Response to EminemBase (on Science)

[GenePeer]

2. The existence of God would mean science is wrong (I have no idea why, but I'd rather he address this in the other thread)

lol class, I already pointed that out, but even if there was such a law it contradicts, I'm trying to show them that that law can still be wrong.

[EminemBase]

I think it's really funny that Eminembase constantly says that because we know the laws of science are right a God can't exist but he still hasn't cited one single law that would say that. I'm pretty sure if Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein say a god can exist...then a god can exist. They're a little smarter than you are

Well, if you're going to respond to me... would you be so kind as to not make such a rookie mistake and quote the oldest chesnut in the book.

Neither Hawking or Einstein advocated a personal god of any kind.

Einstein hated the fact religious people misused his quotes with the word god in to try and pretend he was a believer. As if he was on their side.

Just for confirmation of my claims, here's a letter wrote by Einsten himself on the subject:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/ ... e.religion

Some segments:
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses.

Einstein thought that religious texts were a collection of, and I quote "primitive legends" which are "pretty childish" and he thought the idea of god was a childish superstition.

And Hawking thinks that the idea of an afterlife is a fairy tale and false comfort for people that are afraid of death. Which is a pretty obvious, logical conclusion. Neither of them advocate religion, a personal god or conclude the idea of a supernatural, all-knowing, conscious creator is likely or possible. So stop talking rubbish.

As for why I say a god couldn't exist within our laws, I have stated many times the logic for this argument, clearly you aren't reading... I wlll state again:

I say this because, given our scientific laws... for the type of god you're talking of aka an all-knowing, conscious creator that is essentially a giant human, with empathy and a conscience and a moral arbiter and all these things... that kind of god or in fact, ANY god that could CREATE this universe would need to be MORE complex (at least) than the Universe. To have created it.

And for the kind of god religious people describe or talk about... that kind of god would be defined as supernatural. Which, they openly define it is. It would have to be supernatural as the sheer complexity of such a god is illogical within our known bounds.

So, for a SUPER-NATURAL god to exist, that would mean something defying our laws which would make them invalid or changeable or wrong. Which we know they aren't. So unless you can prove to me the basics of science are incorrect or show me how such a god could exist or come into existence in a scientifically sound way... the idea is a fantasy.

It's a fantasy because unless you can demonstrate how it could be true within our reality, it remains a supernatural idea. Which is not prove able, and not logical. So you may choose to believe it, if you wish. But that doesn't make it likely, possible, or true.

It's an extremely unlikely idea. Scientifically we can't say anything is impossible just because... well scientists have to remain conservative to a DEGREE about any and every possible idea just in case. But the idea of a personal, conscious god is as close to zero as any idea.

@Amadeo - once again, the voice of reason. Let's me know I'm not going insane and aren't the only logical fucker here. The crap Gene has been saying is unreal to me. Half of it doesn't even deserve a response but I will anyway. Nothing better to do.

[GenePeer]

The phrase "defy gravity," by its very nature, means something that contradicts science...something that is supernatural. You might have heard that Superman can "defy gravity"...because man can't fly, but he can...therefore he is defying gravity and is supernatural.

So this is exactly what I tried to explain in the other quote where EminemBase claimed I was ranting and wasn't making any sense. Say I come to you, and pull a lot of theories together and explain to you the very mechanics of how superman flies. I tell you he has special biological features since he's from Krypton and shit. Will you now stop saying he's defying gravity?

Because that's exactly what you do to a child who doesn't understand how a plane works! You explain all the aerodynamics and eventually, they stop saying planes defy gravity. When you don't how understand how things fly, you'll say they're defying gravity. So the only I could have won the argument of "you can't defy gravity" is by withholding important information, like say how superman/birds/planes fly.

Now that you see there are things scientists don't completely understand, then you can understand when I say even thing things that they think they understand can't be absolutely true. Can't be facts. Before Hawkings discovered "Hawking's radiation", people like EminemBase would claim it's a fact nothing can leave black holes but now it's changed... and now EmBase's claiming more things to be facts which is just wrong!

I know that mathematics hasn't solved all its problems but the beauty of it is that when it's finally solved, unlike science, it remains solved! Logic isn't science like EmBase thinks, logic is math!

[EminemBase]

^ No logic is not just math.

As science isn't based on pure conjecture or guesswork.

What do you think rational, evidence based tests function on... ? LOGIC.

A definition of logic:
The quality of being justifiable by reason

Science IS based on and uses LOGICal principle. It collects evidence and proves things with tests, arguments and theories that are logical and can be repeated, shown by example, expanded and improved upon and progressed.

This is logic. Not personal belief, not conjecture and not at all comparable to say a religious belief which is wishful, totally unfounded, illogical, unproveable and unlikely. The idea of god hasn't progressed since its invention by man.

The idea of god, or ghosts or any supernatural nonsensical claim remains stagnant as you can't progress something which has no logical basis or makes no sense. It remains as stupid from day one to day one thousand. Where as science, is constantly progressing, constantly improving. Because it's based on logic, and evidence.

PS. Mathematics is also science. It's not separate. So you make no sense.

[GenePeer]

Well, do a lot of math and you'll realize all you're doing is reasoning! Plus math isn't science because it doesn't follow the scientific method.

[GenePeer]

If you were a math genius with thousands of years to live, you could literally lock yourself in a room all that time and still be able to come up with all the math knowledge that's there now through logic alone. You require no equipments, not even a pencil and paper. You can't say the same about science. Take away your eyesight and nearly all of science wouldn't be possible! So yeah, logic is more of math than science.

[EminemBase]

Well, do a lot of math and you'll realize all you're doing is reasoning! Plus math isn't science because it doesn't follow the scientific method.

Maths is science.

A definition of mathematics:
a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement.

There are many strains of science or things within science that can be proved to higher degrees or more solidly than others. Some science remains theoretical as we don't have the technology or knowledge yet to fully demonstrate or test such theories.

But just because some science isn't as solidly logical or stern as mathematics does not mean it's not logical. It's not just reason, if it was just reason it would just be discussion. Science is more than a discussion, it's a progressive reality.

Science explains everything around us, to the best of our abilities, constantly. And it does so by collecting evidence, studying that evidence and advancing theories and ideas, and then trying to prove / or disprove those ideas.

And just because it can't prove some or because there's a lot we don't know does not mean the things we do know are invalid lmao. That's ridiculous.

[classthe_king]

No

I want you to cite which specific laws a god would be defying in order for him to exist.

[EminemBase]

If you were a math genius with thousands of years to live, you could literally lock yourself in a room all that time and still be able to come up with all the math knowledge that's there now through logic alone. You require no equipments, not even a pencil and paper. You can't say the same about science. Take away your eyesight and nearly all of science wouldn't be possible! So yeah, logic is more of math than science.

...I don't see your point. So your point is that mathematics is more solidly evident than most other science... and... lmao. When have I disputed this. You've now dropped the ball, moved away from your original argument and are now clutching at straws.

Why would I dispute the validity of fucking maths. It's to my argument as it IS a science.

Yes, some science is more provable or apparent than other science. We know. You were trying to argue that nothing is truly valid or true, which is just moronic.

There are degrees of truth at best and physics and chemistry can be proven to massive degrees. They are pure truths that are evident through example and reality. They aren't just conversation pieces or theories.

Another definition of logic:
Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

All science bases itself on reason. Reasoned argument, progressive thought, debate and evidence. This is logic, reason and logic go hand in hand. You're trying to separate them and don't even understand what logic means.

You started this thread as more of a personal gripe but have shown you really have no argument here and don't know what you're talking about.

[EminemBase]

No

I want you to cite which specific laws a god would be defying in order for him to exist.

Well, a being of such sheer complexity popping into existence defies pretty much every law you can think of. Every strain of reason goes against that concept.

So it's more about how this god would have come into existence first of all. And the burden of proof is on those who make the claim aka you.

So it's up to YOU to tell me how such an extremely complex, unfathomable figure of marvel could simply 'pop' into existence from nowhere. God doesn't explain anything, it just kicks the can back, it's an infinite regression.

Also, the kind of god you or religious people refer to aka a personal god that can read your thoughts and is everywhere at once... again, this defies logic as we know it. So, he can mind read? how's that possible then. Please do explain, I'm all ears.

If god needs no creator, the universe doesn't either. If god can always be there, the universe can always be there. But, we've already begun to explain how the universe could have come into existence from SIMPLE beginnings, which makes sense.

As things go from simple to complex overtime. This is shown through evolution also and we've already explained how all life became complex, with no need for a creator. So, not only is there no need for a god, it makes absolutely no sense and nobody has ever come up with a single argument to even suggest the idea being likely or possible.

[GenePeer]

For the sake of the thread I won't respond to this derailment. It makes me look like I had no argument at first and yet you're the one who hasn't responded to my earlier points and keeps picking tiny things on the side to reply to. We can save the "Math isn't Science" argument for another thread.

I think even Amadeo understood what I said and stopped responding!

[EminemBase]

For the sake of the thread I won't respond to this derailment. It makes me look like I had no argument at first and yet you're the one who hasn't responded to my earlier points and keeps picking tiny things on the side to reply to. We can save the "Math isn't Science" argument for another thread.

I think even Amadeo understood what I said and stopped responding!

I'll respond to your earlier points soon. I just glanced over them and Amadeo has responded to most, and there really isn't any meat on the bones, it's rather boring.

I've just been responding to your most recent posts as I happen to be active in the thread and they were a lot shorter so I read them quicker.

And, there is no argument there. Maths IS a science. You're now disputing a fact once again, you think you can just take reality into your own hands and make of it what you will lmao. You can call it what you like but maths IS a science, is defined as a science and always has been a science. And science also runs on logic.

So you've run out of steam in that department also. As I've clearly shown that science is logical and runs on logic, please prove me wrong if you can.

Looking over your earlier responses now...

[EminemBase]

Let me now explain myself properly: What you keep saying is that since the technology works, the knowledge we have must be right. If the knowledge we have is right, then no God exists.

The beauty of statements like this is I only have to show one case where it doesn't work to show that the whole logic is false.

So let's go through it step-by-step with the example of a phone:
1. Since the technology works:
Phones are able to work thanks to many technologies but I'll only talk about two: Semiconductors & Radiowaves. Semiconductors work on the theory that atoms are a nucleus surrounded by circulating electrons. Semiconductors have a special number of electrons on their outer shell that lets them behave like metals and non-metals at the same time. This property is used in electronics everywhere, and without it computers and phones would be the size of warehouse.
Radiowaves are used to transmit enconded sound waves (our voices) to the receiving phone and enable proper communication. Radiowaves (aka electromagnetic waves) can produces by accelerating electrons circulating in the antennae. The theory states that "when particles with charges (like electrons) are accelerated they release electromagnetic waves."


2. then the knowledge we have is right:
Now phones work so this should mean the knowledge we have is right. Now what does this imply?
-Atoms are a nucleus surrounded by circulating electrons (Theory 1). These electrons are constantly changing direction, therefore, by definition, they are accelerating.

-If they are accelerating then they should be releasing electomagnetic waves (Theory 2).

-If they are releasing electromagnetic waves, then by law of conservation of energy (Another accepted theory), this waves must be coming from the electrons kinetic energy.

-If the electron's kinetic energy is being used, then the electron will fall into the nucleus similar to how planes fall when the engines shut down. We see this happen everyday.

-If they fall into the nucleus, the protons and electrons will combine to produce neutrons (Another accepted theory). So no electrons and protons would exist.

-If no electrons exist, all technology and life as we know it wouldn't exist. Even respiration that keeps us alive (Another theory).

-BUT life, as we know it, does exist. So something must be wrong in the reasoning given above! You know what that is? This statement: The knowledge we have is right! This is proof by contradiction and is used in logic every time!


And this in turn makes your claim "since the technology works, the knowledge we have must be correct." wrong because the technology works but the knowledge is still not correct.


Now to the last part:
3. If the knowledge we have is correct, then God doesn't exist.
Well, I just proved that the knowledge isn't correct, so I can't make any conclusion.

Please note, that I have not made the mistake of saying "therefore God exists."

Have I made myself clear yet?

Well I have absolutely no idea how phones or any of the technology you mentioned truly work and can't be sure you truly do also. As, you thought for one thing that planes and satelites were defying gravity earlier so the idea you can understand something that appears to sound so complex seems unlikely to me.

So because I don't understand the example you've given, it's unfair of me to argue against or with is as I don't understand the validity in what you are saying.

But, if the technology was incorrect it wouldn't work. Incorrect technology doesn't work, by definition. That's why it's 'incorrect'. Things work when they are correct. So no, you haven't made yourself clear and I have no idea what you mean.

PS. Amadeo just made another sound response contrary to your idea. I think you assume he's on your side and are too dense to reailze he's actually disagreeing with most of what you are saying lmao. Like he said, mathematics is considered a science.

And... read the rest of his post. You might learn something.

[classthe_king]

No

I want you to cite which specific laws a god would be defying in order for him to exist.

Well, a being of such sheer complexity popping into existence defies pretty much every law you can think of. Every strain of reason goes against that concept.

So it's more about how this god would have come into existence first of all. And the burden of proof is on those who make the claim aka you.

So it's up to YOU to tell me how such an extremely complex, unfathomable figure of marvel could simply 'pop' into existence from nowhere. God doesn't explain anything, it just kicks the can back, it's an infinite regression.

Also, the kind of god you or religious people refer to aka a personal god that can read your thoughts and is everywhere at once... again, this defies logic as we know it. So, he can mind read? how's that possible then. Please do explain, I'm all ears.

If god needs no creator, the universe doesn't either. If god can always be there, the universe can always be there. But, we've already begun to explain how the universe could have come into existence from SIMPLE beginnings, which makes sense.

As things go from simple to complex overtime. This is shown through evolution also and we've already explained how all life became complex, with no need for a creator. So, not only is there no need for a god, it makes absolutely no sense and nobody has ever come up with a single argument to even suggest the idea being likely or possible.

Saying that god can't exist because it's impossible to explain how he popped up out of nowhere is the same as saying the universe can't exist because it's impossible to explain how it popped up out of nowhere. And don't tell me that we are begining to understand how it happened because we have no clue. Where did that infinitely dense point where everything in the universe once sat come from?

[EminemBase]

Saying that god can't exist because it's impossible to explain how he popped up out of nowhere is the same as saying the universe can't exist because it's impossible to explain how it popped up out of nowhere. And don't tell me that we are begining to understand how it happened because we have no clue. Where did that infinitely dense point where everything in the universe once sat come from?

No that's not the same at all.

Because the Universe does exist. Evidently. As we exist in it, we can observe it, measure it, we are IN the fucking Universe lmao.

Nobody knows how the very first point of the Universe came into existence... and where the fuck did I claim to know that?

But a supernatural god is an invented idea. Not an evident truth or reality. It's an ADDITION, it's an attempt to EXPLAIN the Universe and how it was created, it's not the same thing. It's an attempt to explain it, and if you can't explain the explanation, it's nonsense.

If I say I can fly, and you say "prove it" and I say "I can't, but I still can" - do you consider the claim that I can fly likely, possible or reality then? do you 'respect' it and say "well... it defies logic and you can't prove it or explain it but, it could be true". If you treated every claim like that you'd basically be a fucking retard, you need to have standards.

And god is more ridiculous than that, and any claim I can think of.