Certainly there must be room in science for such a study. If statistical analysis could rule out the obvious chance factor, would this not draw us closer to a scientific proof of God's existence?
I don't disagree, but again, this isn't the post for that. i'd suggest the following thread title:
"The Role of Statistics in Scientific and Religious Proofs".
Dr. Biagini's supposition is that math is fallible, and can't necessarily prove anything. And yet, you (1) say it does in some cases, and yet (2) doesn't in others. As in the directly and clearly asked question by Jaymax, following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
Okay, how about a study done on 10,000 amputees who all pray to God to regrow their limbs? That's a large number of people so the results of the study should be statistically significant. The chance factor can be ruled out as it's extremely unlikely that their limbs would grow back by themselves.
(rifleman's editor's note: Just "unlikely", Jaymax? How generous of you!)
I'd say a positive result of around 5% would be quite convincing, wouldn't you? That's 500 people with regrown limbs as a result of prayer.
(I would be quite curious to witness a documented case of just one to start with!: rflmn)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
(In his posted deflective response immediately following Jaymax's direct question Well how about looking at a Book that describes a person who will appear in the future. And there are about 300 prophecies that speak of Him, and all three hundred prophecies are fulfilled. I would say a 100% fulfillment of those prophecies would be equally convincing.
C34, 1) You purposefully ignored Jaymax's direct question about spontaneous regeneration in response to prayer. Please answer it; we'd like to hear your thoughts on this well-known conundrum for Christians.
2) Yes, the spontaneous appearance, like in an old Star Trek episode, tcomplete with winkling transporter-beam sparkle-lights as Jesus appears on The Today Show, live, and the attending scientists check it all out for hoaxes, and declare it to have actually happened, would be quite proof enough.
Trouble is, it ain't happened yet. As with all the prophesies in the bible. I'm talking about incontrovertible proof, C34, as is "No other possible explanation". Reading into a very imprecise prophesy is what the "Nostradamus" types do every New Year's Day, and yet, so far....
I want a specific incontrovertible instance of a biblical prophesy coming true. State, first, the exact prophesy, as in: On Dec. 12, 2009, A rotted old disintegrating boat shall rise out of the depths of the North Atlantic Ocean, at position "such and such", and shall disgorge a happy band of Jesus' followers who have beed dead for 2000 years." you know, like THAT?
Not, however, the likes of "And The Lord said, "You shall have some bad times in a year when the sun sets in a golden haze, and a dog might howl..."
So! A chihuahua yowls late one sunny afternoon, in a Southern California neighbor's smoggy back yard, and your personal stock market portfolio tanks, and, well, there it is then, isn't it? "PROOF once again, and yet those d@nged atheists just refuse to see it!".
Come ON, C34! We all want to escalate the intellectual level of these posts, don't we?
BTW, Doctor, glad to see you're back. I've got some questions that are actually on the topic.
To my earler comments and questions, as yet unanswered...
Glad to see you’re back Doctor! I’d hoped you would have answered some of my questions I presented in my first post to you. Perhaps you could take a look again, because to claim a “Proof” on this forum does typically raise some eyebrows! Better to cut off the dissenters early, I’ve found!
But regardless, I’ll go ahead with my questions and comments about your “Proof”.
(Oh, just an editorial point: It’s very hard to read through a continuous 12” long single paragraph. Please try to break it up every few sentences or so, as I’ve done below. It just makes it soooo much easier to read for us! Thanks!)
Your several points, quoted from your original post, that lead you to your “Proof” conclusion:
Dr. B: (1) However we know that a mathematical equation cannot exist by itself, but it exists only as a thought in a conscious and intelligent mind. In fact, a mathematical equation is only an abstract concept, which existence presupposes the existence of a person conceiving such a concept.
Therefore, the existence of this mathematically structured universe does imply the existence of a personal God; this universe cannot exist by itself, but it can exist only if there is a conscious and intelligent God conceiving it according to some specific mathematical equations.
God could have conceived the universe both according to a unified theory and according to some disjoined theories.
RFLMN: Not entirely true, sir. Math is simply a human construct we utilize, sometimes hopelessly or erroneously, to try to categorize, measure or clarify an actual observed occurrence. God, if he exists, probably doesn’t necessarily use such a limited system to define his creation.
Also, your conclusion that the absence of a complete unified theory automatically means that there thus is a supernatural alternative, and that we must of needs hopelessly retire to that position, is faulty on its face. To do so would obviously stop cold any further scientific or philosophical inquiry and advancement.
Dr. B (2): The most simple and direct explanation is that (A) nature is ruled by some specific mathematical equations. (B) The "natural principles" are then a concept as empty and meaningless as superfluous.
RFLMN: Not sure why (B) follows (A) in any logical way. Explain please.
More correctly, we’ve been able to explain, partially, some of what we’ve observed by concocting some human mathematical hypotheses, which are always open to revision, redefinition or rejection.
Dr. B (3): Consider that the equations of quantum mechanics have been discovered last century, through the analysis of some simple atoms; these equations have then correctly predicted the behavior of billions of other molecules and systems, and we have never needed to change them.
It is not possible to account for the extraordinary agreement between the experimental data and the laws of physics and the predictive power of such laws, without admitting that the state of the universe must necessarily be determined by some specific mathematical equations.
RFLMN: Yes, actually, it is possible. If we only need to “account for” an agreement, we have an infinite number of possible modalities. Newtonian Physics (which, as you know, generally don’t apply to quantum situations beyond certain levels), the never-ending supernatural options, or some as-yet-undefined or poorly understood model. All are notoriously poor models of reality.
As you yourself said directly above, “the equations of quantum mechanics have been discovered last century”. We agree. Who, then, is to say that some other better model might not be discovered in the decades or centuries ahead? Should we stop looking and just accept the Christian Model? How about the Buddhist or Muslim or American Indian or ancient Chinese models? Are they to be dismissed with a smirking hand-wave? Would that be scientifically objective?
Dr. B (4): The existence of these mathematical equations implies the existence of a personal, conscious and intelligent Creator.
RFLMN: Perhaps to some, but surely not necessarily to a truly open minded and inquisitive scientist. I'd ask for a better explanation of why you see this conclusion as inevitable.
Dr. B (5): Atheism is incompatible with the view of the universe, presented by modern science, since the intrinsic abstract and conceptual nature of the laws ruling the universe, implies the existence of a personal God.
RFLM: Again, I can't fathom the absolutism of your conclusion here. Also, there is in fact so “ism” in atheism. No defined set of rules, no refusal to look further. Just a well-supported logical refusal to accept and believe in the supernatural, to the complete exclusion of observed and ever-growing scientifically uncovered or modeled facts.
People’s individual needs for understanding often stop when the explanation gets a bit uncomfortable or complex or when it doesn’t answer "everything". They chose to stop there instead of continuing on the wonderful journey of self discovery and investigation.
Your ”intrinsically abstract and conceptual nature of the laws ruling the universe,” implies, not that there’s a personal God, but rather, that there’s still more to discover. Look at what that relentless process of scientific exploration and discovery has provided us with to date, versus where we’d be if the Catholic and other Churches had been in control! For instance, you would have been long ago burned at the stake!
Dr. B (6): In a non-mathematically structured universe we should have the following situation:
RFLMN: Why should we? Why not an alternate supposition, in a mysteriously structured universe? But, go on…
Dr. B (7): Suppose we analyze experimental data. We can certainly find a mathematical function or equation to represent such data.
RFLM: Assumptive. We often cannot find a suitable and accurately representative mathematical function. It is, in fact, exactly these sort of conundrums that continue to baffle many of your theoretical physicist friends, after all!
D. B (8): Then we perform new experiments, and the new data do not fit in our previous equations.
RFLM: Yes. A common situation in most of science. You then correctly say...
Dr. B (8): So we need revise them. But when we perform new experiments, again the new data do not fit, and we have to revise again our equations.
There is no reason to expect that a new experiment will give data compatible with our equations; in fact, in principle, the possible outcome for our data are infinite numerical values, so the probability to find the predicted values is zero (a finite number divided by infinite).
RFLMN: You again make a false assumption. It’s not the goal to have the data fit our pre-determined equation. This would be the Christian approach to “proof”. Science, opposite to your postulation, tries to suggest and then confirm the most likely and simplest equation (Occam’s Razor!) that fits the observed data, and in this it has been quite successful.
We needn’t go through your suggested “infinite number of data” or an infinite number of possible mathematical solutions to find a better fit. It just takes persistence, and a logical approach, to discover the correct fit, as has been proven time and time again.
Dr. B (9): The point is that the Quantum Mechanical equations were established studying a few simple systems; we have performed millions and millions of experiments on different systems, and no revisions of the equations were necessary.
RFLMN: That would suggest that we’ve probably hit on a good explanation, yes. It will be, obviously, unbiased science that retrieves the as-yet unclear or un-defined information. It will be science, not the Church, that builds towards the elusive “unified theory”. But have no fear, sir; it’s coming. You of all folks, Dr. Biagini, should understand how that will happen.
Originally Posted by Roxolan:
Mathematics can be used to approximate very well all sorts of things that do not in fact follow strict mathematical laws. For example, the growth of a population of bacteria can be accurately predicted with differential equations or statistics, even though there is no reason to believe that the bacteria obey a mathematical law when they reproduce
Dr. B (10): Wrong conclusion. In fact the behavior of bacteria is determined by the laws of physics, which are mathematical equations, and this is the reason why it is possible to find a mathematical model for the growth of bacteria.
RFLMN: Wrong conclusion, Dr. B.; Mathematics is, again, just a simple construct of humanity used to try to explain things. A model of bacterial growth only "approximates" what is observed. You must know of the many insolvable quandaries in math. University Math Club members spend their evening hours and weekends and years trying to work through elegant new solutions to supposedly unsolvable questions.
We can only model the approximate behavior of a population of bacteria, because we simply cannot incorporate, mathematically, all of the variables that can and do affect the reproductive success or behavior of this group of organisms.
Remember “The Club of Rome”, a late '60’s era computer modeling think-tank that tried to apply advanced mathematical equations to the entire world supply and demand system, ass well as to the probability of certain predictable behavioral and ecological outcomes? Essentially, it failed in it's accuracy, though not in the overall concept:
“The Club of Rome raised considerable public attention with its report “Limits To Growth”, which has sold 30 million copies in more than 30 translations, making it the best selling environmental book in world history”.
They came to some very dire conclusions. As a matter of fact, at that time, many religious types said, gleefully, “See! Science predicts The End Times within 10 Years! See!” Well, look what happened, eh?
Not that there aren’t better models, or better conclusions, or finite “Limits to Growth”. Of course there are.
Finally, I quote one of your important but conflicting lines, above:
(Dr. B (11): “On the other hand, every day we find a systematic experimental confirmation of the laws of physics on ever-new systems. To hypothesize that the laws of physics are wrong would be equivalent to say that all these billions and billions of systematic and quantitative experimental confirmations are only a lucky coincidence.”
RFLMN: If religious folks flat-out believe your other concepts that I’ve questioned above, then I suspect they will also agree with this statement of yours. Just because you've stated it. Tell me then, what exactly your thoughts are about the most recently discovered, refined and tested means of archeological dating.
Your statement about the incontrovertible theories and laws of physics certainly must apply to these advance dating techniques equally as well, since of course these techniques are simply applications of tested theoretical physics:
(Dr. Biagini, #11 above, to highlight again…): “To hypothesize that the laws of physics are wrong would be equivalent to say that all these billions and billions of systematic and quantitative experimental confirmations are only a lucky coincidence.”
A partial list, but one that certainly appeal to an appreciative PhD in Physics:
# Electron Spin Resonance
# Fission Track
# Optically Stimulated Luminescence
# Oxidizable Carbon Ratio (OCR)
# Potassium- Argon Dating
# Racemization
# Radio-Carbon Dating (Carbon-14)
# Thermoluminescence Dating
# Uranium-Thorium Dating
(PS: the tired old evangelical rejection of all dating, by citing the limits to Carbon14 specifically, are getting quite boring, wouldn’t you agree? We’ve moved on technically, they have not. Sadly.)
All of these newer techniques should be readily understandable to you, not so much me, but all have the backing of knowledgeable scientists.
It’s just that math alone as a total proof of anything observed or postulated in our amazing Universe, can’t get it right. Math and physics alone will not provide the end-all answers, DR. Biagini. That would reek of scientific arrogance or a decidedly closed-minded approach.
Also, you say, amazingly, [and I quote] “The statement that "maybe one day science will discover that..." is no longer a rational statement because of the wide and systematic experimental confirmation obtained by the laws of physics".
By what logic? Has scientific discovery ended today, Jan. 21, 2009? Nothing new tomorrow or next month? Do you really believe and defend this statement as part of your “proof” sir?
Physics and math are just two of the items in the larger scientific “toolbox” wouldn’t you agree? And our rational understanding of the world, from science's perspective, grows daily. Otherwise we’d best scrap the Large Hadron Collider, for just one example! or medical research. Or post-graduate work in Advanced Theoretical Physics.
Better, I’d say. to continue to be open-minded about all the possibilities that all the disciplines of science and philosophy might offer up to us. Better to NOT simply and dismissively attribute it, through faulty logic and jumpy conclusions, to a God figure.
I think, sir, that you have not proved anything yet. QED?
Last edited by rifleman; 01-21-2009 at 01:58 PM..
Reason: typos
In a non-mahematically structured universe we should have the following situation:
suppose we analize experimental data. We can certainly find a mathematical function or equation to represent such data. Then we perform new experiments, and the new data do not fit in our previous equations.
So we need revise them. But when we perform new experiments, again the new data do not fit, and we have to revise again our equations.
There is no reason to expect that a new experiment will give data compatible with our equations; in fact,in principle, the possible outcome for our data are infinite numerical values, so the probability to find the predicted values is zero (a finite number divided by infinite)
You make a big assumption about a hypothetical model.
Let's take a hypothetical model loosely inspired by quantum mechanics: at each instant, every electron can move anywhere. The exact place is completely random - it is impossible to know for certain in advance. However, there is a very high probability that it will be in a general area (his orbit).
The universe still does not follow mathematical laws. It's entirely possible that, at some point, all electrons end up at the other end of the universe, causing all sorts of mayhem.
However, since there are so many electrons and the probability is so low, there will be emergent laws. You'll be able to make very precise predictions. Millions and millions of experiments will come true. Maybe one day enough electrons will have a weird behaviour so as to have a detectable effect, but statistics tell us that it shouldn't happen in the lifetime of our universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcobiagini
As I wrote above, in principle, the possible outcome for a new experiment are infinite numerical values, so the probability to find the predicted values is zero (a finite number divided by infinite).
Not necessarily. It is possible that, while the universe does not, deep down, follow mathematical equations, the possible results are still in a small interval, or even finite in number.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcobiagini
The laws of physics consist of a system of mathematical equations. Their mathematical structure exclude the possibility that these equations can be modified; in fact, even a slight change in a mathematical equation would generates radical changes in all its solutions.
The gravitational constant has changed over time, as measuring devices became more precise. There still is a reasonable margin of error. Even now, scientists speculate that it may not in fact be a constant at all, but could vary slightly with the age of the universe. This would be a major change in our equations, forcing us to add little "t" all over the place. Not enough change to have detectable effect on our scale, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcobiagini
We have already found billions and billions of correct solutions from the laws of physics;
For a given value of "correct". Predictions always leave a margin of error, however small - leaving open the possibility that our results are but an emergent behaviour of a very different system.
As a consequence, it is impossible to prove (empirically) that the universe follows mathematical laws. Unfortunately, this is what is required by the rest of the argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
We can only model the approximate behavior of a population of bacteria, because we simply cannot incorporate, mathematically, all of the variables that can and do affect the reproductive success or behavior of this group of organisms.
Indeed. From the point of view of the biologist, it is irrelevant whether the behaviour of the bacteria is entirely determined by physical laws applied to every single atom of its body. The biologist has to assume that the bacteria's behaviour is random (though we can attribute probabilities to each type of action).
However, the great number of bacteria in the colony creates an emergent "law" that governs its growth speed. That "law" is extremely reliable and will most likely be verified even if millions of experiments are done, even though it is based on randomness and not determinism.
Sorry, ambigious myths and stories that can be interpreted to mean any old thing someone wants them to, are not scientific evidence. And yes, I've aleady read your East Gate et al posts.
So are you saying you don't think anyone would get their limbs regrown if they prayed?
We can pray for whatever we desire, yet it is up to God to honor those request. I have seen some real dramatic answers to prayer myself. Yet in recent days, it appears God is answering prayers not seen since the time of the Bible.
(Oh, just an editorial point: It’s very hard to read through a continuous 12” long single paragraph. Please try to break it up every few sentences or so, as I’ve done below. It just makes it soooo much easier to read for us! Thanks!)
Your several points, quoted from your original post, that lead you to your “Proof” conclusion:
Dr. B: (1) However we know that a mathematical equation cannot exist by itself, but it exists only as a thought in a conscious and intelligent mind. In fact, a mathematical equation is only an abstract concept, which existence presupposes the existence of a person conceiving such a concept.
Therefore, the existence of this mathematically structured universe does imply the existence of a personal God; this universe cannot exist by itself, but it can exist only if there is a conscious and intelligent God conceiving it according to some specific mathematical equations.
God could have conceived the universe both according to a unified theory and according to some disjoined theories.
RFLMN: Not entirely true, sir. Math is simply a human construct we utilize, sometimes hopelessly or erroneously, to try to categorize, measure or clarify an actual observed occurrence.
I have already explained why the universe is mathematically structured also in my previous post. I think you statement above is simply wrong and does not represent a valid argument.
The universe still does not follow mathematical laws. It's entirely possible that, at some point, all electrons end up at the other end of the universe, causing all sorts of mayhem.
I have found no valid counterarguments in your post, so my arguments still stand.
Maybe at this point we can only agree to disagree.
(reffing rflmn) I have already explained why the universe is mathematically structured also in my previous post. I think your statement above is simply wrong (which one?) and does not represent a valid argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcobiagini
(reffing Roxolan) I have found no valid counterarguments in your post, so my arguments still stand. (nice!)
Maybe at this point we can only agree to disagree.
I appreciate your thoughtful, eloquent responses, Doc! So respectful of the time both Roxolan and I put into this. Lesson learned?
Let me have first crack at summarizing his two summaries, Rox. Then perhaps you could comment (but don't waste too much time).
He: We're wrong; he's right.
(My retort? Uncharacteristically brief, but the rules of engagement have been re-defined).
Me: You're Wrong; We're Right.
(Gosh! That was soooo much easier on the mind AND fingers! And it settles this whole thing just like that! Thanks, doc! It IS true: you do learn something new every day!)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is going in the wrong direction / deflection!
Well how about looking at a Book that describes a person who will appear in the future. And there are about 300 prophecies that speak of Him, and all three hundred prophecies are fulfilled. I would say a 100% fulfillment of those prophecies would be equally convincing.
To my earler comments and questions, as yet unanswered...
And there it is! QED!
