Faith vs Knowledge - a challange!

[Lillen]

This is my first notions:
1. Belief is not insecure knowledge or insecure "to know". Faith is faith and knowledge is knowledge

2 I follow the rule that as a scientist you always need to look what speaks against the truth. in science - theories and in belief - faith.

3. a) We need a whole other world view using this following observations; According the general relativity theory particles that moves faster then light, travell in time - there are bodies on the nightsky travelling faster then light, they do not travell in time. (Ie, The Moon moves around The Earth, The Earth around The Sun, The Sun around in Milkyway and Milkyway around in strings. This system is making The Moon move really, really fast) Also gives a push to the ligth from the motion of the source!!! This is were we move on the special relativity:

Special relativity incorporates the principle that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source. (wiki)

I am arguing the speed of light and the state of motion of the source independantly from inertial observers!!

 

[Upisoft]

This is my first notions:
1. Belief is not insecure knowledge or insecure "to know". Faith is faith and knowledge is knowledge

2 I follow the rule that as a scientist you always need to look what speaks against the truth. in science - theories and in belief - faith.

3. a) We need a whole other world view using this following observations; According the general relativity theory particles that moves faster then light, travell in time - there are bodies on the nightsky travelling faster then light, they do not travell in time. (Ie, The Moon moves around The Earth, The Earth around The Sun, The Sun around in Milkyway and Milkyway around in strings. This system is making The Moon move really, really fast) Also gives a push to the ligth from the motion of the source!!! This is were we move on the special relativity:
I am arguing the speed of light and the state of motion of the source independantly from inertial observers!!

1. Everyone believes in something. Science believes that observing the world, making a hypothesis about the observed facts and making predictions based on the hypothesis is a good way to know the observable Universe. It is practical belief, because you can see the results.

2. The science does not seek "truth". It seeks explanations. Sometimes the explanations are not quite correct (like Newtonian mechanics), but they are still used as a very good approximations.

3. There are no bodies in sky that travel faster than light. The moon speed is at max 1000km/s relative to the cosmic background radiation. The speed of light is 300 times bigger than that.

 

[Delphiki]

This is my first notions:
1. Belief is not insecure knowledge or insecure "to know". Faith is faith and knowledge is knowledge

Faith is knowledge without evidence or reason. Faith is not actually truth, but perceived as truth by those who have it. Your religion is not truth. nobody's religion is truth. Truth is what is demonstrable.

2 I follow the rule that as a scientist you always need to look what speaks against the truth. in science - theories and in belief - faith.

If this is the case, then you would make a horrible scientist. The motive behind science is to explain the universe as the way is actually is. Theories are a collection of this data, which explains something about reality.

With science, you start by making an observation, then and try to make sense of it.
With faith, you assume you already know the answer, so you ignore the observations in order to align with the dogma.

3. a) We need a whole other world view using this following observations; According the general relativity theory particles that moves faster then light, travell in time

Actually, according to special relativity, nothing can move faster than light. General relativity has to do with gravitation.

- there are bodies on the nightsky travelling faster then light, they do not travell in time. (Ie, The Moon moves around The Earth, The Earth around The Sun, The Sun around in Milkyway and Milkyway around in strings. This system is making The Moon move really, really fast)

They are moving really fast, but relative to what? Once you decide that, then you can get a speed. See:

If you're standing on the moon, it's not moving at all, relative to itself, and neither are you. If you're in the galactic core, the moon is moving pretty quickly from your relative perspective.

Also gives a push to the ligth from the motion of the source!!! This is were we move on the special relativity:
I am arguing the speed of light and the state of motion of the source independently from inertial observers!!

The speed of light is a constant. When a light emitting object is moving towards you, the light is the same speed, however it's frequency is higher. This is called blue shift, and it is what's known as a doppler effect. (alternatively, objects moving away, slightly shift toward the red, creating a red shift). The same thing that happens with sound in our atmosphere also happens with light.

When a train blows it's whistle as it passes by, the sound is traveling the same speed in all directions, but the sound is higher pitched at the front, where the sound waves are compressed.




Going back to your second "observation", the very fact that we know light is effected by the doppler shift, and the constant of C (speed of light) is one of the reasons we have a very good idea about how far away things really are. It's observable. It's demonstrable. It requires not one bit of faith, and it is undeniably true.

It's my belief that if you have to put faith in anything, then it's not guaranteed to be true.
If you have evidence, then you can guarantee truth.

 

[Lillen]

Faith is knowledge without evidence or reason. Faith is not actually truth, but perceived as truth by those who have it. Your religion is not truth. nobody's religion is truth. Truth is what is demonstrable.

We disagrees with eachother there, Faith is a belief, knowledge is something else. You can know that the world is round and you can know that the world is a hologram. You can know that light is particles and you can know that light is wavelength. You can know that light works both as wavelenght and particles. You can know alot. But you cannot believe it's true! To tangle this disagrement from another angle I could argue that knowledge is just belief without faith and hope.

If this is the case, then you would make a horrible scientist. The motive behind science is to explain the universe as the way is actually is. Theories are a collection of this data, which explains something about reality.

I want to inform you about the scientifical method: If i would do a research if all crows that are black, instead of looking for each and every bird that is black I should look for what speaks against it. At the same time time my experiment needs to be varifiable by others, this means that other scientists can repete the same experiment. This is what we know as Poppers theory of falsification. A scientist needs to do research on what speaks against his theory and let others be able to varify it.

I will answer the other question when you have finnished editing...

 

[Lillen]

Faith is knowledge without evidence or reason. Faith is not actually truth, but perceived as truth by those who have it. Your religion is not truth. nobody's religion is truth. Truth is what is demonstrable.

We disagrees with eachother there, Faith is a belief, knowledge is something else. You can know that the world is round and you can know that the world is a hologram. You can know that light is particles and you can know that light is wavelength. You can know that light works both as wavelenght and particles. You can know alot. But you cannot believe it's true! To tangle this disagrement from another angle I could argue that knowledge is just belief without faith and hope.

If this is the case, then you would make a horrible scientist. The motive behind science is to explain the universe as the way is actually is. Theories are a collection of this data, which explains something about reality.

With science, you start by making an observation, then and try to make sense of it.
With faith, you assume you already know the answer, so you ignore the observations in order to align with the dogma.

I want to inform you about the scientifical method: If i would do a research if all crows that are black, instead of looking for each and every bird that is black I should look for what speaks against it. At the same time time my experiment needs to be varifiable by others, this means that other scientists can repete the same experiment. This is what we know as Poppers theory of falsification. A scientist needs to do research on what speaks against his theory and let others be able to varify it.

Actually, according to special relativity, nothing can move faster than light. General relativity has to do with gravitation.

General Theory also covers the idea that if you travell faster then light you will be able to travell in time. In contrast as you stated, and here's alot of contrast, special relativity says it is impossible to travell faster then light, Yes. Here we need to work from two diffrent theories, since these theries contradict eachother when using them "interlinear".

I am arguing the speed of light and the state of motion of the source independantly from inertial observers!! And also i am arguing how fast the moon goes in strings, giving a push to the light it shines, indepenatnly from observers!

I skip the rest, because i do not want to repete myself

 

[Delphiki]

We disagrees with eachother there, Faith is a belief, knowledge is something else. You can know that the world is round and you can know that the world is a hologram. You can know that light is particles and you can know that light is wavelength. You can know that light works both as wavelenght and particles. You can know alot. But you cannot believe it's true!

You're right. I don't believe it's true, I know it's true, based off observation... Except the world being a hologram part.

To tangle this disagrement from another angle I could argue that knowledge is just belief without faith and hope.

Knowledge is actually what you.. well.. know. If you know something, and you've never seen any real reason why you would know this thing, then you only know it based on faith. I'm using the word "know" to be polite, because I know that you "know" God is real... It's nicer than telling you that you only think God is real, is it not?

I want to inform you about the scientifical method:

It's just "scientific method"

If i would do a research if all crows that are black, instead of looking for each and every bird that is black I should look for what speaks against it. At the same time time my experiment needs to be varifiable by others, this means that other scientists can repete the same experiment.

This part is exactly right. All scientific discoveries must be able to hold itself up by being falsifiable and reliably demonstrable.

This is what we know as Poppers theory of falsification. A scientist needs to do research on what speaks against his theory and let others be able to varify it.

This actually goes on all the time. The problem with religion and creation is, they bring no evidence, no testable demonstration-- which is required for peer review. Nothing but the personal beliefs of people. This is what separates it from science.

General Theory also covers the idea that if you travell faster then light you will be able to travell in time. In contrast as you stated, and here's alot of contrast, special relativity says it is impossible to travell faster then light, Yes. Here we need to work from two diffrent theories, since these theries contradict eachother when using them "interlinear".

I won't argue with you on this. I'll wait until you decide to look it up for yourself.

First step would be to demonstrate that something can go faster than the speed of light.

I am arguing the speed of light and the state of motion of the source independantly from inertial observers!! And also i am arguing how fast the moon goes in strings, giving a push to the light it shines, indepenatnly from observers!

I know what you are saying, and this contradicts any known law or relativity. The key word in the "theory of relativity" is "relativity". There is a reason why it's called this.

I skip the rest, because i do not want to repete myself

Ok.

 

[Lillen]

I started to many discussions here when a soothsayer or a wiccan charms me to slow down. Let's look at it from the biggining.

I BELIEVE that God is real.

Let me rephrase, Faith is not insecure science. Faith is faith and science is science. Yes thats true but both is knowledge. And knowledge is presented with symmetric arguments.

 

[Lillen]

e can be alot

 

[Cabal]

General Theory also covers the idea that if you travell faster then light you will be able to travell in time. In contrast as you stated, and here's alot of contrast, special relativity says it is impossible to travell faster then light, Yes. Here we need to work from two diffrent theories, since these theries contradict eachother when using them "interlinear".

Uh....those aren't contradictory ideas. One establishes a speed limit, one gives a theoretical case for what would happen if there was travel over that limit. It's not saying that you CAN travel that fast.

 

[Delphiki]

Let me rephrase, Faith is not insecure science. Faith is faith and science is science. Yes thats true but both is knowledge.

This, I agree with.

 

[Tinker Grey]

You agree with "both is knowledge"?

I don't know how faith can be knowledge. If nothing about which you hold as a matter of faith can be verified, such as the existence of heaven, I don't know how one could say they know it exists simply by declaring faith.

 

[kharisym]

This is my first notions:
1. Belief is not insecure knowledge or insecure "to know". Faith is faith and knowledge is knowledge

2 I follow the rule that as a scientist you always need to look what speaks against the truth. in science - theories and in belief - faith.

3. a) We need a whole other world view using this following observations; According the general relativity theory particles that moves faster then light, travell in time - there are bodies on the nightsky travelling faster then light, they do not travell in time. (Ie, The Moon moves around The Earth, The Earth around The Sun, The Sun around in Milkyway and Milkyway around in strings. This system is making The Moon move really, really fast) Also gives a push to the ligth from the motion of the source!!! This is were we move on the special relativity:
I am arguing the speed of light and the state of motion of the source independantly from inertial observers!!

You seem to be committing the same sin that so many other creationists do. You read something, you jump to a conclusion, then assess said unsupported conclusion against your existing world view, assuming said conclusion is factual without trying to confirm said conclusion. Problem is, the conclusion you jumped to is not factual, and is made of equal or greater parts your imagination rather than being a reflection of the actual information you found.

To start with, You claim general relativity states particles traveling faster than the speed of light travel in time. I presume you mean *backwards* in time. This is a product of thought experiments dealing with tachyons, and to date no tachyon has ever been observed. This fact rules your 2nd proposal, "there are bodies on the nightsky travelling faster then light, they do not travell in time." false.

In this case, you apparently read something about tachyons, started brainstorming some cloud thought, but never got around to reading what relativity says about bodies approaching the speed of light. You quote relativity without understanding it, and therefore get it completely wrong. As bodies approach the speed of light, their perception of time slows while at the same time their effective mass increases. In effect, it would take infinite energy for a particle to attain the speed of light. Given this, no object can exceed the speed of light.

Relativity also provides answers against your 2nd conclusion, your claim effectively stating that an object traveling away from a light pulse has a relative velocity to that light pulse faster than the speed of light. The temporal distortion the theory of relativity uses as object approach the speed of light renders this idea moot.

Your predictions go against the very tenets of relativity. I feel safe in concluding that you jumped to an erroneous conclusion, and assumed its accuracy instead of trying to validate it.

 

[Lillen]

I don't know how faith can be knowledge. If nothing about which you hold as a matter of faith can be verified, such as the existence of heaven, I don't know how one could say they know it exists simply by declaring faith.

Let me rephrase: Looking from your perspective, faith can't be varified, I am sliding down to opponents position when argueing that faith cant be varified, one thing about being adult and set free from the horrible teens, is that in adolescence a person should be able to look from other perspective- A healthy progress since doctors assessment was a severe retardation or developmental disorder with me 9 years ago when I was 18.

I can argue for my faith, in give you a symmertric arguments around my faith. For instance; According to science it is impossible to heal developmental disorder and downs. Here i am. This is infact visual and observable evidence for Gods existance. Even though I agree, we intpret facts diffrently, you inrpret facts against the notion that God exist, while I intpret facts supproting the notion that God exist. This is something both you and I have to get used to. For instance, i see the heavens every day when i look up, the heavens in which God enthroned. In the same manners I see the Word of God as actual evidence for God existance, since God is defined as the Word according to John. What evidence do we have that Jesus is the Word except for Johns testemoney? Let's look at Ezekeiel that was written 600 years before christ. "Then the word of the LORD came to me saying, Thus says the LORD" - This passage varify that the word is a person, moreover it varify that the Word is The LORD. But what varify that Jesus is the Word? Lets go back to genesis that was handed down in verbal tradition from the ark and from Adam and Eve - "Between your seed and hers, He shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heal" This was made flesh when Jesus ressurected proving that he had Crushed Satan and defeted Death or Satan (the serpent as we recall from Eden). Now what evidence are there that Jesus ressurected - Read Isaiah 53, In the late middle of that chapter the bible says "They made his grave with the wicced". Now all these facts represent evidence, that I intpret is in favor for a God, you intpret these facts diffrently from me, and i am sure you will refute me.

But once again arguing about christianity or against is a mare hobby by both of us. As a scientist you should always look at what speaks against a theory. as a man of faith, i only reveal to you that Jesus died for my sins, That is actually all i need to believe in as christian, at that is what I am commanded to preach (For we preach Christ Crucified as it is written). So when I walk away from this computer I want to proclaim to the hole wide world that Jesus died for my sins. You on the other hand as a scientist as a duty to look what speaks against your notions in your research...

Lets go back alittle to refute my other opponents in the gay debate: Let me illustrate how a scientists works: I have my own scientifical theories about dark matter, black holes and light done by own observations. These are the theories: - Black Holes are surrounded by dark matter thanks to the gravity around a black hole. And Light behaves diffrently in dark matter so that the light moves reversed towards the source of light!
Lets look at the first theory, what speaks against it? If black holes absorb matter as well as dark matter this theory is false. What speaks against that black holes absorb dark matter? And so on.

The other theory is quite ticker because it handles an unknowned phnomenon.. i think!! but you understand from here. As a scientist i should look at what speaks against my theory, always. At the same time it has to be formed in such manners that othres can observe it. (As a side note - So hence the idea that scientists always need to speak againt the truth while others varify it)

 

[Lillen]

"You seem to be committing the same sin that so many other creationists do. You read something, you jump to a conclusion, then assess said unsupported conclusion against your existing world view, assuming said conclusion is factual without trying to confirm said conclusion. Problem is, the conclusion you jumped to is not factual, and is made of equal or greater parts your imagination rather than being a reflection of the actual information you found."

No i intpret facts diffrent from you

I can actually know alot - I can know that primes up to thousand in a circle around a pentagram forms the number 666 using standard operations at the pentgrams peaks. I can know that the clock is the inner circle that also circles around the number 666
I can know that binary code circles around the number 666, in what way? i haven't gotten that far.
I can know that there is not much diffrence between crack cocaine and gold, one is refined in alchohol and the other in Agua Regis. Otherwise it is not much diffrenece.
I can know that Sparkling wine and Aqua Regis has alot in common since the latin word for HCL and HNO3 is "spirits of salt". i see the connection there but I deliberalty withheld information so that i wouldn't make it known to you.
I can know that sulfuric acid and heavy water is created through alchemy with connection to the bible
I can know that alchemy is still used today - Rember nothing is told in school up to masters degree on how you create/refine/prospect/invent/ raw material( ie. Basic acids, basic medicine, basic substances). You learn theory, Einsteins relativity theory but you are not taught applied mathematics, applied physics, applied chemisty. Sure you can write a lab rapport on how Hydrogen and Oxygen reacts to form Ho2, but you are not clever enought to figure out how you yeast sparkling wine. You can right an lab rapport on how the acceleration of a falling body looks.. heck so can I.. But you are not taught applied medicine. A honeycomb for you my freind... do you even know how to back honecombs, the ancient first aid kit?

 

[Cabal]

Alchemy is utter bunk, Lillen, pure and simple.

 

[Lillen]

Let's look at the reality, modern chemisty was created in what?? 18 century. Sulfuric acid could made by alchemist allready 600 AD according to some books. Agua Regis must have been knowned by ancient egyptians since gold existed back then. The is the question How did they do this without modern chemistry? How did they build the pyramides without modern physics and machanics? I can only come up with two conclutions from here, and you may correct me if i am wrong, either ancienty egyptians knew about modern machanics and physics, or their theories was suitable to refine gold, build pyrmids and so on. That it is used even to this day is harder to argue for. But lets look at a remain from ancient days - Brewing alchohol - this is alchamy. Brewing vineagear - this is alchemy (all you do is add wheat to homecocked and let it yeast to form an vinagear acid) Creating tequila from vineagar is alchemy. Alchemy that is knowned to the modenr world.

 

[Lillen]

And imagine what - They did refine gold, they did build the pyramids, a prototype of working helicopter back in 16 century by Leonardo Da Vinci is found in the history books? This supports the theory that they could fly back then. I believe it is a coverup to say that it took 400 years to put this to effect since a working prototyp was there. But i wont argue that they flew 500 years ago, i am afraid i would look dumb - the evidence is there, but it is common accepted that Wright made man fly in the air!

Remeber no science, no thermodynamics, no special relativity - Yet they could refine gold? and yes it was common to sacrifice to ancient Gods, in babylon 500 BC - Nebu and in greece 100 AD Zeus. In egypt, 4000 years ago Amon Ra. And in scandinavia 1000 years ago - Thor.

Sacrificing to gods, being without science and performed rituals - Yet they could refine Gold!!! Faith triumph above science. science cannot even explain way alchohol become alchohol when yeasting sugar in water!!

 

[Delphiki]

You agree with "both is knowledge"?

I don't know how faith can be knowledge. If nothing about which you hold as a matter of faith can be verified, such as the existence of heaven, I don't know how one could say they know it exists simply by declaring faith.

It's knowing in a subjective sense. Whether it's true objectively and in the real universe has little bearing on what I consider knowledge. Even wrong or bad knowledge is knowledge. Consider there are many non-Christian people that simply don't know everything about Christianity. Now when you talk about a creationist misunderstanding something like biological evolution, that's simply ignorance, for once they reach outside the realm of what they know, they fail for not knowing much of anything else.

Not saying what they know is correct, but I still call it knowledge -- especially where both sides can have ignorance. Ignorance is just the lack of knowledge.

What someone knows through faith can't be verified scientifically because they simply didn't use science to arrive at their conclusion. This is why faith and science are completely unrelated.

I'll admit, calling the belief knowledge is a logical taboo -- I'm just considering the perspective of the faithful and how solidly they are convinced they are right.... if that makes sense lol

 

[Tinker Grey]

Thanks for the clarification.

I understand what you are saying. And, largely what I am saying is merely semantics. I simply object to calling knowledge that which cannot be known. Believing really really really hard isn't knowing. I know you didn't say that ... I'm just explaining my objection.

 

[Lillen]

As a sidenote, Mirrormanting is punishable with death in America, and lifetime here in sweden. It falls within the range of epsionage. It is espionage or atleast a hidden art within espionage... I want to inform you what it is. In religion witchcraft, in Law Espionage.

It is hard to prove thats true, it requires some form of confession from the subject using these hidden art. Trust me.