Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Aug 22, 2019 5:31 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Exploring Origins 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 704 times in 604 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: Exploring Origins
O.K Interbane, I'm taking a break here.You've given me plenty of homework.I'll have a look and respond in due course.Of course I'm terminally biased.Those memes have a lot to answer for.



Sun Oct 13, 2013 1:26 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7041
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1072
Thanked: 2065 times in 1657 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Exploring Origins
Quote:
Of course I'm terminally biased.Those memes have a lot to answer for.


Every human is biased, and it has little to do with memes. The key is to learn as much as you can about cognitive biases, identify what you're guilty of, then overcome them(if you can). Picking sites from a google search is textbook confirmation bias. Everyone who uses a search engine is guilty of it at one point or another.

Don't shoot the messenger. :)


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Sun Oct 13, 2013 5:03 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Exploring Origins
Robert Tulip wrote:
ant wrote:
The clockwork hypothesis was retired long ago, Robert. Either you know it and wont accept it as retired or you are attempting to defend Laplace where no defense of him is required.
No, the clockwork idea has not been retired. Quantum physics shows that science cannot predict the future, but not that any acausal events are possible, which would be needed to refute determinism.

Meandering along as usual, the reason Laplace has come up here is that ant said “Science itself is not in the business of hypothesizing the existence/non existence of a God.” Laplace, one of the most famous scientists in history, indicated that the existence of God has no place in scientific astronomy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Sim ... ace#Quotes

Now admittedly, ant has a fair point that saying the hypothesis of God is not needed is not the same thing as advancing the hypothesis that God does not exist...,.



The clockwork universe is an old Enlightenment conjecture that was held mostly by deists, not atheists.
Deists likened the universe to a clock with the idea that something had to have wound up the clock to get it started.
You are slanting ideas again, Robert. That is mostly what you do here on BT - slant everything to your worldview, including some of your weird astrology claims.

The Laplace/Napoleon exchange you stated here has been almost thoroughly rejected:


I had no need of that hypothesis:

Quote:
A frequently cited but apocryphal interaction between Laplace and Napoleon purportedly concerns the existence of God. A typical version is provided by Rouse Ball:[8]

Laplace went in state to Napoleon to present a copy of his work, and the following account of the interview is well authenticated, and so characteristic of all the parties concerned that I quote it in full. Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, 'M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.' Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. ("I had no need of that hypothesis.") Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, Ah! c'est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses. ("Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains many things.")

In 1884, however, the astronomer Hervé Faye[54][55] affirmed that this account of Laplace's exchange with Napoleon presented a "strangely transformed" (étrangement transformée) or garbled version of what had actually happened. It was not God that Laplace had treated as a hypothesis, but merely his intervention at a determinate point:

In fact Laplace never said that. Here, I believe, is what truly happened. Newton, believing that the secular perturbations which he had sketched out in his theory would in the long run end up destroying the solar system, says somewhere that God was obliged to intervene from time to time to remedy the evil and somehow keep the system working properly. This, however, was a pure supposition suggested to Newton by an incomplete view of the conditions of the stability of our little world. Science was not yet advanced enough at that time to bring these conditions into full view. But Laplace, who had discovered them by a deep analysis, would have replied to the First Consul that Newton had wrongly invoked the intervention of God to adjust from time to time the machine of the world (la machine du monde) and that he, Laplace, had no need of such an assumption. It was not God, therefore, that Laplace treated as a hypothesis, but his intervention in a certain place.

Laplace's younger colleague, the astronomer François Arago, who gave his eulogy before the French Academy in 1827,[56] told Faye that the garbled version of Laplace's interaction with Napoleon was already in circulation towards the end of Laplace's life. Faye writes:[54][55]

I have it on the authority of M. Arago that Laplace, warned shortly before his death that that anecdote was about to be published in a biographical collection, had requested him [Arago] to demand its deletion by the publisher. It was necessary to either explain or delete it, and the second way was the easiest. But, unfortunately, it was neither deleted nor explained.

The Swiss-American historian of mathematics Florian Cajori appears to have been unaware of Faye's research, but in 1893 he came to a similar conclusion.[57] Stephen Hawking said in 1999,[40] "I don't think that Laplace was claiming that God does not exist. It's just that he doesn't intervene, to break the laws of Science."

The only eyewitness account of Laplace's interaction with Napoleon is an entry in the diary of the British astronomer Sir William Herschel. Since this makes no mention of Laplace saying, "I had no need of that hypothesis," Daniel Johnson[58] argues that "Laplace never used the words attributed to him." Arago's testimony, however, appears to imply that he did, only not in reference to the existence of God.
Wiki


I must say you continually misrepresent the practice of science AND certain scientists, as is the case here.


If you think the question of God is a scientific hypothesis I challenge you to defend your position with your own skin and NOT appeal to the authority of a scientist, past or present, that you undoubtedly are willing to mischaracterize and falsely attribute an atheistic worldview too.



Last edited by ant on Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:46 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5790
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2246
Thanked: 2184 times in 1652 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Exploring Origins
You are so funny ant!

It does not matter if the Laplace statement is authentic. What matters is that it has been widely accepted as so by scientists and philosophers and the secular world, because it is a compelling summary of the modern rational outlook on reality. We have no need to speculate about an imaginary creator because a natural materialist explanation is far more predictive, elegant, parsimonious and rational. The productive area of speculation is psychological and political - why does the big lie of God remain so pervasive?

Naturally we can expect your evangelical friends to spin and distort the Laplace story in all manner of ways to try to get back some credibility for their imaginary supernatural best friend. I don't for a minute believe the account you have given above is based on anything other than fraud and intimidation, like most Christian bullshit. Even Laplace himself, like Descartes and Darwin, could well have partly recanted his coherent rational view under social pressure.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Mon Oct 14, 2013 5:38 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Exploring Origins
Robert Tulip wrote:
You are so funny ant!

It does not matter if the Laplace statement is authentic. What matters is that it has been widely accepted as so by scientists and philosophers and the secular world, because it is a compelling summary of the modern rational outlook on reality. We have no need to speculate about an imaginary creator because a natural materialist explanation is far more predictive, elegant, parsimonious and rational. The productive area of speculation is psychological and political - why does the big lie of God remain so pervasive?

Naturally we can expect your evangelical friends to spin and distort the Laplace story in all manner of ways to try to get back some credibility for their imaginary supernatural best friend. I don't for a minute believe the account you have given above is based on anything other than fraud and intimidation, like most Christian bullshit. Even Laplace himself, like Descartes and Darwin, could well have partly recanted his coherent rational view under social pressure.


You have been both evasive and wish-washy with this entire "Is God a Scientific Hypothesis" question.
You answered yes and no, mischaracterized a historical character's position on the matter, falsely appealed to authority, and have stated the clock-work universe theory is widely accepted by scientists and philosophers without citing a shred of evidence or admitting that said theory is also presented as an argument FOR an intelligent agent.

And you ended this conversation by claiming I have "evangelical friends."

You are not being rational here, Robert.

I stand by my claim that you are mostly an ideological mischief maker. You are under some false impression that if your posts are lengthy and contain over a thousand plus words couched in the language of a particular science that you are a logical and rationally functioning human, and that anyone else that differs with you is some sort of evangelical bullshitter.

You wouldn't mind laying your "God is a Scientific Hypothesis" argument out for all of us to see, would you?
I mean your premises and conclusion.
I'd like to see what your tortured logical looks like before I send it off to the junkyard where it belongs.

note:
I just expect more evasion from you here. You've backed yourself into a corner and you know it.



Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:31 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Tenured Professor

BookTalk.org Moderator

Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3564
Location: Michigan
Thanks: 1321
Thanked: 1149 times in 843 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Exploring Origins
Any guess you put forward about the world which has testable elements is a hypothesis. It doesn't mean it's a good hypothesis. It just means it is a hypothesis.

So you could say for instance that the speghetti monster is holding all of us to the surface of the earth with one noodly appendage pressed to the top of each of our heads. This is a hypothesis.

It sets out a set of predictions. First that we should find some kind of noodly appendage, or at least an analog. But what are all the un-intended side effects of this claim?

It is put forward as a substitute for gravity for what's holding us to the earth. But it does not make mention of anything besides people. What holds a rock to the earth? What holds the atmosphere to the earth? What holds the earth in orbit around the sun? If the spaghetti monster is not responsible for all these other objects' gravity, is gravity also functioning on us, in addition to the noodly appendage?

We can now do experiments to determine that human bodies fall at the same rate as innanimate bowling balls. We can calculate how fast we should fall if it were only gravity acting onus, and compare that to experimental results. If it turns out that the noodly appendage is pressing us down exactly as if we were subject to the same rules of gravity as everything else, that would be telling. And we can test that objects fall independant of our heads. A watch can be taken off a wrist, which would previously have been held to the earth with the noodly appendage, but when taken off gravity must somehow decide to take over pulling it toward the earth. The same thing with a shoe, or hair after a hair cut. You could also place somebody sideways on a table with those fold-out leafs so their torso is on the main table, their head over a leaf, and their legs over a leaf. Fold the leafs down, what happens?

The noodly appendage hypothesis states we are being held to the ground by a noodle pressed to the top of our heads. So, should we not be drawn over the edge by the entire weight of our body residing in our heads? if we push that person so that their whole body is off the table, except for their heads, shouldn't they remain in "plank" position? Their bodies don't have mass, the noodle is pushing them down!

But in actuality, these and a billion other experiments you could invent would all demonstrate that the pull of our bodies toward the earth is not evidently from the push of any "noodly appendage" either visible, or not.

So, anything a "god" hypothesis actually says about the way the world works can be put to the test. It's true that just saying "God is real" is not a hypothesis really. Because nothing has been specified about what it means for the way our world works. But if you say "God is real, and because of that anyone with faith as small as a mustard seed can move mountains by prayer" you have set up a condition which can be tested. And when that inevitably fails to prove true, you have conclsively proven that THAT god, the one that was described, is not real.

There may still be billions of other versions of god without that specific criteria in their description, and you haven't disproved those gods, but the one described in the hypothesis is out the window.


_________________
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Have you tried that? Looking for answers?
Or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?

Confidence being an expectation built on past experience, evidence and extrapolation to the future. Faith being an expectation held in defiance of past experience and evidence.


Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:50 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Announcements 

• Promote Your Fiction Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:33 pm

• Promote Your Non-Fiction Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:18 pm


Recent Posts 
• Why reading is a good habit

Thu Aug 22, 2019 1:34 pm

princesscookie19

• What are you reading these days?

Thu Aug 22, 2019 11:46 am

princesscookie19

• Young Debut Author: "Timestamp: Musings of an Introverted Black Boy"

Thu Aug 22, 2019 11:04 am

MarcusGranderson

• Poll: What to do about climate change?

Thu Aug 22, 2019 7:00 am

Robert Tulip

• Buy American Character today and join the discussion!

Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:51 pm

Chris OConnor

• Please "Check In" here to the American Character discussion!

Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:46 pm

Chris OConnor

• Please check in here if you're going to join the "The Four Horsemen" discussion!

Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:43 pm

Chris OConnor

• American Character - Ch. 1: Maintaining Freedom

Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:41 pm

Chris OConnor

• American Character - Ch. 2: Two Paths to Tyranny

Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:40 pm

Chris OConnor

• American Character - Ch. 3: The Rival Americans

Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:40 pm

Chris OConnor

• American Character - Ch. 4: The Elite and the Masses (1607 - 1876)

Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:39 pm

Chris OConnor

• American Character - Ch. 5: The Rise and Fall of Laissez-Faire (1877-1930)

Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:38 pm

Chris OConnor

• American Character - Ch. 6: The Rise and Fall of National Liberalism (1933 - 1967)

Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:37 pm

Chris OConnor

• American Character - Ch. 7: Dixie Takes Over (1968 - 2008)

Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:37 pm

Chris OConnor

• American Character - Ch. 8: Rise of the Radicals (2008-)

Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:36 pm

Chris OConnor


Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank