Dyothelite Posted February 20, 2007 Report Posted February 20, 2007 No, technically things do exist despite you observing them or not. Take away all sentient beings, heck ... all life, and what happens? The universe still ticks away doing what it's been doing for many many years before life ever arose. I was merely speaking on the root linguistics of the terms. That was accurate. But even then the hypothetical "existence" of unobserved phenomena is still observed as mental recognition and therefore "observed" in the mind. My point is latin and spanish have different verbs "to be" where english only has one. If you look at the roots of those two verbs in latin the meaning is different when you say something "IS" or "exists". Whats weird is when you look at this technically God can "BE" but God cannot "exist". If God were to "exist" God must be directly observed, and God is by definition beyond even mental observation. essence (root esse- to be)Online Etymology Dictionary existence (root sistere- to stand forth)Online Etymology Dictionary essence = permanent "is" (spanish Ser)existence= observed qualities (spanish Estar) Quote
hallenrm Posted February 20, 2007 Report Posted February 20, 2007 My point is that we say quarks exist, because we can infer their presence from what we observe in high energy accelerators, otherwise no one can say whether they exist or not. Similarly, the existence of God is an inference from very many observed phenomena that science at present is unable to explain:) Quote
sanctus Posted February 20, 2007 Report Posted February 20, 2007 No, technically things do exist despite you observing them or not. Take away all sentient beings, heck ... all life, and what happens? The universe still ticks away doing what it's been doing for many many years before life ever arose. Have a look into QM, there it is not true any more (at least in the strict sense) Quote
phoenixbyrd Posted February 20, 2007 Report Posted February 20, 2007 I suggest you learn a little bit more about the observer effect and QM in general. QM doesn't and never has said that an observer is required for something to exist. That statement is a misunderstanding of what the observer effect is. Sure, it sounds all cool and stuff, but the fact is the universe doesn't need anything to observe it in order for it to exist. Take a rock or mountain for example, way out in some uninhabited part of our planet. No one is observing it, yet it still exist despite that. Or galaxies billions of light years away for that matter. What the Bleep are they On About? - Features - The Lab - Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Gateway to Science Quote
Dyothelite Posted February 20, 2007 Report Posted February 20, 2007 I suggest you learn a little bit more about the observer effect and QM in general. QM doesn't and never has said that an observer is required for something to exist. That statement is a misunderstanding of what the observer effect is. Sure, it sounds all cool and stuff, but the fact is the universe doesn't need anything to observe it in order for it to exist. Take a rock or mountain for example, way out in some uninhabited part of our planet. No one is observing it, yet it still exist despite that. Or galaxies billions of light years away for that matter. What the Bleep are they On About? - Features - The Lab - Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Gateway to Science Without an observer that experiences time the remote mountain is irrelevant because it is only a mountain for a given time, before it was a mountain it was a tectonic plate that eventually crumpled into a mountain. Therefore, to call it a mountain or galaxy requires the experience of time Quote
phoenixbyrd Posted February 21, 2007 Report Posted February 21, 2007 Oh for the love of gawd. Does anyone besides me sense a trend here on hypography? Here's a new title for the site, hypography, where common sense is the enemy. Quote
moyself Posted February 13, 2008 Report Posted February 13, 2008 Jim Colyer,If you are looking for unbiased answers, this is not the right website. If you want to read a book that is minutely biased and explains both points of view: Creation and Evolution, I have one in mind. The book is titled Exploring Creation with General Science by Dr. Jay. L. Wile. The author admits that his book is somewhat biased, but it still gives you the choice to believe in either theory. The book is a textbook, but if you want simple answers, this is it. Quote
InfiniteNow Posted February 13, 2008 Report Posted February 13, 2008 Jim Colyer,If you are looking for unbiased answers, this is not the right website. If you want to read a book that is minutely biased and explains both points of view: Creation and Evolution, I have one in mind. The book is titled Exploring Creation with General Science by Dr. Jay. L. Wile. The author admits that his book is somewhat biased, but it still gives you the choice to believe in either theory. The book is a textbook, but if you want simple answers, this is it. That's not science, friend. That's intelligent design, a christian book for home schooling. I encourage you two watch this special on NOVA about the attempts to introduce ID into the classroom in Dover, PA. You can view it online, for free, and it's worth your time. It's split into sections so you don't have to watch it all at once if your schedule won't permit: NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS Section 1: A Town DividedNOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS Section 2: What is Evolution?NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS Section 3: Introducing Intelligent DesignNOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS Section 4: The Trial BeginsNOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS Section 5: The Fossil RecordNOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS Section 6: A Very Successful TheoryNOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS Section 7: The Nature of ScienceNOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS Section 8: Examining Intelligent DesignNOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS Section 9: Faith and ReasonNOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS Section 10: Separation of Church and StateNOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS Section 11: A Culture ConflictNOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS Section 12: Closing ArgumentsNOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS Quote
moyself Posted February 13, 2008 Report Posted February 13, 2008 That's not science, friend. That's intelligent design, a christian book for home schooling. I encourage you two watch this special on NOVA about the attempts to introduce ID into the classroom in Dover, PA. You can view it online, for free, and it's worth your time. It's split into sections so you don't have to watch it all at once if your schedule won't permit: NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS Section 1: A Town DividedNOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS Section 2: What is Evolution?NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS Section 3: Introducing Intelligent DesignNOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS Section 4: The Trial BeginsNOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS Section 5: The Fossil RecordNOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS Section 6: A Very Successful TheoryNOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS Section 7: The Nature of ScienceNOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS Section 8: Examining Intelligent DesignNOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS Section 9: Faith and ReasonNOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS Section 10: Separation of Church and StateNOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS Section 11: A Culture ConflictNOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS Section 12: Closing ArgumentsNOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS Actually it is science(you did get the homeschool book part right though), but it shows both views and doesn't force either view on you. I will try to look at those videos Quote
InfiniteNow Posted February 13, 2008 Report Posted February 13, 2008 Actually it is science(you did get the homeschool book part right though), but it shows both views and doesn't force either view on you. How do you define science? You're clearly not using the same definition that 99% of the rest of the world do. Quote
moyself Posted February 13, 2008 Report Posted February 13, 2008 How is it not science? I have the book right here and it is definately science. Quote
InfiniteNow Posted February 13, 2008 Report Posted February 13, 2008 How is it not science? I have the book right here and it is definately science. You have not addressed my question. How do you define science? Quote
moyself Posted February 13, 2008 Report Posted February 13, 2008 You have not addressed my question. How do you define science? If you want me to be honest, I don't really have a definition for science... Wait a minute! Dictionary here I come! No I'm just kidding I don't have one. What is your definition? Quote
InfiniteNow Posted February 13, 2008 Report Posted February 13, 2008 If you want me to be honest, I don't really have a definition for science... Wait a minute! Dictionary here I come! No I'm just kidding I don't have one. What is your definition? Before I tell you my definition, can you please explain to everyone how it is that you've been telling each of us that the book you suggested uses science properly, and offers a scientific viewpoint, yet you yourself cannot even a) define science, nor find a dictionary to look it up? Your position is not internally consistent, and I'm afraid you've been taught some things that are not entirely true or accurate. Quote
moyself Posted February 13, 2008 Report Posted February 13, 2008 Before I tell you my definition, can you please explain to everyone how it is that you've been telling each of us that the book you suggested uses science properly, and offers a scientific viewpoint, yet you yourself cannot even a) define science, nor find a dictionary to look it up? Your position is not internally consistent, and I'm afraid you've been taught some things that are not entirely true or accurate. I don't understand why you think this book doesn't use science. I can find a dictionary, but then it wouldn't be my real opinion. Finally, what is "not entirely true or accurate"? Could you be more specific? Quote
InfiniteNow Posted February 13, 2008 Report Posted February 13, 2008 I don't understand why you think this book doesn't use science. Science is a method. It is about asking a question, and looking for an answer. It is not about wanting and answer, and then cherry-picking information in support of it. It is about making testable predictions, then testing them... rejecting the idea when the concept is proven false. Scientists (as in, those who live life using the methods of science) when acting in the above spirit do not continue to hold on to conclusions which are not supported by evidence. Scientists, when acting in the spirit of science, let go of ideas and theories once they've been shown incorrect. Science is more about rejecting wrong information than it is about "believing" better information. As for "how I know" that your book is crap... Let's just say I've smoked enough cigarettes in my life to know that I don't want to smoke any more, even if it's a different brand. Quote
Eye Sky Posted February 14, 2008 Report Posted February 14, 2008 In ones mind many things and thoughts exist, including god. The Wired magazine had an article, in early 2000, where they monitored the brain to discover the area most responsible for the God thought. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.