Logical proofs: Empirical evidence for constant gravity in the past and future
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-08-2012, 09:26 PM
RE: Logical proofs: Empirical evidence for constant gravity in the past and future
(29-08-2012 09:21 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  WTF are you doing? You're giving atheism a bad name. You can't hang out no morez. Big Grin

I thought you were gonna link up some stuff about gravity - G - being proven constant... man, I don't even know if you can do that... but you come with 9.8m/s^2 which only concerns the current mass of the earth, a thing that wasn't around fourteen billion years ago... Dodgy

So you're like one of them fucks (Chas, where are you?) who think "faith" is a bad word and should not be used in any context? Or what?

'Cause it seems to me what you did wrong here is let your opponent dictate the field of battle, and like a green lieutenant, come running into the major's tent, wanting me to waste my units extracting your clumsy ass...

Am I one of "them fucks" or are you conjuring me to battle "them fucks"?Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2012, 09:28 PM (This post was last modified: 29-08-2012 09:36 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Logical proofs: Empirical evidence for constant gravity in the past and future
(29-08-2012 09:14 PM)Xerus Wrote:  
(29-08-2012 09:04 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Faith: belief that is not based on proof

Basically that's all you need.

I wish!! His latest gem on comparing scientific and religious faith.

Quote:It's actually one type of faith. Faith in something without empirical evidence. If you are right that there has never been evidence for the existence of a supernatural being (you're not unless you presuppose such evidence could not exist) then the two examples of faith are the same.

Facepalm

I've updated my post.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid159948

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2012, 09:35 PM
RE: Logical proofs: Empirical evidence for constant gravity in the past and future
(29-08-2012 09:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-08-2012 09:21 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  WTF are you doing? You're giving atheism a bad name. You can't hang out no morez. Big Grin

I thought you were gonna link up some stuff about gravity - G - being proven constant... man, I don't even know if you can do that... but you come with 9.8m/s^2 which only concerns the current mass of the earth, a thing that wasn't around fourteen billion years ago... Dodgy

So you're like one of them fucks (Chas, where are you?) who think "faith" is a bad word and should not be used in any context? Or what?

'Cause it seems to me what you did wrong here is let your opponent dictate the field of battle, and like a green lieutenant, come running into the major's tent, wanting me to waste my units extracting your clumsy ass...

Am I one of "them fucks" or are you conjuring me to battle "them fucks"?Consider

Well, now that you're here... Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2012, 09:35 PM
RE: Logical proofs: Empirical evidence for constant gravity in the past and future
His argument is the Fallacy of the False Analogy.

The hammer has been observed, and it's action in spacetime has been observed. A probability can be calculated.
Based on that, the Bayesian Probability that it will fall again approaches 1.
The probability that he will observe his god is 0, or approaches 0.

It's about the probability of prediction, in science. Not "belief". He got you to go down a "rabbit hole".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
29-08-2012, 09:52 PM
RE: Logical proofs: Empirical evidence for constant gravity in the past and future
Each day he awakens and finds everything is just the way he left it, unless it was disturbed by another force. Why is that ?

If he would care to disprove Newtons Laws of Motion, he is more than welcome

1. First law: If an object experiences no net force, then its velocity is constant; the object is either at rest (if its velocity is zero), or it moves in a straight line with constant speed (if its velocity is nonzero).
2. Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F acting on the body, is in the direction of the net force, and is inversely proportional to the mass m of the body, i.e., F = ma.
3. Third law: When two bodies interact by exerting force on each other, these forces (termed the action and the reaction) are equal in magnitude, but opposite in direction.

These simple laws apply each and every day past to present and as we assume to the future. We assume this because of the First law.
(An object at rest tends to stay at rest. An object in motion, tends to stay in motion, unless acted upon by another force)

If he wants to say that you can't prove that the future resembles the past, hit him in the face
and then explain that the future movements of your hand are consistent with Newtons First Law of motion. (more or less)

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2012, 09:53 PM
RE: Logical proofs: Empirical evidence for constant gravity in the past and future
It's not "circular" reasoning, nor are we talking about "empirical" evidence. The difference is between deductive and inductive reasoning.

Deduction is familiar to most of us. Based on the evidence you've gathered, you deduce that only one thing is possible. For instance, based on what you know of gravity, there's no other possible gravity that the Earth could have tomorrow. We know that's not right, and so we can't deduce that it will stay that way.

Induction is taking specific examples, such as Earth's gravity over a long period of time, and reasoning that it will remain constant because it has remained constant so far. Both of these are fair ways of coming to a conclusion, although deduction is preferred because it arrives at facts more often.

Empiricism is the belief that we can only gain knowledge from sensory experience, and speaks to how we gain knowledge rather than how we apply it (reasoning). When your friend calls a conclusion "empirical", he clearly doesn't know what it means and just likes the term because it sounds like something a scientist might say.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2012, 10:12 PM (This post was last modified: 29-08-2012 11:01 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Logical proofs: Empirical evidence for constant gravity in the past and future
It's an old argument from Hume, bastardized to prove that one has "faith" in the future being like the past.

So, how do we know that what we’ve observed in the past will happen in the future? Because we’ve observed it in the past. And so on circularly…

He's using something called problem of induction, to prove that atheists have faith in a circular argument/logic. I believe Hovind and Sye Ten stole the argument and turned it into this version.

The future will resemble the past, because we can test the past in the present.

Not a great argument but hey! Will work on it tomorrow.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
30-08-2012, 05:01 AM
RE: Logical proofs: Empirical evidence for constant gravity in the past and future
(29-08-2012 10:12 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  It's an old argument from Hume, bastardized to prove that one has "faith" in the future being like the past.

So, how do we know that what we’ve observed in the past will happen in the future? Because we’ve observed it in the past. And so on circularly…

He's using something called problem of induction, to prove that atheists have faith in a circular argument/logic. I believe Hovind and Sye Ten stole the argument and turned it into this version.

The future will resemble the past, because we can test the past in the present.

Not a great argument but hey! Will work on it tomorrow.

Good edit. I read your post on "Hume's Fork" and thought "I don't want to correct him, because he's not quite wrong... but he's not quite right." This is the right citation, and I found it educational.

My response to the Problem of Induction is to simply chalk up induction as axiomatic. Yes, you have to make an assumption that events that appear to fall on a straight line will continue to fall on that straight line, but it's a fair assumption that will be true with a high probability even if not with a perfect certainty.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2012, 06:09 AM
RE: Logical proofs: Empirical evidence for constant gravity in the past and future
(29-08-2012 09:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-08-2012 09:21 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  WTF are you doing? You're giving atheism a bad name. You can't hang out no morez. Big Grin

I thought you were gonna link up some stuff about gravity - G - being proven constant... man, I don't even know if you can do that... but you come with 9.8m/s^2 which only concerns the current mass of the earth, a thing that wasn't around fourteen billion years ago... Dodgy

So you're like one of them fucks (Chas, where are you?) who think "faith" is a bad word and should not be used in any context? Or what?

'Cause it seems to me what you did wrong here is let your opponent dictate the field of battle, and like a green lieutenant, come running into the major's tent, wanting me to waste my units extracting your clumsy ass...

Am I one of "them fucks" or are you conjuring me to battle "them fucks"?Consider

battling with a tutu, for integrity!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2012, 06:13 AM
RE: Logical proofs: Empirical evidence for constant gravity in the past and future
(29-08-2012 10:12 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  It's an old argument from Hume, bastardized to prove that one has "faith" in the future being like the past.

So, how do we know that what we’ve observed in the past will happen in the future? Because we’ve observed it in the past. And so on circularly…

He's using something called problem of induction, to prove that atheists have faith in a circular argument/logic. I believe Hovind and Sye Ten stole the argument and turned it into this version.

The future will resemble the past, because we can test the past in the present.

Not a great argument but hey! Will work on it tomorrow.

read the babble: born of dust, in the garden, kicked out of garden (per se), then war, then back to the garden to dust again.

The parts will be the same, the colors will change over time (evolved but from the previous, just like Hume ascertained)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: