Majority Scientists disbelieve GOD

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Alexander
- what is special about this?

YOU !

 

[pelastration]

JUST ASK ALEXANDER: Abstractons ... the state of principles?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pelastration
Do you consider mathematics as matter?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Alexander
Is mathematics a "thing" (object)?

Is this supposed to be an answer?
The old trick: answer with a question
So again: Do you consider mathematics as matter?

As long as you don't answer seriously I will consider that your point of view is that mathematics don't exist because it's not 'matter'.

And Alexander please answer also the thread in "Everything came from Nothing':

Originally posted by Alexander
It does. Look at the universe - it is quite math obedient. Very and very much. Why? Very simple. Because math is NOT a language. Math is just a logic of existence/ inexistence. That is why anything existing obeys math.

1. Does logic exists?
2. Is math reality?
3. Is math valid without the existence of humans?
4. Were mathematical theorems and axioma's - afterwards to be proven false - reality?

Originally posted by Alexander
Obviousely math is valid without humans and with or without aliens from planet X. Math of all civilizations is the same (despite variety of notations used). Pithagorean theorem (sin2+cos2=1) is same with or without humans/aliens/robots, etc. Shredinger or Maxwell equations are same anywhere in universe, and their solution (say, a hydrogen atom, or mutual inductance of two coils) is same in any notations used.

Since 4. was anticipating on this answer I ask again:
"Are mathematical theorems and axioma's - afterwards to be proven false - reality ?"

In "JUST ASK ALEXANDER!" I continue:

5. What the difference between fermions and boson?
Please correct me if fermions (Quarks, leptons) are matter related and bosons (photons, gluons) force related. ( http://www.physics.uiowa.edu/~gpayne/ho/1D2particles.htm , http://heppc16.ucsd.edu/ph130b/130_notes/node198.html , ).

6. Since you state " math is valid without humans " this means that it has NOTHING to do with humans brains and their 'active state of neurons'! Great!. Thank you for the insight!
So should we introduce abstract and/or intellectual waves - (I suggest the name "Spiritons' or 'Abstractons' ) to explain abstract mathematical fundamentals which exists independently from the shift between matter and energy and their states?

I have more questions ... but I will be very pleased if you can answer already now the Questions 1 to 6 - point by point.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Fliption
Lol. Is there anything you DON'T know Alexander? Is there anything that you wonder about?

Yes, there is some. For example, if a free-falling electron radiate (e/m radiation)? (Most physicists say yes (as it moves with acceleration), but I thing not because free falling system is indistinguishable from not moving with any acceleration system).

Why, the only thing left to wonder about is why no one else sees how simple it is but Alexander!

I don't know.

May be, because I read textbooks?

 

[Zero]

I've made this same point on several threads over teh years, so stop me if you've heard this one:

The fact that most scientists are not deeply religious says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the validity of religion. It doesn't speak to the greater natural intelligence of scientists, or a lower level of intelligence of theists. All it really shows is that scientists, especially top ones, are focused on their method to answer questions. I would hazard a guess that they became scientists because 'magical' thinking didn't suit them, not that being a scientist made them abandon religious thinking.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by pelastration


So again: Do you consider mathematics as matter?

Mathematics is a set of logical rules. It is NOT a "thing". Recall that we discuss objects (everyTHING, anyTHING), not concepts.

And Alexander please answer also the thread in "Everything came from Nothing':




1. Does logic exists?
2. Is math reality?
3. Is math valid without the existence of humans?
4. Were mathematical theorems and axioma's - afterwards to be proven false - reality?

1. Yes. 2. Because math governs physical reality, it is a (conceptual) part of it. 3. Yes, of course. 4. Nope. By definition axioms can't be false. Axioms are just initial conditions from which theorems (=conclusions) derived. You can start with any initial condition(s) you want.

In "JUST ASK ALEXANDER!" I continue:

5. What the difference between fermions and boson?
Please correct me if fermions (Quarks, leptons) are matter related and bosons (photons, gluons) force related. ( http://www.physics.uiowa.edu/~gpayne/ho/1D2particles.htm , http://heppc16.ucsd.edu/ph130b/130_notes/node198.html , ).

The difference is that math allows indistinguishable particles to bahave only 2 specific ways (only 2, because square root has only 2 values - positive and negative). The existence of two solutions for a square root makes two DIFFERENT statistics. One is called bosonian, another - fermionian. Nature just simply obeys that. Quoting second citation from above: "...the interchange symmetry DIFFERENCE makes fermions behave like matter and bosons behave like energy. The fact that no two fermions can be in the same state means they take up space, unlike bosons. It is also related to the fact that fermions can only be created in conjunction with anti-fermions. They must be made in pairs. Bosons can be made singly and are their own anti-particle as can be seen from any light."

6. Since you state " math is valid without humans " this means that it has NOTHING to do with humans brains and their 'active state of neurons'! Great!. Thank you for the insight!

You are very welcome. (I probably have to charge for educating people - then I will be rich. Well, what if I am already rich? Share with the poor? That is what I do.)

So should we introduce abstract and/or intellectual waves - (I suggest the name "Spiritons' or 'Abstractons' ) to explain abstract mathematical fundamentals which exists independently from the shift between matter and energy and their states?

Where did you get this nonsense? Math is just a logic of existence.

 

[Hurkyl]

4. Nope. By definition axioms can't be false.

Incorrect. By definition, the axioms of a logical theory are true. Nothing is preventing those axioms from being both true and false.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

An axiom can ONLY be true. A false axiom is NOT an axiom. How one can make this mistake I don't know.

 

[plus]

Axioms could be contradictory saying nothing about the logic.

It is perfectly possible to have false axioms within a theory, e.g. within Newtonian gravity.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by plus
Axioms could be contradictory saying nothing about the logic.

It is perfectly possible to have false axioms within a theory, e.g. within Newtonian gravity.

False axiom /=/ axiom

Thus if you have a false axiom in your theory, you have NO axiom in your theory.

An axiom can be ONLY TRUE. NOT FALSE. If you have in your theory what you call an axiom, which is then disproven, you never had an axiom in your theory.

 

[Hurkyl]

And it's logically permissible for an axiomatic system to be internally inconsistent as well; witness Cantor's set theory.

And don't forget Godel's theorems. Any reasonable logical theory T that can deduce the statement "T is consistent" can also deduce the statement "T is inconsistent".

So, I suggest you rethink making the claim that axioms can't be false.

(by "reasonable theory", I mean that it has sufficient expressive power to embody the arithmetic (+ and *) of the natural numbers)

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
And it's logically permissible for an axiomatic system to be internally inconsistent as well; witness Cantor's set theory.

And don't forget Godel's theorems. Any reasonable logical theory T that can deduce the statement "T is consistent" can also deduce the statement "T is inconsistent".

So, I suggest you rethink making the claim that axioms can't be false.

(by "reasonable theory", I mean that it has sufficient expressive power to embody the arithmetic (+ and *) of the natural numbers)

Hurkyl. The definition of an axiom states it can't be false. End of story.

 

[Hurkyl]

(a) Mathematical logic cannot even formulate the assertion "Statement P cannot be false"; the closest it comes is to deduce "not P", to prove "P is true", or to prove "not P is false".

(b) There is no restriction on what logical statements may be taken as an axiom. Any collection of logical statements generates a logical theory for which those logical statements are considered axioms.

End of story.

(If you'll allow me also to abuse the phrase)

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Say what you will, you bring no proof. I do.

ax·i·om ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ks-m)
n. A self-evident or universally recognized truth

 

[Hurkyl]

And given that definition, pray tell how you deduce an axiom cannot be false, using just mathematical logic?

 

[Zero]

Hmmmm...in math, axioms are usually absolute: 1+1=2. In real life, axioms are a bit more slippery, don't you think?

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Incorrect. By definition, the axioms of a logical theory are true. Nothing is preventing those axioms from being both true and false.

I would rather say that "true" and "false" can only apply to theorems (=logical derivatives from axioms) and other constructs, but can't be applied to such primitive logical object as axiom yet. Axioms are initial statements from which more complex structures are derived (and then those complex structures are compared with axioms to see if they are in agreement with them (=true) or if there was a logical mistake in derivation (false conclusion)). True and false are comparison operators, and when you have nothing to compare with, then these operators don't apply yet.

 

[Hurkyl]

But what might happen is that you can start with a system of axioms and then correctly deduce the negation of one of those axioms. ("correctly" means that the only premises you used are the given axioms and logical rules of inference)

By a typical definition of "true", the axioms of a theory are taken to be true, and all statements that logically follow from them are true (and nothing else). By a typical definition of "false", a statement is false if and only if its negation is true.

Since it may happen that the negation of an axiom can be deduced from the axioms, an axiom thus may be both true and false.


Of course, the usual procedure is to thus abandon that system of axioms and find a new system that appears to work better (such as when Cantor's set theory was replaced with Zermelo-Frankel set theory), but as Godel's theorem shows, we can never use the axioms of any reasonable theory to prove that we cannot derive the negation of one of the axioms; the spectre of potential inconsistency must alway loom over our head.


This is interesting because it means mathematical logic is incapable of the circular reasoning typically used in other domains to justify belief systems (i.e. religion, mysticism, and science).

Among other things, this means that any belief system professing to adhere completely to logic must not assert that it is a consistent belief system. This is why I find many atheistic fundamentalists' arguments comical; they love to assert that they are strictly logical while religion cannot adhere strictly to logic... but then they will turn right around and tell you that their belief system is consistent (of course, not in those exact words)

 

[Alexander]

Define "consistent".

Religion is full of internal inconsistensies. There are many lists of them around. Take a Bible, for example, http://www.quran.net/comp-std/cntrbibl.htm

 

[Hurkyl]

Consistency := ~(P and ~P)

Science is full of internal inconsistencies too. Why is it that when science has an inconsistency, the correct source of action is to find a mistake in your understanding and refine it, but when religion has an inconsistency, the correct source of action is to abandon religion?

 

[Alexander]

Because inconsistency is in brain.

(Also, can you please substantiate your claim about science by providing a few examples of inconsistencies in scietce? I am very curious about that).

 

[Hurkyl]

Because inconsistency is in brain.

That's a curious statement, could you elaborate further?

(Also, can you please substantiate your claim about science by providing a few examples of inconsistencies in scietce? I am very curious about that).

The big ones are GR + QFT and GR + galaxy formation. Little ones are things like using Newton's laws when you know they're incorrect, and don't forget historical things like the conflict between Galilean relativity and Maxwellian electrodynamics!Before you respond, consider a bigger picture. You, as a scientist, are about to give a lecture on the reasons why some of these alledged inconsistencies are okay, and how the others represent a state of incomplete knowledge that science is striving to correct. Now, consider that Christian theists (and probably other religious theists) often respond to alledged inconsistencies in Religous thought by explaining how some of the inconsistencies aren't real inconsistencies, but stem from a misinterpretation, and respond to others as the state of an incomplete knowledge of God.

I presume also that you do not have an education in theism. You have, at best, an outsiders knowledge of the hot issues, heavily biased by your presumption from the outset that religion is idiocy. I also presume if you have seen the arguments of those educated in religion that you have dismissed them after a casual reading rather than taken them seriously and deeply considered if they could be right.

So, when you say that religion is inconsistent, what makes your assertions any different than, say, this post:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2468

other than the obvious difference that he's talking about science and you're talking about religion?

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
That's a curious statement, could you elaborate further?

Sure. Religion is a brain product (imagination which is not based in facts nor logic), that is why it is so full of inconsistencies and incorrect claims (like: BigFootSanta created all toys we see around us). Same with misunderstanding science, or with layman view of it - inconsistensy is in layman brain only simply because layman brain does not know science.

The big ones are GR + QFT and GR + galaxy formation. Little ones are things like using Newton's laws when you know they're incorrect, and don't forget historical things like the conflict between Galilean relativity and Maxwellian electrodynamics!

There is no inconsistency here. Same as there is no inconsistency between round and flat Earth - every farmer, engineer, student, and almost every scientists successfully uses flat Earth math (just because small fraction of round is flat).

I presume also that you do not have an education in theism.

Correct, I did not waste time on santaclausology. Instead, I learned how nature works.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Hurkyl So, when you say that religion is inconsistent, what makes your assertions any different than, say, this post:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2468

other than the obvious difference that he's talking about science and you're talking about religion? [/B]

From this web site: "Several hundred never before seen galaxies are visible in this "deepest-ever" view of the universe, called the Hubble Deep Field (HDF), made with NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. Besides the classical spiral and elliptical shaped galaxies, there is a bewildering variety of other galaxy shapes and colors that are important clues to understanding the evolution of the universe. Some of the galaxies may have formed less that one billion years after the Big Bang."

What is inconsistent here?

 

[Hurkyl]

Science is a brain product, a figment of the imagination that is not based on the Bible or God. That is why it is so full of inconsistencies and incorrect claims (like: eggs can stand on their end only on the equinoxes). Same with misunderstanding Christianity, or the layman view of it; inconsistency is in a layman's brain simply because the layman does not know Christianity.

I did not waste time learning science. Instead, I learned truth.


Did you find that to be a particularly compelling argument against Science? Did you even find it worth reading a second time?

Do you think your post was any better?



And on that post I linked, I was comparing you to John MacNeil.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Hurkyl

Science is a brain product, a figment of the imagination that is not based on the Bible or God. That is why it is so full of inconsistencies and incorrect claims (like: eggs can stand on their end only on the equinoxes). Same with misunderstanding Christianity, or the layman view of it; inconsistency is in a layman's brain simply because the layman does not know Christianity.

I did not waste time learning science. Instead, I learned truth.


Did you find that to be a particularly compelling argument against Science? Did you even find it worth reading a second time?

Do you think your post was any better?



And on that post I linked, I was comparing you to John MacNeil.

See - you claims are based on LACK of facts (equinoxal eggs, he he, Christianity, Bible, etc). Mine - on facts. Because a truth is defined as a compliance with fact, I am telling truth and you are telling false. Just logic, dude, logic.

Religion is untested view of primitive people - as someone here said.

You put yourself in a corner simply because you don't know the definition of truth. Read dictionary - criteria of truth is observed fact (Marx).

 

[Hurkyl]

Just logic, dude, logic.

Slight problem. Logic provides only rules of inference, and there isn't even universal agreement amongst mathematicians what the correct set of rules of inference is.

So how can you claim any fact whatosever from "just logic"?



And it would do wonders for your case if you could present an argument for someone who doesn't currently believe exactly what you believe.

 

[Alexander]

No, I do not claim to derive any fact whatsoever from logic. All I claim is that because the definition of truth is "compliance with facts", then statements which contradict observed facts are false by definition of truth. Say, many religion claims contradict to observable facts (say, 6000 year old Earth, or making Sun in 1 day, or making man out of clay, etc). Thus they are not true.

 

[Hurkyl]

No, I do not claim to derive any fact whatsoever from logic.

So... every fact you assert is a statement you believe on faith?

All I claim is that because the definition of truth is "compliance with facts", then statements which contradict observed facts are false by definition of truth.

The definition of "true" in formal logic is merely one of the two values in the range of a truth assignment, which is merely a function from a domain of formulas (a.k.a. elements of some mathematical language) into the set {true, false}.


Your post begs two questions:

(a) What do you mean by "fact"?
(b) Where do you get your definition of truth?

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
So... every fact you assert is a statement you believe on faith?

What do you mean? Can you clarify what is the relationship between what I said and what you concluded from it?

(a) What do you mean by "fact"?

fact ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.


Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.

A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.

(b) Where do you get your definition of truth?

From a dictionary:

truth ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trth)
n. pl. truths (trthz, trths)
Conformity to fact or actuality.

 

[Hurkyl]

No, I do not claim to derive any fact whatsoever from logic.

So... every fact you assert is a statement you believe on faith?

What do you mean? Can you clarify what is the relationship between what I said and what you concluded from it?

Well, if you don't derive any fact from logic, I'm speculating as to why you would believe a statement would be a fact.

You seem to have asserted previously that logic is the only valid form of proof.
You don't prove facts with logic.
I presume that you believe that statements you claim as fact are indeed fact.
Faith is belief without proof.

Conclusion: Any beliefs you have of the form "X is a fact" must be derived from faith.

Is this accurate, or am I missing something?

fact ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences:

So, what is a real occurence, and how can we base knowledge or information upon it?

From a dictionary:

truth ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trth)
n. pl. truths (trthz, trths)
Conformity to fact or actuality.

Ok, so your definition bears little resemblance to the logical definition of truth. As such, it would be inappropriate to use your definition of truth in an alledged logical argument against Religion.

And if you're allowed to select your own definition of truth apart from the logical definition, can you give a reason why a religious person cannot select their own definition of truth and have their arguments just as valid as yours?

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Saint
Quote:

Leading scientists still reject God
Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

Sir — The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total.

Many contemporary religions believe an act of creation by an omnipotent deity gave birth to the infinite cosmos.

The existence of nothing ostensibly requires no justification, so most theological theories begin with a primal void. At the 'beginning of time' a transformation must have taken place, and the physical manifestation of the cosmos resulted. But creation would require a creator - the very presence of which would violate the original contention that nothing existed. Even if that inconsistency is ignored, whatever sired the Universe must certainly have been created by some predecessor which, in turn, must have been predated by a limitless procession of ancestry. The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy which results from a cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical 'beginning'.

Supernatural versions of creation sidestep the issue of redundancy with the assertion that whatever created the Universe was not subject to the laws of nature. Of course, when the laws of nature are discarded anything is possible, even the absurd. There are attributes of the Universe which are beyond logic, but they are not immune from natural laws. To claim exemption from the laws of nature is to argue against logic, itself, and no rational theory can be crafted in the absence of reason.

 

[New-Prototype]

I don't mean this as an insult or anything, but religion is a sham! I believe that these thoughts and beliefs were only created so the people in the church can make money. Humans need things to believe in, especially if it explains things that we do not understand. For instance, spontaneous generation was a belief used to explain how flies seem to come out of rotting food and eels from mud (errr at i think it was eels). And well, just like God he might have been an idea thought up by someone in attempt to explain how life came into existence. But the idea and belief itself has flaws that proves that there is no God; however, there are still incidents in this world that disproves people of their opinions that there is no God.

Such as how do you explain a dramatic improvement in a patient who was supposed to die because they had no way of being revived or cured (a mircale)? And what about that talking baby that got borned?! It was all over the chinese newspapers, you know? The child was given birth and then when it was held by it's parents it said something about warding off SARS by eating greens before 12 AM that night. And after it gave it's message, the infant died. How can you explain something as supernatural as that? (And it did happen, it was front page news)

But yet, how can there an omnipotent ruler like God who could see all and know all? That is just obscure and impossible (hope i used that word right). If there is a God who loves his people so much, why is crime increasing in this world? And if human-life was created by God why does research show that we may have evolved from the prime-ape family such as the rangatang (i can't spell the ape's name but u know what i mean. I hope). Besides, scientists believe that the first forms of life was cyannobacteria, which then later evolved into more complex life forms. See that?

(This reply is so long...) [zz)]

 

[TENYEARS]

Young fish old fish still in the tank and nothing has changed. Your choices and band wagon jumping will destroy the planet. When you wail and nothing happens. Tough. Eat of your self consoling beliefs then. When the oceans turn to sludge, and the skys darken will you remember. I doubt it. Unconciousness is born to repeat itself. It is not be nature of what we are but of now we use that which we are made the will change this life or not.

You take your 400 1000 1,000,000 scientists. They are less than nothing to me.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Young fish old fish still in the tank and nothing has changed. Your choices and band wagon jumping will destroy the planet. When you wail and nothing happens. Tough. Eat of your self consoling beliefs then. When the oceans turn to sludge, and the skys darken will you remember. I doubt it. Unconciousness is born to repeat itself. It is not be nature of what we are but of now we use that which we are made the will change this life or not.

You take your 400 1000 1,000,000 scientists. They are less than nothing to me.

Uh huh...I'll take facts over fantasy, anyday.

 

[TENYEARS]

See now you are lying to me.