Is there a universal moral law?

[Schouwenaars]

 

 

If there were proof, we would not be having this discussion. 

So you're saying that if there was proof for creationism there would be no discussion too? seems legit.

and the big bang is supported by quantumphysics.

so you trow away quantumphysics

however, your computer is made and works because of this quantumphysics. it's the same physics.

so i suggest you trow away your computer too then...

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

If there were proof, we would not be having this discussion. 

So you're saying that if there was proof for creationism there would be no discussion too? seems legit.

and the big bang is supported by quantumphysics.

so you trow away quantumphysics

however, your computer is made and works because of this quantumphysics. it's the same physics.

so i suggest you trow away your computer too then...

 

That is a lousy and rather weak standard of proof.   Like I said, if there was real proof, this discussion would not exist.  Until you can replicate the Big Bang in the laboratory, you can't prove it empirically.

[Schouwenaars]

 

 

 

 

If there were proof, we would not be having this discussion. 

So you're saying that if there was proof for creationism there would be no discussion too? seems legit.

and the big bang is supported by quantumphysics.

so you trow away quantumphysics

however, your computer is made and works because of this quantumphysics. it's the same physics.

so i suggest you trow away your computer too then...

 

That is a lousy and rather weak standard of proof.   Like I said, if there was real proof, this discussion would not exist.  Until you can replicate the Big Bang in the laboratory, you can't prove it empirically.

 

 

of course. let's just make a whole new universe in our lab. because our lab is certainly big enough.

quantumphysics has mathematical and physical (observated) proof that something can appear from nothing in the quantumfog. it is happening trillions of times around you at the moment.

and proof can be deducted too. one can never see a quark or boson himself, but but mesuring we can deside that it exists and was there at the moment. so can we do with the big bang, but on larger scale. gravitational waves is just one piece of the proof. redshift is another. speed limit is one.... but as i say before to you: something will never be proof to someone of that person keeps denying everything. proof has to accepted as proof by one.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

 

If there were proof, we would not be having this discussion. 

So you're saying that if there was proof for creationism there would be no discussion too? seems legit.

and the big bang is supported by quantumphysics.

so you trow away quantumphysics

however, your computer is made and works because of this quantumphysics. it's the same physics.

so i suggest you trow away your computer too then...

 

That is a lousy and rather weak standard of proof.   Like I said, if there was real proof, this discussion would not exist.  Until you can replicate the Big Bang in the laboratory, you can't prove it empirically.

 

 

of course. let's just make a whole new universe in our lab. because our lab is certainly big enough.

quantumphysics has mathematical and physical (observated) proof that something can appear from nothing in the quantumfog. it is happening trillions of times around you at the moment.

and proof can be deducted too. one can never see a quark or boson himself, but but mesuring we can deside that it exists and was there at the moment. so can we do with the big bang, but on larger scale. gravitational waves is just one piece of the proof. redshift is another. speed limit is one.... but as i say before to you: something will never be proof to someone of that person keeps denying everything. proof has to accepted as proof by one.

 

Proof is never "deduced."   Proof is observed and is self-evident. 

 

A forensic crime investigator can deduce how a person died at a crime scene,  but can never prove it because they didn't witness the person's death.  

[Schouwenaars]

still almost all the criminals are judged this way. so if there is no proof of their crime, why are they judged?

they are judged because of the same principle that makes deduction proof.

when i let 2 atoms fuse, and i see there is suddenly less energy around, then i deduct that that energy is used for the fusing to bind.

however, i cannot prove where that energy is now. i can only deduct. and that is enough.

observation isn't always the answer. if we only related on observation then we would never be this far in technology, wich we are using now to post.

[Guest shiloh357]

still almost all the criminals are judged this way. so if there is no proof of their crime, why are they judged?

they are judged because of the same principle that makes deduction proof.

when i let 2 atoms fuse, and i see there is suddenly less energy around, then i deduct that that energy is used for the fusing to bind.

however, i cannot prove where that energy is now. i can only deduct. and that is enough.

observation isn't always the answer. if we only related on observation then we would never be this far in technology, wich we are using now to post.

the standard for proof in the judicial system is not the same standard of proof in science.

 

In the US a standard of proof in a court of law is "proof beyond reasonable doubt."   For that reason if the prosecution doesn't meat that burden of proof a guilty person can go free.   "Not guilty" isn't the same as "innocent" in a court of law.

 

The standard of proof in science is far more strict and requires more evidence than in a court of law if you are going to say that something is "proven fact." 

[Schouwenaars]

then take a look at my atom exemple.

by the way redshift is observational.

 

and more important: a way to test a theory is to look at it's predictions. every theory in (quantum)physics makes predictions. if we test one or more predictions, and they seem to be correct, then it is likely that the theory is correct. this is a generally accepted method, approved by every (quantum)physicist.

gravitationals waves was one of the predictions of the big bang theory. and because we recently found them, it is very very likely for the theory to be correct too.

[Schouwenaars]

may i also add that every atom with an atomic number higher than about 3 cannot be formed without the dying of a star. elements like carbon and oxygen are formed during the proces of fusion inside a star, and they can only come free when the star dies, most likely by a super nova. however, it is impossible for physics that a star forms, lives, dies and provides atoms for the formation of the earth in just a little 5000 years. if you attack this fact, you attack the very core of today's physics.

 

and to add: not everything has to be proven by observation. if we observe that some formulas are correct, then we can continue calculating with them. and because those forumlas are correct, it is very very likely the result will be correct too. that's how theorys emerge. theories are not just random toughts, but sollutions for other calculations. and because that is very high math, there can be multiple results or interpretations. then we just have to test the predictions of those different theories to see wich sollutions is the correct one.

Edited June 14, 2014 by Schouwenaars

[Guest shiloh357]

Everything in science is proven through observation. Observation is the core of science.  It is based on can be seen or observed.

 

I can deduce the existence of God through what He has made, but no scientist would accept that as "proof." But when science is operating by deduction, that suddenly counts as  proof?   That is pure hypocrisy.

[Schouwenaars]

then may i ask you how you deduct the existence of god?

 

and indeed everything in science is proven by observation eventually.

but sometimes there can be something you cannot just observate directly. then you have to deduct. and if the correctness of that deduction is very likely, then it counts as proof.

for exemple: when we had proved the existence of the higgsboson, last year in the LHC, there was no way we could be certain of the result, because we were working on the terrain of quantumphysics, where everything is mesured in possiblities, and where certainties don't exist. so they did the experiment so that the result would have possibility of 99.999999%. it was still no exact observation, but a deduction of the last energy. they came out with a 5sigma signal for 125GeV as mass of the boson, wich is a very high chance, so they are convinced it is indeed 125 GeV.

Edited June 14, 2014 by Schouwenaars