Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

i counterd your googling experience with my 'childish' questions :)

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

Again you are going in to territory where the knowledge is limited at present times with reference to time travel and possibility of traveling faster than light which is not observed as yet. Regarding your link on relativity.. I am unable to open the link.

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

Theory of relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the theory of relativity

Einstein stated that the theory of relativity belongs to a class of “principle-theories”.** As such it employs an analytic method. This means that the elements which comprise this theory are not based on hypothesis but on empirical discovery. The empirical discovery leads to understanding the general characteristics of natural processes. Mathematical models are then developed which separate the natural processes into theoretical-mathematical descriptions. Therefore, by analytical means the necessary conditions that have to be satisfied are deduced. Separate events must satisfy these conditions. Experience should then match the conclusions.**
The special theory of relativity and the general theory of relativity are connected. As stated below, special theory of relativity applies to all inertial physical phenomena except gravity. The general theory provides the law of gravitation, and its relation to other forces of nature.

Special relativity

Special relativity is a theory of the structure of spacetime. It was introduced in Einstein’s 1905 paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” (for the contributions of many other physicists see History of special relativity). Special relativity is based on two postulates which are contradictory in classical mechanics:
-The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another (principle of relativity).
-The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light.
-The resultant theory copes with experiment better than classical mechanics, e.g. in the Michelson–Morley experiment that supports postulate 2, but also has many surprising consequences. Some of these are:
-Relativity of simultaneity: Two events, simultaneous for one observer, may not be simultaneous for another observer if the observers are in relative motion.
-Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an observer’s “stationary” clock.
-Length contraction: Objects are measured to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the observer.
-Mass–energy equivalence: E = mc2, energy and mass are equivalent and transmutable.
-Maximum speed is finite: No physical object, message or field line can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

You have overwhelmed the forum with your non-googled original science discoveries which are proving all the accepted science till today invalid. You must be nominated for Nobel Prize for your such intellectual attempts...!!!

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

and you said theory is based on empirical discovery.

[QUOTE]

Regarding your link on relativity.. I am unable to open the link.
[/QUOTE]

no problem, your response is probable

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

Your aspect in bold is all well and good. But what is the underlying basis for empirical discovery? What evidence do we have for Einstein’s theory? After all no experiments could be undertaken on space and time 100 years ago. They can’t be taken now. So what you would suggest this empirical evidence is?

Remember the definition of a theory. Unless proven with unquestionable evidence it is by all means a simple idea which can be false. Simply put in 50 years the theory of relativity could be proven false. At that stage what is it? Is it a theory, a belief - because it certainly isn’t fact.

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

Yazdi already answered this above, but just wanted to say that even Wikipedia lists experiments that support the theory of relativity. The time dilation for example, where the clocks in space are slower than clocks on earth, has been proven beyond a doubt. In fact, modern satellites are built to accommodate this effect. It is very slight, but when you’re dealing with electronics, it’s important. That’s empirical evidence.

The link is a question a random poster asked, which was answered by a university student from Rutgers. Furthermore, the last sentence just says that this is a **crazy thought experiment. **I hope you realize that thought experiments are conducted out of convenience, and are very useful. This does not mean that scientists are crackpots. The fact that you brought this link up to try to prove that is silly.

A famous thought experiment is Schrodinger’s Cat, which is used to explain how quantum effects don’t exist on our scale.

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

Peace yazdi

It is "mantiq" - arguments are not true or false - they are strong or weak and are constructed to be "valid".

I meant that philosophical methods can be used help finding our way in discussions. I did not claim proof as you have stated above. Logic is important for telling us when something is really a contradiction. It also allows us to analyse each others arguments to see if they are constructed validly or if we are drawing the correct conclusion from a given set of premises ... it puts rules forth for a fruitful discussion to take place. The logic tools can also show - especially from inductive reasoning - what is more likely to be the case. So initially we are concerned with what is or is not possible - and secondly what is more or less likely within the things that are possible.

We both see certain tensions in matters within our faith - for example let's say the Qur'an does not specifically say that Jesus (AS) is alive, whereas it does say that all beings will die. The hadith however say he (AS) was taken and shall descend literally. The Qur'an says he has Ascended - and the meaning taken by different people for this term are either spiritually ascended or literally. For the person who believes in the literal ascension he has to explain the point about all being will die ... the person who believes in the metaphorical understanding only will in most cases claim that the hadith is wrong.

This does not boil down to the interpretation of scholars - rather it is directly associated with accepting or rejecting one aspect of scripture.

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

You are right in that General Relativity was not proven in Einstein's time, and is an active area of study. But first we have to clarify the meaning of "theory". It has two meanings:

1) The general meaning, which is that the ideas are a hypothesis, and may or may not be true.

2) The scientific meaning, which is referring to a *framework of ideas. *This framework is usually borne out of independent empirical experiments, and is used to structure the theory, i.e. we connect the different experiments, and use their results, to come up with an acceptable set of rules.

So when scientists refer to "theory", they are not referring to a hypothesis, but rather, to a set of rules that have empirical grounding. That said, many aspects of general relativity have been proven since Einstein's time. At that time however, **it was perfectly acceptable to doubt Einstein. **This is different from religion as you can never doubt scripture. Since that time, many different experiments proving General Relativity have been conducted, and there are different explanations for these observations.

To wrap it up, experiments proving aspects of general relativity have been conducted. Please see Wiki. At the time it was proposed, Einstein was trying to relate gravity to quantum mechanics, and it was okay to doubt General Relativity because the "theory", i.e. the "rules", was a work in progress. And people did doubt it, because they didn't accept Einstein's word without proof. That's the opposite of faith. Since that time, experiments have confirmed Einstein's predictions, so now, no one questions the parts that have been proven, and people believe those aspects **because of empirical evidence. **You have to remember that, unlike scripture, scientific ideas aren't simply accepted. It takes years to conduct multiple, independent experiments in order to build consensus.

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

simple question, can we go into past?

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

I'm sure yazdi will address this in detail, but the problem above is that you are applying logic to the validity scripture vs hadith, with the premise being that the religion is "true". You have to remove that premise. You have to being without the assumption that the Quran is fact, and that it was the word of God, if you are to engage in true, logical reasoning. Otherwise it is a circular argument.

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

We don't know. Theoretical physics suggests that wormholes are possible, although they have never been observed, and going through them may take us through space-time. I imagine there are scientists who think it's possible, and those who think it isn't, but the difference is that they probably admit that the other side makes a valid argument. In religion, atheists are always wrong. That's the difference.

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

you defend them who say we can go into past.
and tell me what is the past, present, and future?
without frame of reference you cannot tell me what is past, future, and present right!.
Now what is the reference to identify the past, future, and present?

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

Peace Ghost14

I'm not arguing about the religion ... It is fair to say that if both parties who are Muslim are both believers and believe that Islam is true ... If both sides are in agreement of a matter then to go about justifying it is pointless. The next question that stems from this is "how we believe our beliefs to be true" ... which is the real argument here.

I'm not saying my religion is true because I use logic ... I am saying my understanding of my "true religion" is better because I employ logic and other forms of reasoning to understand it. Each time I find my understanding improves according to those rules I also find it crystalises a stronger faith in me in my already assumed "true religion" ... but there is more to it than that ... I also find on reflection that my religion already sets the premise of how I am to understand it which gives me the impression of a miraculous scripture ...

I do not believe that "a true religion" can be faulted ... by definition "true" is "not false" ... I can go in to that argument also, but I need yazdi to understand that I never claim proof - I use logic as a tool for discussion in these matters.

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

For the record - Presuppositions in a premise are allowed for an argument to be logically valid.

How about this for a logical construct?

*If apples are fruit, and fruit are edible, then it follows that apples are edible.
*

Then the test/reflection (after eating an apple) statement follows:

Since apples are edible, they must be fruits and fruits are edible.

There are two premises here, one is true the other is not "always" true. However the conclusion only entertains the aspects of the truth within the array of possible truths and untruths. Until we find a fruit a that is inedible we can continue to postulate that "fruits are edible" ...

As you can see premises constructed with the preceding word IF are all presuppositions ...

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

Yes I do, because the theory suggests that it's possible. But until experiments prove it, you can believe that time travel isn't possible.

Look at the clock, that's the present. Add one minute, that's the future. Subtract one minute, that's the past. This is a silly question.

Given that I just showed you that's it's okay to disagree with science until experiments prove something, do you agree that science isn't based on faith?

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

Well there is a simple answer to the time dilation example. Its based on our technology. We assume that our method of telling time holds up in all environments correct? What if that is not true? What if our methods for telling time are in fact inaccurate and inefficient and that we will develop technology more finally tuned to show that time does not slow down in space? Would that not throw out the entire point of being proven without a doubt?

With regard to scripture and science. Lets take time dilation as an example, as I have stated it is based on our current format for testing time. But we believe that our method is inherently accurate and without flaw correct? The same can be said for scripture. Those who believe, believe that the scripture is true and based on that notion what is said in religion is accurate. As for the question of questioning scripture, that is incorrect. Just like with individuals who questioned Einstein others do question religious texts and their edicts. The difference science acts as it is a realm of fact though there is a great deal that can not be proven or is proven based on underlying assumptions which are constantly proven, rewritten or disproved.

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

Clock is not frame of reference, time is reference. and if go into past your reference(time) would become false. and your falback would be imagainary time.
your previous reply was "i dont know" that implies that theory of relativity is faith.

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

Inductive Reasoning = The philosophical definition of inductive reasoning is much more nuanced than simple progression from particular/individual instances to broader generalizations. Rather, the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it

Inductive reasoning is probabilistic; it only states that, given the premises, the conclusion is probable. (not confirmed)..

The predictable-world bias revolves around the inclination to perceive order where it has not been proved to exist. A major aspect of this bias is superstition, the perception of order arises from wishful thinking. Since people constantly seek some type of order to explain or justify their beliefs and experiences, it is difficult for them to acknowledge that the perceived or assumed order may be entirely different from that they believe they are experiencing.

Now in view of the above let's examine your claims:

First of all, Inductive reasoning is probabilistic i.e. given a premise the conclusion is probable...
Secondly For valid inductive reasoning real world biases have to be taken in to account such as wishful thinking and superstitions.

So here with your expertise in logical reasoning.. you can at best using your argument declare your faith orientation a probable truth as the premise include an element of wishful thinking and superstition. As long as your position remain truthful to label your conclusion as probable truth if the given premise is true.. there is nothing wrong.

On the other hand your faith requirement is to declare your conclusion as ultimate truth. If using your inductive reasoning you arrive to a "probable truth", and then wrongfully declare your conclusion as correct conclusion (ultimate truth).. you are committing a big dishonesty-fallacy..!!!

P.S. i am still waiting to hear the clergymen argument who could show faith with muntiq (logic)

Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God

hahahaha