[ernestombayo7]

Originally Posted by ATLian

.
If you're to accuse me, then provide the evidence. Tell me where I "chest thump" about the "Atheism faith" while being unable to adequately defend it. Please, just one solid example, that's all I ask.

ATLIAN:Hello, that is common sense. ALL RELIGIONS require blind faith! Period. You cannot argue against that. Read your Bible, it's all over.

ATLIAN:That said, I have told you they are weak arguments, they have all been shown to be fallacies!

ATLIAN:There are some things that should only be said when you're talking to a bunch of fellow Christians who think like you, coz then they will blindly cheer you and encourage you. Lakini in forums like this, when you say stuff that clearly makes no sense, then you will be called out on it.

ATLIAN:Like you well know, blind faith has no room in an intellectual discussion! Keep that to discussions with your fellow Christians, but in an open forum, you will be challenged to justify your statements.

now lets get back to the topic at hand.

[jasakwa]

I personally hold that faith should only be defaulted to when a rational answer is not forthcoming, but once it comes, we should make a conscious effort to move away from faith and accept facts.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for.So for you to pursue facts you must have the faith to do so.If your friend died and rose up again you would need faith to come into terms with the miracle and at same time agree with the fact that what happened is a pure miracle.

[ATLian]

Originally Posted by ernestombayo7

ATLIAN:Hello, that is common sense. ALL RELIGIONS require blind faith! Period. You cannot argue against that. Read your Bible, it's all over.

ATLIAN:That said, I have told you they are weak arguments, they have all been shown to be fallacies!

ATLIAN:There are some things that should only be said when you're talking to a bunch of fellow Christians who think like you, coz then they will blindly cheer you and encourage you. Lakini in forums like this, when you say stuff that clearly makes no sense, then you will be called out on it.

ATLIAN:Like you well know, blind faith has no room in an intellectual discussion! Keep that to discussions with your fellow Christians, but in an open forum, you will be challenged to justify your statements.

now lets get back to the topic at hand.

How exactly are those examples of me chest thumping about my "atheism faith"? Do you realise that there is not a single mention of atheism anywhere there. NONE! If you showed somebody who is new to this thread those quotes, they'd ask you the same question. Heck, those quotes could have come from a devout theist!

Also, are any of those statements in and of by themselves false? Do you agree that blind faith has no room in a intellectual forum, or in your opinion is it okay to throw out things based solely on blind faith into an intellectual agreement? Do you agree that religions are based on a premise of blind faith, since none of the believers can ever prove some basic tenets like, say, their god has always existed?

Also, you didn't point out to me the immaturity in my earlier statements.

Ernest, I think you went ad hominem, totally deviating from the topic at hand, and that's what I'm trying to prove here.

[ATLian]

If your friend died and rose up again you would need faith to come into terms with the miracle and at same time agree with the fact that what happened is a pure miracle.

I think your definition of faith is kidogo off... If your friend dies, and it is irrefutably proven that he has died, and then he resurrects, and you meet him, you don't need faith to come to terms with that miracle. He is there, you can see him. That's why the 10 disciples who MET Jesus after he resurrected didn't need faith to believe he had resurrected. Thomas who hadn't seen him needed the faith, coz faith is needed for the unseen things, not for factual seen things. We don't have faith that KICC exists. We KNOW it does because we have seen it.

[ATLian]

Then why did you say we can verify wormholes empirically?

Ernest, I really think that you truly do not grasp exactly what empirical evidence is, so let me try explain it with this worm-hole that you keep mentioning.

I said we can verify worm-holes empirically because, and this is what you don't seem to understand, MATHEMATICS is considered an empirical source of evidence! Mathematics shows that if you put a man on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, he would be crashed into a pulp by the water pressure. We don't need to physically put a man down there to verify this, it's already empirically proven by math! There are so many things which were first determined purely through mathematics, and later on when man advanced to the stage where he could actually build those things, the mathematics was found to de dead on correct! I hope that clears out the issue you have with mathematics being empirical!

Regarding wormholes: Einstein proved empirically (through mathematics) that space and time is curved. This, and his other theories (relativity and special relativity) have been proven over and over again by other scientists. Again, that's a component of empirical evidence, the fact that it can be independently verified.

Back to space and time curvature: Assume you have a region of space and time that is curved like a horse-shoe. Instead of travelling from one tip of the horse-shoe to the other tip by going round the entire horse-shoe, it would be much quicker if there was a straight bridge between the two tips. Again, it was empirically (through mathematics) proven that there is a possibility that these bridges can exist! These bridges are officially called Einstein Bridges, but the cool and common way of referring to them is "worm-holes".

Through science-fiction movies and such, we have all seen space-crafts go through worm-holes so as to end up travelling from Point A to Point B faster than going round the "horse-shoe" would have taken. As crazy as it may seem, it was also proven empirically again (through mathematics) that yes, worm-holes can allow you to get from A to B much faster, and in some cases, even faster than light.

We have all see space crafts going through worm-holes so as to end up in the future and again mathematics that is beyond most people has proven that worm-holes can allow you to travel into the future. This same mathematics show that with the correct technology, advanced civilizations may be able to create worm-holes to allow this to happen!

Bottom line is, to a typical mwanainchi who thought Form 4 mathematics and physics was the most brutal and complicated thing ever, Einstein Bridges are nothing but a fairy tale, and the empirical evidence backing their possible existence is hogwash. But for the scientists who deal with this daily, then that is a reality that has been proven through mathematics!



Now you say what if its the tooth fairy,thats okay by me!i just happen to call this tooth fairy God.

Well, again that is a conclusion arrived at without evidence! You make a major assumption and use it as evidence that it's your god.

[ernestombayo7]

How exactly are those examples of me chest thumping about my "atheism faith"? Do you realise that there is not a single mention of atheism anywhere there. NONE! If you showed somebody who is new to this thread those quotes, they'd ask you the same question. Heck, those quotes could have come from a devout theist!
Also, are any of those statements in and of by themselves false? Do you agree that blind faith has no room in a intellectual forum, or in your opinion is it okay to throw out things based solely on blind faith into an intellectual agreement? Do you agree that religions are based on a premise of blind faith, since none of the believers can ever prove some basic tenets like, say, their god has always existed?

Also, you didn't point out to me the immaturity in my earlier statements.

Ernest, I think you went ad hominem, totally deviating from the topic at hand, and that's what I'm trying to prove here.

frankly am tired of this.U asked for "evidence"
and i provided it.Let whoever cares to evaluate it do so.

[ernestombayo7]

Ernest, I really think that you truly do not grasp exactly what empirical evidence is, so let me try explain it with this worm-hole that you keep mentioning.

I said we can verify worm-holes empirically because, and this is what you don't seem to understand, MATHEMATICS is considered an empirical source of evidence! Mathematics shows that if you put a man on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, he would be crashed into a pulp by the water pressure. We don't need to physically put a man down there to verify this, it's already empirically proven by math! There are so many things which were first determined purely through mathematics, and later on when man advanced to the stage where he could actually build those things, the mathematics was found to de dead on correct! I hope that clears out the issue you have with mathematics being empirical!

Regarding wormholes: Einstein proved empirically (through mathematics) that space and time is curved. This, and his other theories (relativity and special relativity) have been proven over and over again by other scientists. Again, that's a component of empirical evidence, the fact that it can be independently verified.

Back to space and time curvature: Assume you have a region of space and time that is curved like a horse-shoe. Instead of travelling from one tip of the horse-shoe to the other tip by going round the entire horse-shoe, it would be much quicker if there was a straight bridge between the two tips. Again, it was empirically (through mathematics) proven that there is a possibility that these bridges can exist! These bridges are officially called Einstein Bridges, but the cool and common way of referring to them is "worm-holes".

Through science-fiction movies and such, we have all seen space-crafts go through worm-holes so as to end up travelling from Point A to Point B faster than going round the "horse-shoe" would have taken. As crazy as it may seem, it was also proven empirically again (through mathematics) that yes, worm-holes can allow you to get from A to B much faster, and in some cases, even faster than light.

We have all see space crafts going through worm-holes so as to end up in the future and again mathematics that is beyond most people has proven that worm-holes can allow you to travel into the future. This same mathematics show that with the correct technology, advanced civilizations may be able to create worm-holes to allow this to happen!

Bottom line is, to a typical mwanainchi who thought Form 4 mathematics and physics was the most brutal and complicated thing ever, Einstein Bridges are nothing but a fairy tale, and the empirical evidence backing their possible existence is hogwash. But for the scientists who deal with this daily, then that is a reality that has been proven through mathematics!

ATlian,once you can get it into your head that empirical evidence is equal to physical evidence,then we will be going somewhere with this discussion.

There is nothing like mathematical evidence,there is mathematical proof or probability.but there is no mathematical evidence.and going further to equate mathematical evidence/proof to empirical evidence is intellectual suicide.

Its like your saying there is mathematical proff for wormholes so there is physical evidence for wormholes.

Piiz atlian,check for yourself,empirical evidence has to be observable or can be experimented on.This is same as physical evidence.If you want to come up with your own definition of empirical thats your own problem.

Your suggesting that mathematical proof is evidence for physical/.empirical evidence?eg like string theory?

If you could your use your buddy google,and look for the definitions of empirical,physical and mathematical proof/evidence you will see whats wrong with your reasoning.

Empirical=physical

We have no empirical evidence of wormholes,but we do have mathematical proof or probability.The two are not the same.

Mathematical hypothesis can be right but that does not follow that is empirically evident.a good example is string theory.

Can someone pliz explain to atlian the difference between empirical evidence and mathematical proof.

I have tried to define for him what empirical is,i.e physical evidence,but he goes and twists the meaning to also include mathematical proof.despite every definition saying otherwise.