For Science Students

[teachyourself]

Our curiosity gives us the ability to look beyond the present moment. From it, we have evolved an urge to look for causes, it is an inseparable part of our biology. Because of this, we really can't help ourselves when we attempt to find a cause for creation, it is second nature for us to ask, 'What Caused the Big Bang?'

yes

Any answer to this problem must begin with a key realization: both time and space are contained within the universe and came into existence only AFTER the Big Bang occurred. The cause of the universe must not include them, they are not available to us. It must come from outside our experience.

you must check the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, nothingness in the quantum physics world is not what we would call nothing in the everyday sense, check

Observation of the Dynamical Casimir Effect in a Superconducting Circuit -- C.M. Wilson, G. Johansson, A. Pourkabirian, J.R. Johansson, T. Duty, F. Nori, P. Delsing

even a vacuum is something, so if nothing is something then what is nothing so the argument of an "outside experience" does not hold, yes weird, yes it defies common sense and logic but we must conform our common sense and logic to the evidence of reality, the idea being explored is that the universe came out of nothing

We must somehow come up with a solution that exists outside time and space.

GOD MADE IT HAPPEN

yes, we must come up with a solution but just accepting god made it because we do not have an answer yet is like giving up, so by that definition when you do not understand anything you would say "God did it", that is superstition and thus the death of scientific inquiry

also try avoiding making deductive arguments upon of the basis of "lack of evidence" but rather upon the basis of "existence of evidence" since it is not a legal question but rather a scientific one, so in science we work hard patiently until the evidence is found

and the evidence is challenging your perception and understanding of the concept of time and space, isn't it?

 

[teachyourself]

And sorry once again, what is your reason/reasons for denying God's existence? i wasn't able to understand...

very simple, there is no evidence of god

 

[Talha Jameel]

very simple, there is no evidence of god

Who created you?

 

[teachyourself]

Who created you?

not who but what

in the case of every individual the biological processes inside the bodies of a person's parents

in the case of individuals who might be born in the future as a result of artificial wombs in that case it would be the processes in that lab environment
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120302101543.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...kthrough-sparks-row-over-how-long-human-embr/
Professor Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz

as for the human species then you might as well go back to the question of the beginning of time creation of the universe, etc , as discussed in the previous messages

 

[Talha Jameel]

not who but what

in the case of every individual the biological processes inside the bodies of a person's parents

in the case of individuals who might be born in the future as a result of artificial wombs in that case it would be the processes in that lab environment
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120302101543.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...kthrough-sparks-row-over-how-long-human-embr/
Professor Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz

as for the human species then you might as well go back to the question of the beginning of time creation of the universe, etc , as discussed in the previous messages

Who defined those biological processes, who set the rules for them?

 

[Talha Jameel]

You believe in human souls right?
Agreed that body is made from biological process. But soul? What is the science behind soul entering (getting life) / leaving (death) the body?
What happens to the human soul? Where does it go? Where did it originate from?

 

[teachyourself]

Who defined those biological processes, who set the rules for them?

no one

now if you extend that into "then why does this happen?" then every biological process or any other natural process has its own basis

 

[teachyourself]

You believe in human souls right?
Agreed that body is made from biological process. But soul? What is the science behind soul entering (getting life) / leaving (death) the body?
What happens to the human soul? Where does it go? Where did it originate from?

no proof for souls

life? even a single cell organism is life

so the question is about consciousness which is represented through neural activity but exactly which neurons is the problem being explored for example the human brain blue print project might be able to do that

 

[Ayesha Asif333]

Do u even know what God means? Do you even know what u’re talking about

God’s nature is so subtle and fine, far beyond our limited conception so as to be invisible to the physical eye and to be imperceptible to the senses and so pure as to above the metal or spiritual vision of human being. He is unfathomable and inaccessible to human perception. No vision can grasp Him but, but His grasp is over all vision . U understand? God is above anything we conceive. There can be no parallel in any sense to Him

No matter how hard we try we won’t be able to understand God, Its not like we can capture the picture of God on camera and then study Him, Just like we can u and I cannot see quarks doesn’t mean they don’t exist similarly if we are unable to see God doesn’t mean He doesn’t exist.

Science can never tell us the all truth because it can depends on gathering direct evidence. It can not even prove to us the existential truth , the moral truth, the logical truth, the historical truth and the experimental truth. Here are examples.

1) Existential Truth: Science cannot prove that you aren’t merely a brain in a jar being manipulated to think this is all actually happening. (Think of something like in “The Matrix”.) It also cannot prove that the world wasn’t created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age (and with fake memories in your head, and half-digested food in your stomach, etc). However it’s still rational to believe that our memories are true and that the world is real.

2) Moral Truth: Science cannot prove that rape is evil. While it is possible to demonstrate, for example, that there are negative physical or psychological effects of rape, there is no scientific test that can prove it is evil. Science can describe how the natural world is, but moral truth carries an “oughtness” (how things should be) about it that goes beyond what merely is.

3) Logical Truth: Consider the statement “Science is the only way to really know truth.” How could you prove that statement by science? It is actually self-refuting because there is no scientific test you could use to prove that it is true! Science cannot prove logic to be true because it assumes and requires logic in order for it to work.

4) Historical Truth: Science cannot prove that Barack Obama won the 2008 United States presidential election. There is no scientific test we could perform to prove it. We could have an investigation if we wanted to confirm that he did actually win, but the method for proving historical truths is different from testing scientific truths since historical truths are by nature non-repeatable.

5) Experiential Truth: Science cannot prove that your spouse loves you. When asked why so-and-so loves you, you may cite precedent (times when their behavior demonstrates their love for you) but this is a particular type of historical truth. There is no scientific test that can confirm a lifetime of experience of knowing a person.

 

[Ayesha Asif333]

you must check the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, nothingness in the quantum physics world is not what we would call nothing in the everyday sense, check

Alright, but what am i gonna get after knowing all this

 

[Talha Jameel]

no one

now if you extend that into "then why does this happen?" then every biological process or any other natural process has its own basis

Nothing happens on its own. Even the word 'natural' has something to do behind it's occurrence.

 

[Talha Jameel]

no proof for souls

life? even a single cell organism is life

so the question is about consciousness which is represented through neural activity but exactly which neurons is the problem being explored for example the human brain blue print project might be able to do that

Ok, so soul doesn't exists too. How does a human die than? Certainly we're not robots who just 'stop' functioning...

You know at times 'no proof for ....' is pretty lame? Provide me a proof that you even exist and its not my optical illusion.

 

[teachyourself]

Do u even know what God means? Do you even know what u’re talking about

God’s nature is so subtle and fine, far beyond our limited conception so as to be invisible to the physical eye and to be imperceptible to the senses and so pure as to above the metal or spiritual vision of human being. He is unfathomable and inaccessible to human perception. No vision can grasp Him but, but His grasp is over all vision . U understand? God is above anything we conceive. There can be no parallel in any sense to Him

this just reaffirms my point that there is no evidence of god existing

No matter how hard we try we won’t be able to understand God, Its not like we can capture the picture of God on camera and then study Him, Just like we can u and I cannot see quarks doesn’t mean they don’t exist similarly if we are unable to see God doesn’t mean He doesn’t exist.

subatomic particles can be seen using the appropriate equipment not seen in the traditional sense but they can be measured, detected, tested, etc
so there is evidence for sub-atomic particles, none for god

Science can never tell us the all truth because it can depends on gathering direct evidence. It can not even prove to us the existential truth , the moral truth, the logical truth, the historical truth and the experimental truth. Here are examples.

1) Existential Truth: Science cannot prove that you aren’t merely a brain in a jar being manipulated to think this is all actually happening. (Think of something like in “The Matrix”.) It also cannot prove that the world wasn’t created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age (and with fake memories in your head, and half-digested food in your stomach, etc). However it’s still rational to believe that our memories are true and that the world is real.

first a claim/hypothesis is made and then the evidence is presented via an experiments/observation, to accept the claim/hypothesis
THEN a counter claim is made, experiments are performed and evidence is presented, hence, the over-ruling of an earlier claim

so as for this world being real, there is evidence of that, for it being simulated no evidence, so we stick with this world being real

2) Moral Truth: Science cannot prove that rape is evil. While it is possible to demonstrate, for example, that there are negative physical or psychological effects of rape, there is no scientific test that can prove it is evil. Science can describe how the natural world is, but moral truth carries an “oughtness” (how things should be) about it that goes beyond what merely is.

morality is subjective to the culture, religion, beliefs (collective/individual), etc so it does not matter, what matters is whether something is harmful in the practical sense (physical or psychological), this can be proven in terms of physical injuries and psychological injuries via checking for an imbalance in stress hormones, brain funciton via mri scans, etc

as far as how things ought to be, the idea is simple do whatever helps the system (society) progress while taking into consideration the individuals need and the sacrifice some individuals would need to make, discussions can fine tune the details, at an individual level treat others as you would want them to treat you

3) Logical Truth: Consider the statement “Science is the only way to really know truth.” How could you prove that statement by science? It is actually self-refuting because there is no scientific test you could use to prove that it is true! Science cannot prove logic to be true because it assumes and requires logic in order for it to work.

the truth of what? a situation? about a person? natural phenomena?

for a situation: similar approaches are taken to gather evidence
about a person: polygraphs are not relied upon too heavily since they have been proven to be good but not perfect, so other forms of evidence via background checks are found
natural phenomena: so far science is the best way

also, logic is subjective based upon the trade-offs people make, if you come across enough situations requiring resources logic will need to be used to determine what is more important to you happens in managing a business quite often, so you make trade-offs taking into consideration the subjective mind-sets of employees, until and unless you are talking about an axiom

4) Historical Truth: Science cannot prove that Barack Obama won the 2008 United States presidential election. There is no scientific test we could perform to prove it. We could have an investigation if we wanted to confirm that he did actually win, but the method for proving historical truths is different from testing scientific truths since historical truths are by nature non-repeatable.

why would you need a scientific test for this? all you need is video evidence, witnesses, etc but it is science that has made the recording of history more reliable

this is a false equivalency, the idea is prove the existence of god, till then no matter who says what, do not accept it, simple

5) Experiential Truth: Science cannot prove that your spouse loves you. When asked why so-and-so loves you, you may cite precedent (times when their behavior demonstrates their love for you) but this is a particular type of historical truth. There is no scientific test that can confirm a lifetime of experience of knowing a person.

actually it can be proven, body language research is new but it does work though not perfectly, additionally love/attachment can be measured/affected by two hormones:-
1. Oxytocin: this hormone is produced in excessive amounts during child birth and orgasms (more in females)
2. Vasopressin: this is the long term attachment attachment hormone produced during/after (science is not sure when) sex (mostly males)

polygraph tests can be used to see if a person is lying about loving someone

 

[teachyourself]

Alright, but what am i gonna get after knowing all this

as in learning quantum physics or knowing things in general?

the quantum physics i mentioned to see if you could understand that logic and common sense are not usually the best way to go about things, just simply look for evidence

as for knowing things in general, knowing things and learning stuff can never do any harm in-fact learning stuff literally strengthens your brain

 

[teachyourself]

Nothing happens on its own. Even the word 'natural' has something to do behind it's occurrence.

yes the cause and effect of things, that is explained in great detail with evidence but the evidence for god doing anything is not there

 

[teachyourself]

Ok, so soul doesn't exists too. How does a human die than? Certainly we're not robots who just 'stop' functioning...

You know at times 'no proof for ....' is pretty lame? Provide me a proof that you even exist and its not my optical illusion.

actually we are machines everything alive is a machine just made out of different stuff, as for death the last point can be the brain dying away or the heart stopping long enough for it not to be revived

well, optical illusions is actually something else, i think what you mean is hallucination, well in that case you can either ask someone next to you whether you are actually having this discussion or not, you can go to the doctor to check for any change in brain function, check yourself for intoxicants such as LSD or any other chemicals that can induce hallucinations but then the question arises what if even that will be a hallucination, then i guess you are pretty much screwed

 

[Talha Jameel]

actually we are machines everything alive is a machine just made out of different stuff, as for death the last point can be the brain dying away or the heart stopping long enough for it not to be revived

well, optical illusions is actually something else, i think what you mean is hallucination, well in that case you can either ask someone next to you whether you are actually having this discussion or not, you can go to the doctor to check for any change in brain function, check yourself for intoxicants such as LSD or any other chemicals that can induce hallucinations but then the question arises what if even that will be a hallucination, then i guess you are pretty much screwed

lol ok. Problems with atheists is that they consider themselves superior to everyone else. Yeah, you're the one with super brain, we're all dumb.

 

[teachyourself]

lol ok. Problems with atheists is that they consider themselves superior to everyone else. Yeah, you're the one with super brain, we're all dumb.

i am a bit too indifferent to theism to be an atheist, so all i encourage is rationality and the inquiry for evidence, god/religion tends to stand in the way of that, no one is stupid/smart, either you are trained or you are untrained

 

[Talha Jameel]

i am a bit too indifferent to theism to be an atheist, so all i encourage is rationality and the inquiry for evidence, god/religion tends to stand in the way of that, no one is stupid/smart, either you are trained or you are untrained

You have some of my respect now. This is the first time you made a sound statement

 

[Ayesha Asif333]

first a claim/hypothesis is made and then the evidence is presented via an experiments/observation, to accept the claim/hypothesis
THEN a counter claim is made, experiments are performed and evidence is presented, hence, the over-ruling of an earlier claim

so as for this world being real, there is evidence of that, for it being simulated no evidence, so we stick with this world being real

morality is subjective to the culture, religion, beliefs (collective/individual), etc so it does not matter, what matters is whether something is harmful in the practical sense (physical or psychological), this can be proven in terms of physical injuries and psychological injuries via checking for an imbalance in stress hormones, brain funciton via mri scans, etc

as far as how things ought to be, the idea is simple do whatever helps the system (society) progress while taking into consideration the individuals need and the sacrifice some individuals would need to make, discussions can fine tune the details, at an individual level treat others as you would want them to treat you

the truth of what? a situation? about a person? natural phenomena?

for a situation: similar approaches are taken to gather evidence
about a person: polygraphs are not relied upon too heavily since they have been proven to be good but not perfect, so other forms of evidence via background checks are found
natural phenomena: so far science is the best way

also, logic is subjective based upon the trade-offs people make, if you come across enough situations requiring resources logic will need to be used to determine what is more important to you happens in managing a business quite often, so you make trade-offs taking into consideration the subjective mind-sets of employees, until and unless you are talking about an axiom

actually it can be proven, body language research is new but it does work though not perfectly, additionally love/attachment can be measured/affected by two hormones:-
1. Oxytocin: this hormone is produced in excessive amounts during child birth and orgasms (more in females)
2. Vasopressin: this is the long term attachment attachment hormone produced during/after (science is not sure when) sex (mostly males)

polygraph tests can be used to see if a person is lying about loving someone

Yea, what your saying makes sense but not that much