Forums - General Discussion - Which Is A Bigger Threat To Humanity? Science Or Religion?

o_O.Q said:
pleaserecycle said:

The singularities do not physically exist.  They're only mathematical. 

but scientists are attempting to apply them to the real world through black holes

that's the point i've been making

Somehow we've transitioned from the Big Bang to black holes, but the same principles apply.

General relativity is a classical field theory that describes space and time through a gravitational field.  Field theories propose that matter interacts with a field, such as a gravitational field or electric field, instead of interacting directly with other matter.  General relativity is classical in the sense that it does not account for quantum mechanical effects; therefore, we might expect that general relativity does not apply (breaks down) in the realm of subatomic particles or minuscule time scales.  The black hole singularity appears because we're applying general relativity in a realm where quantum mechanical effects are present.  There is no physical evidence that supports the singularity and the current state of research involves building a theory of general relativity that includes quantum mechanical effects so that the theory does not produce a singularity.

Last edited by pleaserecycle - on 16 January 2018

Around the Network
superchunk said:
Superman4 said:

I disagree completely with this statement. Anywhere you have religion you have issues. Why is the middle east in an endless war? Religion. Why does the US have insane laws regarding abortion, gay marriage etc.  Religion. Lack of religion allows you to focus on being a person first and not waiting for some mythical figure to guide you through life. It also eliminates the justification for your violence towards others or acceptance of others. Over time religion has caused more deaths and massacres than any war over land,or Plague.

Name one country where there is no religion? That's like saying air is the leading cause of death because nearly everyone who has ever died was breathing air at the time of death.

You are highlighting true issues with how people use their religious power. However, you are ignoring the countless others who are happy in that same extreme living space or in the much larger world where extremism is not law. Its called cherry picking.

The OP was not requesting opinions on cherry picked scenarios. When you break down plausibility for humanity impacting crisis', an event rising from AI, genetic manipulations, or otherwise have a far higher possibility than tyrannical religion. Fact is, we already have and have had extremist religions powers. Humanity hasn't been threatened.

Hell, what has threatened humanity? WW1 and 2. The Cuban Missile Crisis. Those had nothing to do with religion but power and that power utilized weapons and scientific studies to kill millions. Especially during WW2. 

It's far more likely that we're going to see a plague caused by genetic manipulation.

It's far more likely that we're going to have issues from AI.

It's far more likely that we're going to become to reliant on science / tech and when it collapses from some war action, we'll all be screwed. (read the one second after book, good stuff)

Now, don't get me wrong. I love tech and science. I can't wait to see implementations of self driving cars (I'm buying a Telsa later this year). I will be among the first to sign up for nano-tech injected into my body as a better immune system. I am un-trustworthy of GMO food in general (another topic I see as a big risk to humanity) but I'm not against further study on producing better food genetically. (difference is in injecting poisons vs increasing size/nutrients)

The argument isn't which one is better than the other as both have merits and risks. This isn't an emotional discussion. But which has the most plausibility to be a threat to humanity. Organized belief in a god is actually on the decline WW. This is why there is so much backlash in America as Christians are now becoming more and more extremist. Its a defense mechanism. (btw, I'm not atheist or Christian) But, mistakes in several scientific fields simply have a higher plausibility of happening than a large-scale religious based conflict or a religions based terror group attempting to kill us all off with nukes/virus/etc.

I think you missed the point.  In WWI and in WW2 religion played a part. It was very prevalent in WW2 considering Hitler was targeting Jews. The point however is that much like politics with two sides opposing, religion is much of the same with an even more dangerous narrative. Religion is used in every culture as a way to control people and create a hive type mind. Make everyone fear a "God" and do his bidding so that anyone in a position of authority in said religion controls the masses. Back when religion was invented it was an ingenious way for a different class of people to gain power by manipulating people into belief based on "miracles" and scare tactics. Why people still believe in these fairy tales is beyond me but it is having the same effect now. People are radicalizing because it gives them purpose where they have none. It makes them important in their heads and gives their life meaning. That is very dangerous as it gives reason to do unspeakable things in the name of your religion and for people on the edge is an enabler. 



SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

"You're right. It is religion that makes people to do that."

but atheists kill people too right?

Can you show me the passage in the atheists doctrine that directs atheists to kill people?

We'll wait while you find it.

o_O.Q said:

 

"They won't be rewritten but added to."

you can't know that for certain since they might have to rethink certain aspects as they move forwards, that's a possibility... or they may just realise that they don't exist...

 

"That doesn't require faith."

to me it does when you don't even have any evidence that they exist, which they don't

I can know that for certain.  And the fact you suggest the laws of Newtonian physics and the laws of quantum mechanics may need to be rewritten and not just expanded on tells me that you are not well versed on the subject.  You are arguing from ignorance and incredulity.  Just because YOU don't know doesn't mean that others don't know.  It's faith to you because you don't know enough otherwise.

 

"Can you show me the passage in the atheists doctrine that directs atheists to kill people?"

you're answering my question with a question? do atheist kill people or not?

 

"the fact you suggest the laws of Newtonian physics and the laws of quantum mechanics may need to be rewritten and not just expanded on tells me that you are not well versed on the subject."

strawman

i said that singularities are not currently accommodated in our physics laws

i then said that two possibilities are t(1)hat singularities may not exist and (2)that we may have to change our current laws of physics (furthermore i didn't say that these are the only possibilities )

 

the idea you are pushing that there is only one path with regards to this problem - that singularities exist and we simply have to add to our laws of physics to include them is actually the silliest idea i've heard so far... let me reiterate this so you get it... we do not know yet if they even exist in a practical sense, got it yet?

 

" You are arguing from ignorance and incredulity.  "

 

only because you are attacking a strawman though ( and even the strawman you attacked is a possibility since it is possible that our physics laws are not perfect, this stance as someone graciously pointed out previously is anti-science )

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 16 January 2018

pleaserecycle said:
o_O.Q said:

but scientists are attempting to apply them to the real world through black holes

that's the point i've been making

Somehow we've transitioned from the Big Bang to black holes, but the same principles apply.

General relativity is a classical field theory that describes space and time through a gravitational field.  Field theories propose that matter interacts with a field, such as a gravitational field or electric field, instead of interacting directly with other matter.  General relativity is classical in the sense that it does not account for quantum mechanical effects; therefore, we might expect that general relativity does not apply (breaks down) in the realm of subatomic particles or minuscule time scales.  The black hole singularity appears because we're applying general relativity in a realm where quantum mechanical effects are present.  There is no physical evidence that supports the singularity and the current state of research involves building a theory of general relativity that includes quantum mechanical effects so that the theory does not produce a singularity.

we made that transition because you asked me to describe how they are applied practically

"There is no physical evidence that supports the singularity"

you are disagreeing with probably the most famous physicist alive in our era stephen hawking

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

"However, the expansion of the universe, is like the time reverse of the collapse of a star. I therefore want to show you, that observational evidence indicates the universe contains sufficient matter, that it is like the time reverse of a black hole, and so contains a singularity."

 

despite that... i agree with you, most of the discussion on this is speculative and distinguished people in the field appear to disagree on this a lot, which was my argument to begin with



o_O.Q said:
SpokenTruth said:

Can you show me the passage in the atheists doctrine that directs atheists to kill people?

We'll wait while you find it.

I can know that for certain.  And the fact you suggest the laws of Newtonian physics and the laws of quantum mechanics may need to be rewritten and not just expanded on tells me that you are not well versed on the subject.  You are arguing from ignorance and incredulity.  Just because YOU don't know doesn't mean that others don't know.  It's faith to you because you don't know enough otherwise.

"Can you show me the passage in the atheists doctrine that directs atheists to kill people?"

you're answering my question with a question? do atheist kill people or not?

You responded to BDBDBD with a false equivalence. I responded to you with a return to BDBDBD's statement to you by addressing a true equivalence.

 

"the fact you suggest the laws of Newtonian physics and the laws of quantum mechanics may need to be rewritten and not just expanded on tells me that you are not well versed on the subject."

strawman

I don't think you know what a strawman fallacy is.  I didn't rebut something you never said.  I'm saying you lack subject matter knowledge which means your position on the subject is based on a faulty premise which is leading you to a faulty conclusion.

 

i said that singularities are not currently accommodated in our physics laws

i then said that two possibilities are t(1)hat singularities may not exist and (2)that we may have to change our current laws of physics (furthermore i didn't say that these are the only possibilities )

Again, we do not need to change our laws of physics, only add to them.  This again shows you are not well versed with the modern model of physics.

 

the idea you are pushing that there is only one path with regards to this problem - that singularities exist and we simply have to add to our laws of physics to include them is actually the silliest idea i've heard so far... let me reiterate this so you get it... we do not know yet if they even exist in a practical sense, got it yet?

Actually, I'm not arguing either way with you.  I've not said anything regarding singularities.

 

" You are arguing from ignorance and incredulity.  "

only because you are attacking a strawman though ( and even the strawman you attacked is a possibility since it is possible that our physics laws are not perfect, this stance as someone graciously pointed out previously is anti-science )

You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

By the way, do you not know how to multi-quote a single person?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
o_O.Q said:
pleaserecycle said:

Somehow we've transitioned from the Big Bang to black holes, but the same principles apply.

General relativity is a classical field theory that describes space and time through a gravitational field.  Field theories propose that matter interacts with a field, such as a gravitational field or electric field, instead of interacting directly with other matter.  General relativity is classical in the sense that it does not account for quantum mechanical effects; therefore, we might expect that general relativity does not apply (breaks down) in the realm of subatomic particles or minuscule time scales.  The black hole singularity appears because we're applying general relativity in a realm where quantum mechanical effects are present.  There is no physical evidence that supports the singularity and the current state of research involves building a theory of general relativity that includes quantum mechanical effects so that the theory does not produce a singularity.

we made that transition because you asked me to describe how they are applied practically

"There is no physical evidence that supports the singularity"

you are disagreeing with probably the most famous physicist alive in our era stephen hawking

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

"However, the expansion of the universe, is like the time reverse of the collapse of a star. I therefore want to show you, that observational evidence indicates the universe contains sufficient matter, that it is like the time reverse of a black hole, and so contains a singularity."

 

despite that... i agree with you, most of the discussion on this is speculative and distinguished people in the field appear to disagree on this a lot, which was my argument to begin with

You took that quote out of context.  Here is the whole paragraph:

"This possibility, that the galaxies would have missed each other, was supported by a paper by two Russians. They claimed that there would be no singularities in a solution of the field equations of general relativity, which was fully general, in the sense that it didn't have any exact symmetry. However, their claim was proved wrong, by a number of theorems by Roger Penrose and myself. These showed that general relativity predicted singularities, whenever more than a certain amount of mass was present in a region. The first theorems were designed to show that time came to an end, inside a black hole, formed by the collapse of a star. However, the expansion of the universe, is like the time reverse of the collapse of a star. I therefore want to show you, that observational evidence indicates the universe contains sufficient matter, that it is like the time reverse of a black hole, and so contains a singularity. "

Hawking is rebutting a claim that general relativity does not predict singularities.  He claims that with a sufficient amount of matter, general relativity will produce a singularity.  He says nothing about the physical existence of the singularity.  In a later paragraph he states:

"The no boundary proposal, predicts that the universe would start at a single point, like the North Pole of the Earth. But this point wouldn't be a singularity, like the Big Bang. Instead, it would be an ordinary point of space and time, like the North Pole is an ordinary point on the Earth, or so I'm told. I have not been there myself. "

Hawking is discussing his no boundary theorem (Hartle-Hawking State) in which the universe transitions between imaginary time and real time.  Like other researchers, Hawking is attempting to build a theory that does not result in a singularity.  

Even in a more recent lecture "The Origin of Universe" (2005) found on the same site, Hawking states:

"Although the singularity theorems of Penrose and myself, predicted that the universe had a beginning, they didn't say how it had begun. The equations of General Relativity would break down at the singularity. Thus Einstein's theory cannot predict how the universe will begin, but only how it will evolve once it has begun. There are two attitudes one can take to the results of Penrose and myself. One is to that God chose how the universe began for reasons we could not understand. This was the view of Pope John Paul. At a conference on cosmology in the Vatican, the Pope told the delegates that it was OK to study the universe after it began, but they should not inquire into the beginning itself, because that was the moment of creation, and the work of God. I was glad he didn't realize I had presented a paper at the conference suggesting how the universe began. I didn't fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition, like Galileo. 


The other interpretation of our results, which is favored by most scientists, is that it indicates that the General Theory of Relativity breaks down in the very strong gravitational fields in the early universe. It has to be replaced by a more complete theory. One would expect this anyway, because General Relativity does not take account of the small scale structure of matter, which is governed by quantum theory. This does not matter normally, because the scale of the universe is enormous compared to the microscopic scales of quantum theory. But when the universe is the Planck size, a billion  trillion trillionth of a centimeter, the two scales are the same, and quantum theory has to be taken into account. "

You've attempted to list singularities as support for your claim that science involves faith.  I'm telling you, with the utmost respect, that you're fundamentally misunderstanding the existence and purpose of singularities.  I appreciate that you're questioning science - it's a quality that I wish more people possessed - but at some point you need to realize that you're selectively reading and quoting these articles out of context to fit your narrative.   

Last edited by pleaserecycle - on 16 January 2018

o_O.Q said:
OhNoYouDont said:

Read those definitions again, slap yourself in the face for your intransigence and then get a clue. Is this guy seriously this incompetent? His own definitions establish his extra chromosome. FFS

 

"intrinsic : "Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing.""

waste is a part of the essential nature of technology... lol were you not aware of that?

dunning-kruger indeed lol

Nobody agrees with you.

I really can't hold your hand through life. Either you spend some time understanding things or you pretend to understand things incorrectly and go through life with others thinking you're an idiot.

Your call, sport.



SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

"Can you show me the passage in the atheists doctrine that directs atheists to kill people?"

you're answering my question with a question? do atheist kill people or not?

You responded to BDBDBD with a false equivalence. I responded to you with a return to BDBDBD's statement to you by addressing a true equivalence.

 

"the fact you suggest the laws of Newtonian physics and the laws of quantum mechanics may need to be rewritten and not just expanded on tells me that you are not well versed on the subject."

strawman

I don't think you know what a strawman fallacy is.  I didn't rebut something you never said.  I'm saying you lack subject matter knowledge which means your position on the subject is based on a faulty premise which is leading you to a faulty conclusion.

 

i said that singularities are not currently accommodated in our physics laws

i then said that two possibilities are t(1)hat singularities may not exist and (2)that we may have to change our current laws of physics (furthermore i didn't say that these are the only possibilities )

Again, we do not need to change our laws of physics, only add to them.  This again shows you are not well versed with the modern model of physics.

 

the idea you are pushing that there is only one path with regards to this problem - that singularities exist and we simply have to add to our laws of physics to include them is actually the silliest idea i've heard so far... let me reiterate this so you get it... we do not know yet if they even exist in a practical sense, got it yet?

Actually, I'm not arguing either way with you.  I've not said anything regarding singularities.

 

" You are arguing from ignorance and incredulity.  "

only because you are attacking a strawman though ( and even the strawman you attacked is a possibility since it is possible that our physics laws are not perfect, this stance as someone graciously pointed out previously is anti-science )

You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

By the way, do you not know how to multi-quote a single person?

 

"You responded to BDBDBD with a false equivalence."

can you describe logically what i'm equating?

 

"I don't think you know what a strawman fallacy is.  I didn't rebut something you never said.  I'm saying you lack subject matter knowledge which means your position on the subject is based on a faulty premise which is leading you to a faulty conclusion."

i've quoted experts in the area to back what i've posted

you didn't rebut anything i said, can you for one quote a physicists who says that the laws of physics are perfect as they are and will never be modified as we learn more?

secondly i called your post a strawman because you are claiming that i'm saying that we have to change our laws of physics to accommodate singularities, when i'm actually saying that its a possibility and its also a possibility that they do not even exist

 

"Again, we do not need to change our laws of physics, only add to them.  This again shows you are not well versed with the modern model of physics."

so... you think our physics laws are perfect right now and we'll never have to rethink anything we think we know right now... well that's amusing i guess

this is the same as that other guy telling me that no aspect of evolution can be debated... you guys have a funny understanding of science for sure



OhNoYouDont said:
o_O.Q said:

 

"intrinsic : "Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing.""

waste is a part of the essential nature of technology... lol were you not aware of that?

dunning-kruger indeed lol

Nobody agrees with you.

I really can't hold your hand through life. Either you spend some time understanding things or you pretend to understand things incorrectly and go through life with others thinking you're an idiot.

Your call, sport.

lmao do you understand the diagrams that i posted?

tell me what the diagrams are saying and how they apply to my argument and you'll get a cookie



o_O.Q said:
SpokenTruth said:

By the way, do you not know how to multi-quote a single person?

 

"You responded to BDBDBD with a false equivalence."

can you describe logically what i'm equating?

 

"I don't think you know what a strawman fallacy is.  I didn't rebut something you never said.  I'm saying you lack subject matter knowledge which means your position on the subject is based on a faulty premise which is leading you to a faulty conclusion."

i've quoted experts in the area to back what i've posted

you didn't rebut anything i said, can you for one quote a physicists who says that the laws of physics are perfect as they are and will never be modified as we learn more?

secondly i called your post a strawman because you are claiming that i'm saying that we have to change our laws of physics to accommodate singularities, when i'm actually saying that its a possibility and its also a possibility that they do not even exist

 

"Again, we do not need to change our laws of physics, only add to them.  This again shows you are not well versed with the modern model of physics."

so... you think our physics laws are perfect right now and we'll never have to rethink anything we think we know right now... well that's amusing i guess

this is the same as that other guy telling me that no aspect of evolution can be debated... you guys have a funny understanding of science for sure

Do you not understand the difference between rewriting something and adding to something?

Relativity didn't rewrite Newtonian physics. It added to the overall body of knowledge of physics.  M-Theory is a solid candidate for answering questions beyond the Standard Model but it doesn't rewrite it.  Again, the fact you think they will be rewritten suggests you don't understand physics.  A meter is still a meter. Gravitational lensing is still gravitational lensing.  The laws that mathematically describe those aspects of physics do not require a rewrite simply because we develop an equation adequately describing physics in a singularity.  It simply becomes an added chapter in our body of knowledge.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."