It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What are the concepts behind the belief sytem of Atheism?

page: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier


originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: luthier


I think I you go back with a neutral view and look at what you have said your view point is plenty egocentric. is that your philosophical opinion? What about my points?



Who came up with the scientific method?
it is commonly attributed to Isaac Newton. However, many scientists before his time were promoting practical analysis and compiling methods to sort the tripe from the truth. Galileo, Roger Bacon, Copernicus. Scientists, not philosophers.



Science would not exist without philosophy and scientists without philosophy hardly ever make big break throughs. Albert Einstein believed in Spinozas view of god that is why I was asking.
The thing about scientists is, It does not matter what they think, only what they can prove. The majority of Newton's work was rubbish. We only regale him for his correct theories. As well as Einstein.



Marx was brilliant in my opinion. Bucky Fuller and Tesla also come to mind.


Karl Marx? Sure he was brilliant, he had a few good ideas, but most of his ideas were rubbish. When his ideas were implemented on the people it was a total disaster. Just because someone is smart doesn't mean that their opinions should be given credence.
Tesla is arguably one of the most influential inventors in all of history. But he was a mad man. He believed that he was receiving his mechanical revelations from aliens transmitting the info into his skull. That is actually what he believed. We only regale him for his successful endeavors. His madness and wild speculations nearly got him erased from history. I'm sure you know these stories.




You have replied most egocentrically and asserted such claims that most theoretical scientists would be in disagreement with you on.
another jab at my ego? I am confident. Sorry. How about addressing my points.

How do you presume to know what most theoretical physicists believe? That seems egocentric.





My brother who also has an account here or did at one time had three full scholarships for physics. UT, McGill, Dr at the University of Chicago specifically to work at Fermilab. I can tell you that most of the views he holds are far less closed off than I have heard from you.


Yea? And?



My father worked for Boeing and was a project manager with a full scholarship in Physics to Umass untill he went to Vietnam.
yea? He prob had an opinion?.... i'm just guessing though. It probably agreed with yours, or you wouldn't be bringing it up.



I am nearly 40 and definitely not a student. I have been around brilliant minds my whole life and am the black sheep in that regard. However none of these men had any sort of rigid viewpoint that I am hearing from you. My dad was Catholic even and holds several patents on aircraft technology. Amazing he could get so far being so ignorant huh?
Ahh... he was catholic? How did his catholicness help him with his tech patents?
Not at all? Probably his science education huh?


My brother is weather modeler and has written several advanced algorithms for market research on the impact of the weather and global warming trends on global markets. Never heard him bash religions even though he is agnostic too.
did his agnosticism help him model those weather patterns? No? Prob his philosophical training? No? What then?



Is it possible this is the only way to go from cave to lab? Quite possibly this path is the only one there is.
which path is that?




The only scientists that discredit philosophy are closed minded ones who don't understand the history of science. Science started with philosophy. Philosophy asked the question and science answers it.
Is that what they told you in philosophy class? Philosophy has it's place, but not in a lab. Definitely not in my shop. Philosophy doesn't come into play when you are measuring anything, philosophy doesn't effect any experiment i can think of.

You are arguing from the authority of people that you can't even get to talk for themselves. I just have to take your word that their opinion would agree with yours.

What can they prove?




posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Ghost147

All an athestist is is someone who doesn't believe in a 'creator being' that went poof and history started.

Buddhists don't believe in such a 'creator being' but they do pray to many gods or advanced beings.

Buddhists do however believe in laws of nature, one of which would be the law of Karma (or simplistically the Law of cause and effect).


This is yet another definition. How is that not also agnostic, pantheist, deist etc
Buddism is an atheistic world view. They are most commonly refered to as pantheistic as they believe that the universe is the creator of life and everything is connected physically (which is not true).


I'd like for you to prove that sir.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: luthier


originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: luthier


I think I you go back with a neutral view and look at what you have said your view point is plenty egocentric.
is that your philosophical opinion? What about my points?



Who came up with the scientific method?
it is commonly attributed to Isaac Newton. However, many scientists before his time were promoting practical analysis and compiling methods to sort the tripe from the truth. Galileo, Roger Bacon, Copernicus. Scientists, not philosophers.



Science would not exist without philosophy and scientists without philosophy hardly ever make big break throughs. Albert Einstein believed in Spinozas view of god that is why I was asking.
The thing about scientists is, It does not matter what they think, only what they can prove. The majority of Newton's work was rubbish. We only regale him for his correct theories. As well as Einstein.



Marx was brilliant in my opinion. Bucky Fuller and Tesla also come to mind.


Karl Marx? Sure he was brilliant, he had a few good ideas, but most of his ideas were rubbish. When his ideas were implemented on the people it was a total disaster. Just because someone is smart doesn't mean that their opinions should be given credence.
Tesla is arguably one of the most influential inventors in all of history. But he was a mad man. He believed that he was receiving his mechanical revelations from aliens transmitting the info into his skull. That is actually what he believed. We only regale him for his successful endeavors. His madness and wild speculations nearly got him erased from history. I'm sure you know these stories.




You have replied most egocentrically and asserted such claims that most theoretical scientists would be in disagreement with you on.
another jab at my ego? I am confident. Sorry. How about addressing my points.

How do you presume to know what most theoretical physicists believe? That seems egocentric.





My brother who also has an account here or did at one time had three full scholarships for physics. UT, McGill, Dr at the University of Chicago specifically to work at Fermilab. I can tell you that most of the views he holds are far less closed off than I have heard from you.


Yea? And?



My father worked for Boeing and was a project manager with a full scholarship in Physics to Umass untill he went to Vietnam.
yea? He prob had an opinion?.... i'm just guessing though. It probably agreed with yours, or you wouldn't be bringing it up.



I am nearly 40 and definitely not a student. I have been around brilliant minds my whole life and am the black sheep in that regard. However none of these men had any sort of rigid viewpoint that I am hearing from you. My dad was Catholic even and holds several patents on aircraft technology. Amazing he could get so far being so ignorant huh?
Ahh... he was catholic? How did his catholicness help him with his tech patents?
Not at all? Probably his science education huh?


My brother is weather modeler and has written several advanced algorithms for market research on the impact of the weather and global warming trends on global markets. Never heard him bash religions even though he is agnostic too.
did his agnosticism help him model those weather patterns? No? Prob his philosophical training? No? What then?



Is it possible this is the only way to go from cave to lab? Quite possibly this path is the only one there is.
which path is that?




The only scientists that discredit philosophy are closed minded ones who don't understand the history of science. Science started with philosophy. Philosophy asked the question and science answers it.
Is that what they told you in philosophy class? Philosophy has it's place, but not in a lab. Definitely not in my shop. Philosophy doesn't come into play when you are measuring anything, philosophy doesn't effect any experiment i can think of.

You are arguing from the authority of people that you can't even get to talk for themselves. I just have to take your word that their opinion would agree with yours.

What can they prove?

Nothing nor do they have my viewpoint they have there own. You however seem to think only your view point can bring the insight necessary for change and discovery. My point is that's bull crap. Atheism is no better or worse at anything. There is zero proof of that.

Nobody tried to implement Marx's views. You haven't read the manifesto then.

Newton was part of the empiricist philosophical movement if you read his writing you would know this. It was really Locke who came up with it. But yeah a little google will show you Newton and probably a little blurb in your physics class too.

It makes sense you are an engineer. Engineers usually hold rigid viewpoints that can't be changed. (see how stupid stereo types are)

Explain to me which early scientist was not also a philosopher and pondered the questions philosophically before coming up with the answer?

Kepler philosopher, Copernicus philosopher, decartes philosopher, Newton philosopher, Tesla philosopher, Fuller philosopher, Einstein philosopher, Tyson philosopher, I can go on and on.

philosophy doesn't effect any experiment you can think off? Seriously? fermilab and cern both took theoretical ideas from philosophical questions and created experiments to prove or disprove. Do you understand the scientific method comes from the philosophical rules of debating a valid argument? Maybe you should have paid more attention in class.

. Classical philosophers pondered what is truth? Without that question science doesn't exist.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. You have not proven anything except you are bitter and spiteful towards religion which jades your entire viewpoint.

My dad's science education surely helped him but his faith got him there after what he went through in Vietnam. You act is if life happens in a bubble without any outside factors.

You think Atheists would do better in power. I disagree give you well know atheist examples and you argue a straw man and say they were nuts. So the religious people were not nuts? Where in Christianity does it say to conquer and murder? The same place it says it in Marx work. Nowhere.

Marx thought capitalism would consolidate wealth to the point workers would so out number the owners and wealthy they would naturally choice to start trading with each other. That doesn't sound like what happened with communism.

Truth is you have a lot of preconceived ideas about humanity that are just not true from an anthropological stand point. Power is the problem not religion. I don't like religious bigotry anymore than you I just am not bitter enough to lump it all in the same category.

By the way this entire thread is metaphysics. None of it can be proved.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 10:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Ghost147

All an athestist is is someone who doesn't believe in a 'creator being' that went poof and history started.

Buddhists don't believe in such a 'creator being' but they do pray to many gods or advanced beings.

Buddhists do however believe in laws of nature, one of which would be the law of Karma (or simplistically the Law of cause and effect).


This is yet another definition. How is that not also agnostic, pantheist, deist etc
Buddism is an atheistic world view. They are most commonly refered to as pantheistic as they believe that the universe is the creator of life and everything is connected physically (which is not true).


I'd like for you to prove that sir.


He can't because its not true. In any of the major schools. Thera vada nope, Niyngma nope, Zen nope. You can be atheist and Buddhist without a major conflict (except the deity part) but that isnt the same.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Test for Theism or Atheism.


Do you believe in a deity or deities?

Answers:

Yes = Theist

No = Atheist

Follow up questions to Theists and Atheists

How certain are you:

Completely certain = Gnostic Theist/Atheist

Less than completely certain = Agnostic Theist/Atheist



That covers the issue in its entirety. Thanks for reading.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
He was a belgian cosmologist/astronomer who was a catholic priest.

Georges Lemaitre
www.amnh.org...
a reply to: Krazysh0t



Um, we were talking about who invented the finely tuned universe argument, not who invented the big bang.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Woodcarver
He was a belgian cosmologist/astronomer who was a catholic priest.

Georges Lemaitre
www.amnh.org...
a reply to: Krazysh0t



Um, we were talking about who invented the finely tuned universe argument, not who invented the big bang.


Yeah it was started by Hoyle. An Astrophysicist in 1950. Though you have to read deeper than a wiki page to find it



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Test for Theism or Atheism.


Do you believe in a deity or deities?

Answers:

Yes = Theist

No = Atheist

Follow up questions to Theists and Atheists

How certain are you:

Completely certain = Gnostic Theist/Atheist

Less than completely certain = Agnostic Theist/Atheist



That covers the issue in its entirety. Thanks for reading.





Nicely done! Thank you. However, it seems not everyone agrees your explaination makes the most sense.

This also explains why Budhism is obviously not Atheist though an atheist can be budhist in most of their practices.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Woodcarver
He was a belgian cosmologist/astronomer who was a catholic priest.

Georges Lemaitre
www.amnh.org...
a reply to: Krazysh0t



Um, we were talking about who invented the finely tuned universe argument, not who invented the big bang.


Yeah it was started by Hoyle. An Astrophysicist in 1950. Though you have to read deeper than a wiki page to find it


No I don't. From the wiki page I linked:

In 1961, the physicist Robert H. Dicke claimed that certain forces in physics, such as gravity and electromagnetism, must be perfectly fine-tuned for life to exist anywhere in the Universe.[5][6] Fred Hoyle also argued for a fine-tuned Universe in his 1984 book Intelligent Universe. He compares "the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a star system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously".[7]


If you notice, Hoyle wrote his book in 1984 (not sure where you got the 1950's claim for him writing that book), even in that paragraph ALONE, it mentions Physicist Robert H. Dicke making a fine tuning argument in 1961, which predates Hoyle by 23 years. But MY guy, the chemist, was Lawrence Henderson who said his bit in 1913.

It's all RIGHT there on the wiki page.

By the way (warning another incoming wiki page), Fred Hoyle spent much of his scientific career pushing bad science. He made a few good scientific contributions with stellar nucleosynthesis, but rejected abiogenesis and the big bang.


While Hoyle was well-regarded for his works on nucleosynthesis and science popularization, his career was also noted for the controversial positions he held on a wide range of scientific issues, often in direct opposition to the prevailing theories supported by the majority of the scientific community.[3] Paul Davies describes how he "loved his maverick personality and contempt for orthodoxy", quoting Hoyle as saying "I don't care what they think" about his theories on discrepant redshift, and "it is better to be interesting and wrong than boring and right".[33]

Hoyle often expressed anger against the labyrinthine and petty politics at Cambridge and frequently feuded with members and institutions of all levels of the British astronomy community, leading to his resignation from Cambridge in September 1971 over the way he thought Donald Lynden-Bell was chosen to replace retiring professor Roderick Oliver Redman behind his back.[34] According to biographer Simon Mitton, "in the period from 1970, Hoyle allowed himself to be consumed by corrosive paranoia."[3]

In addition to his views on steady state theory and panspermia, Hoyle also supported the following controversial theories:

The correlation of flu epidemics with the sunspot cycle, with epidemics occurring at the minimum of the cycle. The idea was that flu contagion was scattered in the interstellar medium and reached Earth only when the solar wind had minimum power.[citation needed]
The fossil Archaeopteryx was a man-made fake.[35] This assertion was definitively refuted by, among other strong indications, the presence of microcracks extending through the fossil into the surrounding rock.
The theory of abiogenic petroleum, where natural hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) are explained as the result of deep carbon deposits, instead of fossilized organic material. "The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time."[citation needed]
The use of the fifty-six Aubrey holes at Stonehenge as a system for the neolithic Britons to predict eclipses, using them in the daily positioning of marker stones as proposed in his 1977 book On Stonehenge. The use of the Aubrey holes for predicting lunar eclipses was originally proposed by Gerald Hawkins whose book of the subject Stonehenge Decoded (1965) predates Hoyle's.[citation needed]

edit on 17-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Woodcarver
He was a belgian cosmologist/astronomer who was a catholic priest.

Georges Lemaitre
www.amnh.org...
a reply to: Krazysh0t



Um, we were talking about who invented the finely tuned universe argument, not who invented the big bang.


Yeah it was started by Hoyle. An Astrophysicist in 1950. Though you have to read deeper than a wiki page to find it


No I don't. From the wiki page I linked:

In 1961, the physicist Robert H. Dicke claimed that certain forces in physics, such as gravity and electromagnetism, must be perfectly fine-tuned for life to exist anywhere in the Universe.[5][6] Fred Hoyle also argued for a fine-tuned Universe in his 1984 book Intelligent Universe. He compares "the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a star system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously".[7]


If you notice, Hoyle wrote his book in 1984 (not sure where you got the 1950's claim for him writing that book), even in that paragraph ALONE, it mentions Physicist Robert H. Dicke making a fine tuning argument in 1961, which predates Hoyle by 23 years. But MY guy, the chemist, was Lawrence Henderson who said his bit in 1913 (which still predates your 1950's date anyways).

It's all RIGHT there on the wiki page.


Because i have read Hoyle's work. If you are honestly sayimg wikipedia is a definitive source, sorry cant take you seriously. There is no university or college that would except what you are implying and you have no idea about the subject so you should stop.

Hoyle's discoveries were in the 1950's. He wrote a book in 1984. He had already been writing about this in his scientific papers.

Stop argueing you are already proven wrong. Finely tuned universe was not created by christians to prove intelligent design as you stated. Not only that but dozens of physicists unrelated to christianity have modeled the theory and found compelling evidence.

Christians misuse the theory to say their god. It just points that there seems to be a design that was planned by something which could be the universe itself. A chemist by the way has plenty to say about the compound make up of chemical bonding which is part of the theory. Maybe try reading the book Hoyle wrote in 1984 and you will see in his own words when he discovered the tuning.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Ghost147

All an athestist is is someone who doesn't believe in a 'creator being' that went poof and history started.

Buddhists don't believe in such a 'creator being' but they do pray to many gods or advanced beings.

Buddhists do however believe in laws of nature, one of which would be the law of Karma (or simplistically the Law of cause and effect).


This is yet another definition. How is that not also agnostic, pantheist, deist etc
Buddism is an atheistic world view. They are most commonly refered to as pantheistic as they believe that the universe is the creator of life and everything is connected physically (which is not true).


I'd like for you to prove that sir.
Really? Buddhists do not believe in gods. If you can name a buddhist god, i will immediately recant my argument.

en.m.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Ghost147

All an athestist is is someone who doesn't believe in a 'creator being' that went poof and history started.

Buddhists don't believe in such a 'creator being' but they do pray to many gods or advanced beings.

Buddhists do however believe in laws of nature, one of which would be the law of Karma (or simplistically the Law of cause and effect).


This is yet another definition. How is that not also agnostic, pantheist, deist etc
Buddism is an atheistic world view. They are most commonly refered to as pantheistic as they believe that the universe is the creator of life and everything is connected physically (which is not true).


I'd like for you to prove that sir.


He can't because its not true. In any of the major schools. Thera vada nope, Niyngma nope, Zen nope. You can be atheist and Buddhist without a major conflict (except the deity part) but that isnt the same.
Name a buddhist deity.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Woodcarver
He was a belgian cosmologist/astronomer who was a catholic priest.

Georges Lemaitre
www.amnh.org...
a reply to: Krazysh0t



Um, we were talking about who invented the finely tuned universe argument, not who invented the big bang.


Yeah it was started by Hoyle. An Astrophysicist in 1950. Though you have to read deeper than a wiki page to find it


No I don't. From the wiki page I linked:

In 1961, the physicist Robert H. Dicke claimed that certain forces in physics, such as gravity and electromagnetism, must be perfectly fine-tuned for life to exist anywhere in the Universe.[5][6] Fred Hoyle also argued for a fine-tuned Universe in his 1984 book Intelligent Universe. He compares "the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a star system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously".[7]


If you notice, Hoyle wrote his book in 1984 (not sure where you got the 1950's claim for him writing that book), even in that paragraph ALONE, it mentions Physicist Robert H. Dicke making a fine tuning argument in 1961, which predates Hoyle by 23 years. But MY guy, the chemist, was Lawrence Henderson who said his bit in 1913 (which still predates your 1950's date anyways).

It's all RIGHT there on the wiki page.


By the way the same (pushing what you say is bad science) can be said for every great scientist and ist relative to anything. Einstein, Newton, Kepler, Coepernicus, etc. Its part of rejecting the normal hypothesis.

The Big Bang is not a fact. It hasnt been proven and there are many alter explainations today by well respected scientists. Its best to stay neutral like a scientists before you start ranting about your opinions.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Ghost147

All an athestist is is someone who doesn't believe in a 'creator being' that went poof and history started.

Buddhists don't believe in such a 'creator being' but they do pray to many gods or advanced beings.

Buddhists do however believe in laws of nature, one of which would be the law of Karma (or simplistically the Law of cause and effect).


This is yet another definition. How is that not also agnostic, pantheist, deist etc
Buddism is an atheistic world view. They are most commonly refered to as pantheistic as they believe that the universe is the creator of life and everything is connected physically (which is not true).


I'd like for you to prove that sir.


He can't because its not true. In any of the major schools. Thera vada nope, Niyngma nope, Zen nope. You can be atheist and Buddhist without a major conflict (except the deity part) but that isnt the same.
Name a buddhist deity.


www.buddhanet.net...

Here you go. There is one small malayasian school that rejects and makes claims about god.

Perhaps you should also look up the word deity.

I would love for you to argue this with a budhist from south east asia.
edit on 17-7-2015 by luthier because: edit



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
Because i have read Hoyle's work. If you are honestly sayimg wikipedia is a definitive source, sorry cant take you seriously. There is no university or college that would except what you are implying and you have no idea about the subject so you should stop.


First off, it is more evidence than YOU have posted. Second off, wikipedia is good enough for our discussion. This isn't a university or a college. It is a discussion forum. Wikipedia puts its sources at the bottom of the page and none of the claims in that blurb had a [citation needed] tag next to it.


Hoyle's discoveries were in the 1950's. He wrote a book in 1984. He had already been writing about this in his scientific papers.


Saying that the universe is finely tuned isn't a discovery. At the most, it is a hypothesis. But since it isn't fallible, I doubt you could even call it that. But hey, you are MORE than welcome to prove me wrong with some sources of your own.


Stop argueing you are already proven wrong. Finely tuned universe was not created by christians to prove intelligent design as you stated. Not only that but dozens of physicists unrelated to christianity have modeled the theory and found compelling evidence.


Fine I was wrong on that point, but you need to prove your other claims here. If you are going to tear down my sources because they aren't good enough, then I'm not going to let you get away with not posting any sources.


Christians misuse the theory to say their god. It just points that there seems to be a design that was planned by something which could be the universe itself. A chemist by the way has plenty to say about the compound make up of chemical bonding which is part of the theory. Maybe try reading the book Hoyle wrote in 1984 and you will see in his own words when he discovered the tuning.


He didn't "discover" any tuning. He may have theorized about it, but he hasn't discovered anything. The entire premise of the Fine Tuning argument is around an appearance that certain constants that make up physics have to be precise for our universe to exist, but we don't know how things work outside of our universe. So such a claim is a complete guess on our part. That isn't a discovery. At the most it is an educated guess (certainly not one supported by evidence though).

The fine-tuning argument is also superseded by String Theory or even just the existence of many universes.
edit on 17-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: luthier
Because i have read Hoyle's work. If you are honestly sayimg wikipedia is a definitive source, sorry cant take you seriously. There is no university or college that would except what you are implying and you have no idea about the subject so you should stop.


First off, it is more evidence than YOU have posted. Second off, wikipedia is good enough for our discussion. This isn't a university or a college. It is a discussion forum. Wikipedia puts its sources at the bottom of the page and none of the claims in that blurb had a [citation needed] tag next to it.


Hoyle's discoveries were in the 1950's. He wrote a book in 1984. He had already been writing about this in his scientific papers.


Saying that the universe is finely tuned isn't a discovery. At the most, it is a hypothesis. But since it isn't fallible, I doubt you could even call it that. But hey, you are MORE than welcome to prove me wrong with some sources of your own.


Stop argueing you are already proven wrong. Finely tuned universe was not created by christians to prove intelligent design as you stated. Not only that but dozens of physicists unrelated to christianity have modeled the theory and found compelling evidence.


Fine I was wrong on that point, but you need to prove your other claims here. If you are going to tear down my sources because they aren't good enough, then I'm not going to let you get away with not posting any sources.


Christians misuse the theory to say their god. It just points that there seems to be a design that was planned by something which could be the universe itself. A chemist by the way has plenty to say about the compound make up of chemical bonding which is part of the theory. Maybe try reading the book Hoyle wrote in 1984 and you will see in his own words when he discovered the tuning.


He didn't "discover" any tuning. He may have theorized about it, but he hasn't discovered anything. The entire premise of the Fine Tuning argument is around an appearance that certain constants that make up physics have to be precise for our universe to exist, but we don't know how things work outside of our universe. So such a claim is a complete guess on our part. That isn't a discovery. At the most it is an educated guess (certainly not one supported by evidence though).

The fine-tuning argument is also superseded by String Theory or even just the existence of many universes.

Never said it didnt have rebuttals did I. In fact i said so.
My point was there are rational discussions about cosmology and god that are not supernatural.

What do you want me to prove? Look up finely tuned universe computer modelling.

Not everything can be a two second blurb and extract from sources. You have been making comments about a theory you knew nothing about now you are an expert from a wiki page?

I dont need prove anything to you. You already showed me you dont know anything about the subject and you cant possibly learn enough to make a real decision about anything without doing a lot of reading. I highly doubt you even understand the full situation.

Here we have emperical evidence. Meaning observable information. The rebuttal is theoretical without emperical evidence. Could there be a multiverse? Yes. Just like there could be a God. Where is the emperical observed evidence? It is a theory that other aspects of physics may or may not point indirectly towards.

Here is a small joke from a debate I watched over this subject with FTU theorists (non christian view) and a multi verse theorist both using advanced computer modelling to prove their point.

The multiverse theorist: You can see here my model shows after the third universe random allignment has created the laws of physics we know today. The FTU theorist, well you did design the program to create your results did you not. Both men laughed.

Theories are open. Just like the big bang. They are worked on changed and expanded apon or dismissed. The FTU has not been dismissed. No more so than any other theory and advanced modelling shows positive results for the theory.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Fine. If you refuse to back your posts up with evidence then our discussion is over. I'm not going to talk to someone who is going to tear down my sources while writing walls of text on why he won't provide his own. I bid you adieu.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

Fine. If you refuse to back your posts up with evidence then our discussion is over. I'm not going to talk to someone who is going to tear down my sources while writing walls of text on why he won't provide his own. I bid you adieu.


Fine take your ball and go home. I gave you the pathway to discover for yourself.

Google: Finely tuned universe computer modelling. That way you find BOTH sides of the argument and decide for yourself. I am not advocating the theory. I just pointed out it is interesting and the teleological arguments for the existence of god are better than others. Do I believe them not fully no. I am pointing out other ways people have TRIED to prove the existence of god than supernatural. Same with Anslem and Aquinas. You can google them too.

The only reason I would extract sources is to prove to you I believe the theory, then I would bias all my sources to prove that. That is not my point. I already acheived my point by you having to recant your claim that the FTU was created by Christians to prove intelligent design. My point is not to advocate the theory it is to show there are other arguments besides biblical ones and they should be welcomed since they can be disproven unlike metaphysical explainations.

Dont you want people to think rationally rather than supernaturally? This is an example of that.
edit on 17-7-2015 by luthier because: edit



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Ghost147

All an athestist is is someone who doesn't believe in a 'creator being' that went poof and history started.

Buddhists don't believe in such a 'creator being' but they do pray to many gods or advanced beings.

Buddhists do however believe in laws of nature, one of which would be the law of Karma (or simplistically the Law of cause and effect).


This is yet another definition. How is that not also agnostic, pantheist, deist etc
Buddism is an atheistic world view. They are most commonly refered to as pantheistic as they believe that the universe is the creator of life and everything is connected physically (which is not true).


I'd like for you to prove that sir.


He can't because its not true. In any of the major schools. Thera vada nope, Niyngma nope, Zen nope. You can be atheist and Buddhist without a major conflict (except the deity part) but that isnt the same.
Name a buddhist deity.


Suffix -ist

Added to words to form nouns denoting:

Added to words to form nouns denoting:
a person with a particular creative or academic role;
artist, one who makes art
violinist, one who plays a violin
botanist, one who studies plants
psychiatrist, one who practices psychiatry
one who subscribes to a particular theological doctrine or religious denomination;
Calvinist, Baptist, deist

Note, these are related to -isms: Calvinism, deism

Deity:
noun, plural deities.
1. a god or goddess.
2. divine character or nature, especially that of the Supreme Being; divinity.
3. the estate or rank of a god:
The king attained deity after his death.
4. a person or thing revered as a god or goddess:
a society in which money is the only deity.
5. the Deity, God; Supreme Being.

Buddha / Buddhist
edit on 17-7-2015 by notmyrealname because: clarity

edit on 17-7-2015 by notmyrealname because: more clarity



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Most self-proclaimed atheists were former believers. They ditch the banal beliefs, but retain the religiosity they were brought up with; only now they do it under another banner.




top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join