Response to EminemBase (on Science)

[GenePeer]

It fucking pisses me off when someone starts talking about science and says things that are completely opposite of it's principles. I couldn't care less for what you think about religion, but...

Now, it is a FACT that the laws of science are RIGHT.

Bullshit! If there's one thing that's certain in science, it's nothing, I mean nothing, is ever proven right. It's only accepted but they know that eventually it can be dis-proven. Do some research on "Scientific Method" and you'll realize science only progresses by changing or adding theories. Scientists in the past used to thing the world is flat for fuck's sake, what makes you think scientists now have everything correct? How are you so sure the current explanations of things is the perfect one? Ever heard of paradigm shifts? Scientists used to think matter was made of atoms that are composed of a nucleus with protons & neutrons surrounded by circulating electrons, but this contradicted other science theories in place! The very science that creates radio waves to enable telecommunication, says that the electrons should collapse into the atom, but if they did the world as we know it wouldn't exist. Both theories, are still in use & taught now as the better explanations (quantum physics) aren't even properly understood. How's that for the laws of science being "RIGHT".

You're confusing two things: Mathematics & Science. It's only in math that things are proven and will remain right forever and ever! Pythagorus' theorem will never be proven wrong because it was proven right. It's one of the beauties of math over science. By definition, no theory will ever be proven right in science. That brings me to another statement that bugs the fuck outta me, "scientifically proven". That's an embarrassing contradiction, and people should try using phrases like "scientifically thought/suggested" or "mathematically proven" before they lie to someone.

[Mahmoud48]

science is mostly just theories
just like gravity and everythin else

[WakeUpShow]

science is mostly just theories
just like gravity and everythin else

oh hey little buddy it seems you've lost your way and wandered into the Serious Debate Forum. It's fine I'll help you find your way back. First click back 2 times. That should take you to the main forum page. Then go to the Shady States sub-section and click the first forum labeled "Eminem", Good Luck!

[EminemBase]

Now, it is a FACT that the laws of science are RIGHT.

Bullshit! If there's one thing that's certain in science, it's nothing, I mean nothing, is ever proven right. It's only accepted but they know that eventually it can be dis-proven. Do some research on "Scientific Method" and you'll realize science only progresses by changing or adding theories.

You're a moron. If you were smart enough you'd realize I and anybody who is familiar and seriously indebted to science uses the word 'fact' to mean a 'technically' proved theory which is proven to such a degree that to continue calling it a theory or pretend it's not near truth is a near mistake.

Of course nothing is ever 100%, no questions asked absolute. We can't even prove we're not in fact living in a dream for example and aren't in fact the imaginations of some 'other selves' far far away. But that doesn't make the chances 50/50 like a fucking coin toss.

There is a lot between 0 and 100. And we can ABSOLUTELY prove things up to a standard so high aka high 90s that it becomes downright illogical to plain deny or refuse said thing. Evolution is one of these things, gravity is one of these things.

So when things are proven to such a high standard that unless the rules we know to be true from example, life, technology and consistently reliable method are false, we call them fact. They are 'fact' because to the best of our knowledge, these things are the closest thing to 'the truth' we know of.

So yes, you absolutely can use the word fact when talking of things that have been proven to such a high standard. You don't need to keep emphasizing that we can't ABSOLUTELY 'know anything'. That's academic, it's pointless and it's philosophy. This is taken into account by anybody, or any scientist with any intelligence and we don't need dipshits like you to spell it out. We know. But that doesn't then mean we no longer use the word fact or speak of things as truth, or these definitions would seek to exist. Only if we're wrong about everything are some thing untrue and some things are so unlikely to be untrue now that it's silliness to pretend otherwise. And although we can't ever technically know 'anything' you can't live life that way or treat reality as such. It's madness.

[GenePeer]

You're a moron. If you were smart enough you'd realize I and anybody who is familiar and seriously indebted to science uses the word 'fact' to mean a 'technically' proved theory which is proven to such a degree that to continue calling it a theory or pretend it's not near truth is a near mistake.

All scientists will do is test it, and see if it passes. If it passes, they make another test, and again and again and again. For all they know, the theory has passed their limited scope of tests but thats it. They've not proven anything yet. So how the fuck do you 'technically' prove a theory in science? Lemme save you the essay, there is no such thing!

There is a lot between 0 and 100. And we can ABSOLUTELY prove things up to a standard so high aka high 90s that it becomes downright illogical to plain deny or refuse said thing. Evolution is one of these things, gravity is one of these things.

And that's where paradigm shifts come into play! There's no fucking point where it will ever become downright illogical to say a theorem is faulty! Lemme go back to the example I gave earlier; now that some theory has enabled telecommunication for years, has it reached that point? Now that the old atom model, enabled plenty of progress in chemistry has it reached that point? So if it is downright illogical to say they're faulty since they've both reached that point, how come they are contradictory? So the logical conclusion is no such point exist.

And where the hell did you pull that scale from, outta your ass? If we could rate a theorem's reliability like that, it would mean we know what the absolute truth we're aiming at. So if we say 95 we know we are really close to the truth. The fact of the matter is, we don't know what the absolute truth is. We have no idea what we're aiming for, and it would be pretty useless to give such a rating. A thousands of years from now, I guarantee and any scientists knows this, we'll be looked at the same way we look at scientists who thought the "earth was at the center of the universe", "heat progresses through a form known as ether", "light travels instantaneously from one point to another as it has infinite speed", etc. Seriously, we're no more different from them. There's absolutely nothing wrong with acknowledging this fact, it's not like I'm saying scientist should just give up. As long as the current science is helping us now, fine, but we know it will eventually be surpassed. So if your 95 reliability will soon move down 10, then what's the point of having this bullshit-rating?

The reason I specifically chose that quote in the OP, is you used it as the backbone of your argument. The argument was faulty and I had to point it out. Quite frankly, science is not on your side on this. Even, Stephen Hawking, one of the greatest physicists of our time and an atheist too, simply says we don't need a God to exist, but he doesn't claim God doesn't exist.

[GenePeer]

You're making it sound like I'm against science. I'm not, in fact, if it weren't for my love for mathematics, I'd probably be aiming to be a physicist one day. I'm against EminemBase's misrepresentation of science. He's got two things particularly wrong with his argument in the "response to momentsgolden" post.

1. Science is this area of knowledge that's infallible because otherwise the current progress in technology wouldn't be possible
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), but since science is infallible, then God doesn't exist.

I only addressed the error in the first point and tried to keep discussion of God out of it, but any reasonable person would see how this in turn makes the second point (the underlined part) wrong.

[EminemBase]

[*]Science is this area of knowledge that's infallible because otherwise the current progress in technology wouldn't be possible
[*]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), but since science is infallible, then God doesn't exist.[/list]

No, you are wrong. This is correct.

We know CERTAIN things (I did not say all science by default) are correct from example. We KNOW for a fact, for a clear, indisputable truth that certain laws and rules of science that we have put into practice are, correct.

We know because certain technology for example (technology is one example of why these things are correct) DEPEND on these things. So if they were not as we knew them to be, if they were not correct, then the technology that depends on them... would not work as is intended. Would not function.

So no, I am not wrong. You are wrong.

Now, because we know certain base rules of science (of which we know many of at this period in time) are absolutely correct unless our reality around us is imaginary or a delusion, then a supernatural god - the kind of which defined by religious people and in religious texts... cannot exist within this world. Within those rules, within our knowledge. The same way ghosts can't, the same way humans cannot defy gravity, the same way we cannot defy many basics of science. God, a supernatural, all-knowing god which is more complex than the universe he / she / it created is absolutely something which defies our current knowledge and is not possible.

And unless you can prove otherwise, it's incorrect, illogical and a fantasy.

[GenePeer]

We KNOW for a fact, for a clear, indisputable truth that certain laws and rules of science that we have put into practice are, correct.

It's like I'm debating with a blind person; that is exactly what I'm telling you we don't know.

We know because certain technology for example (technology is one example of why these things are correct) DEPEND on these things. So if they were not as we knew them to be, if they were not correct, then the technology that depends on them... would not work as is intended. Would not function.

I've already mentioned this in the two posts. Two different technologies both DEPEND on two different theories, but ironically these theories are contradictory. This nullifies the whole of your argument. Ignore this the next time you respond and I'm certain you are trolling my ass.

Defy gravity? What do you think satellites do every single day? They are still in earth's gravity and that's why they don't just wander off to space. Oh hell, what do birds and planes do when they fly? Get two strong magnets and watch one hover over the other. If they're big enough, and you can wear one, you'll be floating in air! The funny thing is, you will now say something like, without the help of this and this and this. If I use technology you haven't heard of yet, you'll finally accept defeat but then after explaining that technology, you'll say without the help of that too. What's the point? The only way to win would be to withhold my knowledge which is a very 'unscientific'/unprofessional thing to do!

The same train-of-thought applies to ghosts and all basics of science.

[EminemBase]

We KNOW for a fact, for a clear, indisputable truth that certain laws and rules of science that we have put into practice are, correct.

It's like I'm debating with a blind person; that is exactly what I'm telling you we don't know.

Yes, and that is what I am telling you WE DO know.

Some things WE DO know. Only when we accept we can't truly even know we're conscious or what consciousness is does everything go out the window.

But that kind of thinking is academic, not practical. And not reality. We DO know some things. In conversational terms, and being a smartass - yes, we 'know nothing' but in all actuality, WE DO, WE DO, WE DO know many things. And things which prove themselves by example. In double-blind tests, over and over, over and over, through reality.

Evidence does mean something. Rationality, does mean something. Double-blind tests and scientific method, all hold weight and you can't pretend that totally invalid, illogical, irrational theories about god and ghosts or X are 'as valid' as sound, logically proven ideas. You can harp on and on about 'we know nothing' all you like but to try and place nonsense and reality on the same playing field is out of order. And you're truly an idiot if you think like that.

This idea that 'every theory is as valid as the next' and 'we know nothing' is one which has trickled down from philosophy and one which gets used as a defense from morons who believe in faith healing and other mind puke. Chariltons use it as justification for their deception. But you've taken a philosophical concept and applied it to 'all known reality', like many who misinterpret and overuse it, and are simply applying the idea in the wrong context and ignoring evidence.

I've already mentioned this in the two posts. Two different technologies both DEPEND on two different theories, but ironically these theories are contradictory. This nullifies the whole of your argument. Ignore this the next time you respond and I'm certain you are trolling my ass.

Nothing you have said nullifies 'my argument' as 'my argument' is not an opinion, it's reality. I'm simply highlighting reality, I'm not making a personal case or a personal belief statement.

Most basic technology you see around you simply wouldn't function if we were wrong or 'didn't know' the basic things you're saying we 'can't know'. That's nonsense, it's a misuse of a philosophical thinking tree that's trickled down into moronville for simpletons like you to pick up on.

I'm not going to riffle through the history of fucking science or start picking apart every technological device around us. I'm typing on a fucking computer for one thing, you see this text? yes? this computer is working as it should. Because the technology which is being used for this keyboard is understood. And the technology that is being used to power the keyboard and connect it to my desktop, is understood.

And the technology being used to run the desktop and the processes on it, is understood. And on, and on and on. There are countless basic examples of science all around us, even as far as a fucking table, which displays our understanding of balance and dimension - that. again, would not be as they are, if what we 'know' was not 'true'.

You can keep applying your nonsensical academic cry to this conversation and keep harping we know nothing, but that's simply not the case. We do know many things to be true. Fact. And don't fucking repeat yourself again, read what I say. How many times must I concede that TECHNICALLY we can't even know if we're even conscious so yes in 'theory' we can't 'technically' know anything. But again, this is a conversational, and academic way of thinking. NOT reality.

Defy gravity? What do you think satellites do every single day? They are still in earth's gravity and that's why they don't just wander off to space. Oh hell, what do birds and planes do when they fly? Get two strong magnets and watch one hover over the other.

This confirms what a fucking idiot you are.

You think Satelites 'defy gravity'?...

They are in space you fucking cretin. They are just WITHIN enough distance for the Earth's gravitational pull (and atmosphere) to be holding them within its sphere. They aren't 'defying gravity', you honestly think we have no idea how Satelites are staying there? lmfao.

You really should bow out at the mercy of your ignorance as you're speaking with such arrogance, on such a high-plane of things you don't understand. And I'm not even pertaining to fully understand them myself, I'm hardly an expert on physics or even most basic science.

But I do know some basics, and I live by logic and know that a lot of what you are saying is not logical. It's badly constructed, wishful, deceiving babble.

If they're big enough, and you can wear one, you'll be floating in air! The funny thing is, you will now say something like, without the help of this and this and this. If I use technology you haven't heard of yet, you'll finally accept defeat but then after explaining that technology, you'll say without the help of that too. What's the point? The only way to win would be to withhold my knowledge which is a very 'unscientific'/unprofessional thing to do!

Now you've lost me. I have no idea what you're talking about, you clearly got heated here and just started a bit of a mini-rant. And are beginning to make less and less sense.

[GenePeer]

(Edit: see my long essay in the next post)

You think Satelites 'defy gravity'?...

What do you mean by defying gravity then? If you're under gravitational pull and you're not falling? Isn't that what satellites are doing? And it's not just about being at the right distance, they also have to have the right velocity or otherwise they'd fall back in. Some satellites malfunction and lose their orbit. They are trying their very best not to fall, and that is defying gravity.

Now you've lost me. I have no idea what you're talking about, you clearly got heated here and just started a bit of a mini-rant. And are beginning to make less and less sense.

Ok then, in layman's terms... airplanes defy gravity. Don't you think?

[GenePeer]

Btw, the "laws" of gravitational pull given by Isaac Newton say force of gravity between two masses is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. What this means is for there to be zero gravity between you and earth, you'd have to be infinitely away from earth. Logically (mathematically) impossible. So there's no such distance where, you'll be free of Earth's gravity but we know if you're really far you won't be pulled in. Isn't that defying gravity?

[GenePeer]

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?

[EminemBase]

Now you've lost me. I have no idea what you're talking about, you clearly got heated here and just started a bit of a mini-rant. And are beginning to make less and less sense.

Ok then, in layman's terms... airplanes defy gravity. Don't you think?

No, they don't.

Everything is always accelerating towards the centre of the earth...including airborne things like your examples: birds and planes.

The bird is flapping its wings to propel it upwards at a force greater than that of the gravitational force pulling it towards the centre of the earth, so it stays in the air.

The force of the plane's lift and the thrust of the plane's engines is greater than that of the gravitational force pulling it towards the centre of the earth, so it stays in the air.

If a bird stopped flapping its wings and the plane ran out of fuel...they would both plummet to the ground.

As for satellites: satellites are things that orbit around other things. The satellites aren't "defying" gravity either...they are also accelerating towards the centre of the earth. Except man-made satellites have been launched so fast and far that they 'fall' beyond the curvature of the earth, so when they are pulled back towards the centre by the force of gravity, they end up travelling in an elliptical path AROUND the earth.

The moon is a satellite of the earth and the moon is being pulled towards the centre of the earth. The earth is being pulled towards the centre of the sun.

Spot-on.

Finally somebody in here with a brain.

They aren't defying gravity, they're competing with it. But it's still in place and like you rightly said, if the bird stopped flapping it would plummet to the earth. They also wouldn't fly like they do without gravity as they're flapping against it, the forces as pushing against each other, everything has an equal and opposite reaction.

The laws of gravity are proven and apparent constantly. So I have no idea what Gene is getting at. This idea that nothing is proven or reality is nonsense.

@Gene - I'll answer your post(s) in a bit. Am busy writing for my site but I have the response open, it's just I'll probably be writing quite a bit so, bare with me.

[GenePeer]

The term defying gravity is not a scientific term. It's used in normal life conversation to mean fighting the powers of gravity, which is not really impossible. People who use that term, say it when they don't understand the mechanics behind "the floating".

But in more scientific cases, black holes are believe to have the absolute gravitation pull where even light can't escape once it reaches it's "event horizon". That means absolutely no information should ever leave the black hole, but there's still something called the Black hole information paradox created when some waves "defy gravity" and are actually radiated from it. There's still no accepted solution to this paradox!

Please, let's set this aside and let EminemBase (or someone else) respond to my last post.

[classthe_king]

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