Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
:) thanks a lot.
No problem..
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
see this is from article you posted
Radioactive decay half-life of nuclides has been measured over timescales of 55 orders of magnitude, from 2.3 x 10−23 second (for hydrogen-7) to 6.9 x 1031 seconds (for tellurium-128).
they used seconds as a unit to measure and you are telling me logic behind specific duration of second. article is not wrong but you select a wrong article to defend your postion. you are measuring meter with meter 
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
How dare you generalize that religion is only about faith and belief? What expalins the feat of Govardhan, baby Krishna who lifted an entire mountain to protect the good people of Gokul from torrential rain. ( as an aside, why didn't Noah think of that?) Would you like me to give you more evidence? How intolerant of you?
Yes, my apologies to Krishna jee. And as a baby no less! I couldnt even fasten my own diaper at such an age, and here I am doubting Krishna! Lol at me..
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
Professor: "Shut up!!!!" Student: "ok"
LOL.. Best reply yet.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
Try proving yourself right.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
^you are asking me to prove existance of God scientifically, while science itself derive conclusions with presumptions. If you remove basic presumptions from science the buliding would collapse. once i am able to prorve science use presumptions to prove things, I would be in postion to refer ot dr zarkir' artile which prove existance of God with scientific presumption.
Thats complete nonsense. First of all, be specific. What Science are you referring to?
Give us an example.
ALL science begins with an idea, not a presumption or an assumption. The idea must proven, its not simply accepted to be true. Once it is established to be true by a rigorous process of experimentation, peer review, and demonstrated through observation, only then is it acknowledged to be true.
The medications you take, the car you drive, the house you live in, the electricity that powers your house, the computer you work on are not based on presumption, they are based on science. "Presumption" didnt create your cell phone, science did...
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
^^^
Usually this kind of twisted logic-science is uttered by showman Zakir Naik. You have very well shown the mirror by relating science with end results. This is the same reason when some of our self claimed momin friends get sick.. They trust kafir medical research to treat themselves.
This madrassa taught attitude to undermine science and logic amongst muslim communities is disgusting and a big reason why this particular community is so backward in achieving any scientific-technical advancement..
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
see this is from article you posted Radioactive decay half-life of nuclides has been measured over timescales of 55 orders of magnitude, from 2.3 x 10−23 second (for hydrogen-7) to 6.9 x 1031 seconds (for tellurium-128). they used seconds as a unit to measure and you are telling me logic behind specific duration of second. article is not wrong but you select a wrong article to defend your postion. you are measuring meter with meter :)
No.. Second is used to quantify time scale.. Not second. Remember the definition of time..!!!
The measurement of time scale has been related to radio active decay..
P.S. Talking science with you is like talking persian literature with French..
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
The one aspect most people ignore about science is that it is based on finite knowledge. It is based on knowledge created by humans who themselves are not limitless in their understanding. Rather very limited. More so look at how many scientific discoveries over the past 100 years have actually nullified or invalidated previous theories and realities. After all Science is as much based on belief as is say faith because a majority of the theories will end up at some stage being rewritten, redrafted or completely discarded due to new information and new experiments.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
The one aspect most people ignore about science is that it is based on finite knowledge. It is based on knowledge created by humans who themselves are not limitless in their understanding. Rather very limited. More so look at how many scientific discoveries over the past 100 years have actually nullified or invalidated previous theories and realities.
Agreed with this part. The fact that we are mere two legged idiots living on a drop of water in an ocean and still conscious of our reality is itself is a big achievement of human race which no other living specie on this planet has been able to achieve. this has been made possible by communication of ideas. Communication has ben the biggest achievement of human race and the very fact that we are discussing our view at present is a testimony to this fact.
"For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk and we learned to listen. Speech has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together to build the impossible. Mankind's greatest achievements have come about by talking, and its greatest failures by not talking. It doesn't have to be like this. Our greatest hopes could become reality in the future. With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking."
-Stephen Hawkings
[quote]
After all Science is as much based on belief as is say faith because a majority of the theories will end up at some stage being rewritten, redrafted or completely discarded due to new information and new experiments.
[/QUOTE]
Your statement is self contradictory. In the first part you are saying that science is based on faith, while in the same sentence you are negating the first part of your statement by explaining how these theories will be redefined because of new evidence through new proven information through experiments and observations. Faith on the other hand can not change with new evidence or proven facts through experiments or observations.
Faith = something you believe to be true without evidence.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
^ Well said. And to add to that:
The one aspect most people ignore about science is that it is based on finite knowledge. It is based on knowledge created by humans who themselves are not limitless in their understanding. Rather very limited. More so look at how many scientific discoveries over the past 100 years have actually nullified or invalidated previous theories and realities. After all Science is as much based on belief as is say faith because a majority of the theories will end up at some stage being rewritten, redrafted or completely discarded due to new information and new experiments.
Yes but that's not faith, that is the limitation of the knowledge of the time. The most famous example of science being "rewritten" is quantum mechanics. Einstein, Bohr, and many others hated the idea of quantum physics, and were skeptical of it even into their latter years, yet, the evidence was clear so they agreed that quantum mechanics must be true. That is how you build a consensus. And given that modern electronics rely on quantum mechanics, we can be relatively sure that our experiments were not a massive coincidence.
That is not faith or belief. That is systematic explanation of natural phenomena through empirical evidence.
This idea that science is based on faith must stop. It does not undermine science, the benefits of which (modern technology) religious people are perfectly happy to use, but rather, only weakens the argument of the devout. Instead of undermining science, people should read philosophy. Read the writings of famous thinkers who have argued for why God must exist. Of course, this does not necessarily prove that Islam is "true", but such writings provide a more rational argument for the existence of a Supreme Maker than "Science is also based on faith".
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
^^^
And let me add to that.. Science is also a derivative branch of philosophy:
Philosophy = the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.
Moreover even Einstein favored the idea of a Supreme Intelligent designer by observing the exactness of laws of nature.. which are exactly predictable-harmonous, and do not show any chaos. The nature of this Supreme phenomenon can not be understood at present times with our available proven knowledge.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
Try proving yourself right.
I said something.
You said I was wrong.
The ball is in your court to prove me wrong. :)
Anyhow, read below....
I can bet you will be proven wrong.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
I love to see science and religion discussion which eventually will not go anywhere but still interesting.
I will repeat., a large number of scientific work is based on assumptions and theories and rules made up to explain the unexplainable.
Yes, to explain the unexplainable, scientists develop some rules themselves and then tried to fit the complex and not well understood phenomenon so human brain can understand.
Science had to start from somewhere making some form of assumptions. And if any of the basic assumptions are proven wrong, the whole lot of concepts fall and are considered false.
What are north and south poles?
*Anyone seen a magnet in earth? *
Pure assumption!!! :D
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
Agreed with this part. The fact that we are mere two legged idiots living on a drop of water in an ocean and still conscious of our reality is itself is a big achievement of human race which no other living specie on this planet has been able to achieve. this has been made possible by communication of ideas. Communication has ben the biggest achievement of human race and the very fact that we are discussing our view at present is a testimony to this fact.
"For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk and we learned to listen. Speech has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together to build the impossible. Mankind's greatest achievements have come about by talking, and its greatest failures by not talking. It doesn't have to be like this. Our greatest hopes could become reality in the future. With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking."
-Stephen Hawkings
By verbal communication by all means that is true. But if we are to base our discussion in the realm of science, it has been proven that animals do communicate by smell, touch and hearing. Dogs sense fear, predatory animals communicate through hearing and other animals mark the territory with various methods. This is all communication as various animals and species know what the "action" means and more importantly react to it. So a signal is sent and received providing communication. Secondly all living beings are conscious of their realities. Just like an animal bred in captivity knows his reality and his location.
More importantly animals do have speech, dogs and cats listen to commands and dogs do respond to commands. They have memory centers very much like our own. We know where to place our feet on a step not because of some logical deduction but because our instincts tell us where to put it. Just like the reflex of a cat or lion.
[quote]
Your statement is self contradictory. In the first part you are saying that science is based on faith, while in the same sentence you are negating the first part of your statement by explaining how these theories will be redefined because of new evidence through new proven information through experiments and observations. Faith on the other hand can not change with new evidence or proven facts through experiments or observations.
Faith = something you believe to be true without evidence.
[/quote]
The theory of relativity. Is that science or faith?
I shall address the other posts here. I by no means realized there was more to respond too.
[quote]
Yes but that's not faith, that is the limitation of the knowledge of the time. The most famous example of science being "rewritten" is quantum mechanics. Einstein, Bohr, and many others hated the idea of quantum physics, and were skeptical of it even into their latter years, yet, the evidence was clear so they agreed that quantum mechanics must be true. That is how you build a consensus. And given that modern electronics rely on quantum mechanics, we can be relatively sure that our experiments were not a massive coincidence.
That is not faith or belief. That is systematic explanation of natural phenomena through empirical evidence.
[/quote]
Just to take your point and turn it a bit. Why were Einstein, Bohr and many others skeptical of quantum physics? It wasn't based on any solid evidence? It was based on a belief was it not? They believed it was not valid. And more important the issue of quantum physics is based on evidence and knowledge humans have currently as with any science model which can not be observed empirically and objectively.
[quote]
This idea that science is based on faith must stop. It does not undermine science, the benefits of which (modern technology) religious people are perfectly happy to use, but rather, only weakens the argument of the devout. Instead of undermining science, people should read philosophy. Read the writings of famous thinkers who have argued for why God must exist. Of course, this does not necessarily prove that Islam is "true", but such writings provide a more rational argument for the existence of a Supreme Maker than "Science is also based on faith".
[/quote]
I by no means imply that science is based on a religious faith. My point is that science is a system based similarly on faith. You take one theory to be true based on some form of evidence and build upon that. When that evidence is shown by new knowledge to be false or based on fake assumptions it is discarded. In the case of religious the evidence is considered the holy texts and various documents written by numerous other sources on the matter. You take that evidence to be true and build your case upon that.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
Time = dimension in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future.
second = the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.
you know science?
that is how they assumed the time period of a Second and standardized it.
No.. Second is used to quantify time scale.. Not second. Remember the definition of time..!!!
The measurement of time scale has been related to radio active decay..
P.S. Talking science with you is like talking persian literature with French..
That is what can be expected from you at the end of the day :)
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
The theory of relativity. Is that science or faith?
Please refer to Ghost's post about empirical evidence to explain this phenomenon:
This theory is 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.**
Empirical evidence = is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of an empirical claim. In the empiricist view, one can only claim to have knowledge when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered to be evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions. The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
That is what can be expected from you at the end of the day :)
Just got furious with some very childish questions. Okay.. I'll try to be more patient with you. Good to see you are actually taking some objective interest in the subject unlike some other poster who is famous for smiley replies than contents.. and can not go beyond a single line argument that "science is faith.."
.. and I am still patiently waiting for another poster who claims to know clergymen who can prove his interpretation of faith logically-scientifically.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
Please refer to Ghost's post about empirical evidence to explain this phenomenon:
This theory is 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.**
Empirical evidence = is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of an empirical claim. In the empiricist view, one can only claim to have knowledge when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered to be evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions. The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.
To my knowledge and I may be wrong but there is actually no empirical evidence for the theory of relativity as it deals with space and time. More so this theory is considered more valid than the theory of mechanics by Newton, without any evidence whatsoever. It just appears to be more logical than the theory of mechanics. So it is considered the basis for theoretical physics on which all our space industry is built.
Re: Professor vs. student: Discussion on God
Yazdi! theory of relativity
If it was possible to travel faster then the speed of light, would time reverse itself (like backwards time travel) or just not exist?
read following article expalining “empirical discoveries”. espacially the last scentence of article which tells an **honest opinion **of scientists.
If it was possible to travel faster then the speed of light, would time reverse itself (like backwards time travel) or just not exist?