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.

 

Creation is a Scientific Fact

page: 9
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 08:34 AM
link   


And now, mainstream science as presented by kids. Gigantopithecus hopes everyone, including the OP, watch it. It's not complicated, this is as easy as it gets.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by Gigantopithecus]




posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ozvulcan
BigWhammy you like all other poor misguided fools who blindly follow the path of lies and ignorance we call religion are obviously suffering from a severe form of psychosis, i despair of you and all other people involved in your life.


I think there may be mental and emotional problems here, but, not with BigWhammy.




Btw if christianity isn't a false religion like all others, if it were the one true faith why wasn't it practised by man since the dawn of his existence?


Because He didn't come until about 2,000 odd years ago.


why were there dozens of religions predating even Judaism the precursor of your religion. The Bible certainly isn't factual, the old testament was written by a group of deranged jeriatric isralites two thousand odd years ago as a tool of manipulating and controlling peoples lives.


There really wasn't an organized Hebrew religion until Abraham.
The Old Testament is WAY older than 2,000 years.
wiki
Most scholars put a compiled version of the old testament (not older manuscripts, which were older or the EVEN older oral traditions)
at around 2,000 BC. That would put it at 4,000 years
ago.

Im afraid your scrambled mind cannot be salvaged, hopefully those of us that are logical and SANE will be able to overcome and eradicate religion some day...


You sound as ignorant as Stalin, Marx or Mao who were evil dictators in the last century who tried to kill EVERY man, woman and child Christian they could find and make the Bible extinct.
But, if school were back in, you, my young friend might know that.
They failed.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by Clearskies]



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
But you don't know this is the odds. It's just an assertion

Of course

As demonstrated earlier, it appears possible to remove one of the constants altogether and potentially lead to a universe capable of many of the features of this universe. And as the article states, it is possible that both the features of the weak force and cosmo constant are not really related to whether potential universes can support some form of life.

Are we talking about polar bears again?
Yes it’s possible, but I believe it’s highly unlikely that there are other universes to begin with.

You are assuming that this style of universe is the only possible one that could hold some form of life. However, even if it was 1 in 10^40, we still know very little about the mechanisms underpinning the formation of a universe and its physical features.

Of course

It's like trying to guess the probability of something without fully knowing the variables or bounds.

Of course

It's a fact it is still possible.Exceedingly unlikely at such odds. That's what you get with positive probabilities. It's easier to demonstrate with lower probabilities: If we have 1 in 100. Does that mean we have to wait 100 events to find the specified 1? Not at all. We could get it first time, 50th, last, or even not at all. Same applies even for 1 in 10^40. Could be first event, 10000000 millionth, or the 10^40th, or never.

What you’re pointing out is true, but One can only get so lucky . . . You have ten coins. You toss them all at the same time. The odds that 50% of them will be tails are very good. But just by dumb luck, all of them could land on tails . . . It’s when you toss a seemingly insurmountable cluster of coins that the odds start to be harmonious with probability. The odds Ash referred to are virtually astronomical. With that magnitude of improbability, I wouldn’t test your luck. Would you? Or is this just deduction on your part?

As a side note, I believe that even if the odds are astronomical, if something has the potential to occur, on a long enough “timeline”, it will happen eventually. (so long as the universe is accepted to operate under cyclic conditions.)

Heh, and where does the 50/50 come from? Yes/No? Is it also 50/50 that leprechauns exist?

Actually, I think that Ash might be spot on with that probability. An atheist can argue there is a 51% G*d doesn’t exist. While Theists can argue that there’s a 51% chance G*d does exist. Both believe that, more likely than not, their beliefs are correct. But neither sect has much evidence that can prove or disprove their respective stances.

But I do base this on a subjective Baysian-style analysis.

Are you an objectivist?


History isn't on your side for such arguments.

history isn't much of a champion for the infallibility of science either.

There have been many religions over human history, they can't all be right. But they can all be wrong.

Of course.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   


Watch this, you will not regret it. It's hilarious, but the answer is here. Everything finally makes sense.


[edit on 8-7-2008 by Gigantopithecus]



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ozvulcan

BigWhammy you like all other poor misguided fools who blindly follow the path of lies and ignorance we call religion are obviously suffering from a severe form of psychosis, i despair of you and all other people involved in your life.


And a cheerful happy hello to you too!
So far you're off to a pretty ignorant start



Even if the universe was created by some all powerful entity, how do you know it's YOUR GOD!?


Oh it's not just HIS God,, it's everyones GOD, yours too I'm afraid



The Bible certainly isn't factual, the old testament was written by a group of deranged jeriatric isralites two thousand odd years ago as a tool of manipulating and controlling peoples lives.


You ever read the book of numbers? How about ezra?
There are 66 Books in the Bible spanning thousands of years and 40 authors, many living in different parts of the world, writing it at different times. Now who was it that put this plan together? You know the lets make a book that will control thr people? Lets have some guy pose as this Jesus guy so we can control the people?

C'mon guy, there are much easier ways much more expedient ways to control the people than what you would have us believe.

Sounds like the typical answer to explain away why it was created and naturally it has to be oppressive of that wouldn't make you happy



It is also quite humorous how you stated in your fictional video that materialism is a primitive thought process, ha!


what part of it was fiction? Please share with us your most objective honest opinion. If you would be so kind, show us the part of Dr. Lennox , you know the guy that owned Dawkins in debate shutting him out, show us where he is in error or giving us fiction?



Religion is the most primitive of human thought processes it was a conveniant way for primitive humans to explain all the things that they didn't understand and were afraid of death for example.


The people back then were no less intelligent than the are today smart guy, furthermore, what makes you think people are any less afraid of death today than they were back then?



God was nothing more than a dream of good government. Im afraid your scrambled mind cannot be salvaged, hopefully those of us that are logical and SANE will be able to overcome and eradicate religion some day...


I always love it when people say things as worthy of pity and rebuke as that statement was saying they are logical in the same breath. Not that any of the rest of your post exhibited any either. I think you'll find it is much more rewarding to actually BE logical rather than toot your own horn saying you are. That way, OTHER people KNOW you are and you won't have to say it anymore. ok?

- Con

More chaos logic



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
I think we agree on much of that, J.


Originally posted by JPhish
Actually, I think that Ash might be spot on with that probability. An atheist can argue there is a 51% G*d doesn’t exist. While Theists can argue that there’s a 51% chance G*d does exist. Both believe that, more likely than not, their beliefs are correct. But neither sect has much evidence that can prove or disprove their respective stances.


So such a probability claim is somewhat a subjective assertion, based on pulling numbers from our asses? Heh. I sort of agree if so. We are talking about invisible, magical, and unfalsifiable things here.

However, I'm sure that ash doesn't go for 50/50 - which to me says 'don't know'. But actually goes for 100%. Could be wrong, she might go for 99.9%, lol. But many theists do go for 100%. They just know. Even without any real evidence. The 50/50 is just based on a yes/no distinction I would think.

Amazingly, if she lived in Iraq, she would probably just know that Mo was the one true prophet and be certain Jesus was just another non-divine holyman. In the amazon, some other supernatural worldview, and in africa another.

None of which would be really evidence-based, but culture-bound.


But I do base this on a subjective Baysian-style analysis.

Are you an objectivist?


Well, it's not really possible to do formal probability analysis in such cases. So it's more subjective than objective (an exact number), IMO. But others do attempt more objective Baysian analyses in various realms. S'pose I could try, but not really worth my time. I think someone has tried such a thing in the god realm, Dawkins notes it in his book.

Like most people I have both subjective and objective drives, I just try to control the subjective in the scientific realm. It is a fairly acceptable objective claim that there is no real reliable evidence of gods or fairies. But to make a probability statement?

Well, that's got to be somewhat subjective in my opinion, even when based on more objective evidence or lack of the same. Unless you think we can formally know the probability of gods/leprechauns/pink unicorns. So it's more a subjective Baysian-style analysis that determines my own position based on our state of current knowledge.

For example, if I do a single experiment that suggests x. I might be something like 70% certain at that point, being a novel finding. But then someone does a related experiment that suggests not x. Then my 70% will be adjusted, maybe 50/50. but if my experiment is better, IMO, then it might be 65%. If my experiment is worse, then maybe 45% or well below if a good falsification. It's pretty subjective, but based on more objective scientific findings. Eventually, I might see five different studies that support my own study and as single poor inconsistent study, then I would be in the realm of 90-99% certain. It's a weight of evidence approach. But would never lead to 100% certainty.

In the above case, we could even do a proper statistical meta-analysis if the methodologies were similar enough, assessing effect sizes and more robust interpretations. I find myself in a fairly messy and complex science, so I take such approaches - findings will often conflict (not always, of course). Once you accept that although an Absolute Truth (TM) probably exists, we can't really determine it with certainty, then we are in a more Baysian world for truth. Accepting ambiguity and uncertainty is not everyone's cup of tea, some want 100% Truth - that appears to be more for religion


Thus, I think the idea of a personal Santa-like god is more unlikely than some abstract non-personal philosophers Oom. And both are still unlikely. Generally based on the things I noted earlier.

To even take me towards belief in gods, there'd have to be some compelling reason. I see none. Not one at all. Well, maybe it would make me feel happy to think a super santa cares for me, will intervene for me, and will make me exist forever allaying any possible fears of non-existence. However, I don't personally fear death and see it as wishful-thinking.

For example, you make this claim:


but I believe it’s highly unlikely that there are other universes to begin with.


This is a probability style statement. How unlikely? How likely? How do you determine this statement? Gut-feeling? Some aspect of the real-world? Or just pet theology?

At this point, modern quantum cosmology is leading to multiverse style cosmologies. They are not like the Hindu revelations, they are a consequence of the theoretical physics. There is some tentative and controversial evidence for multiverse cosmolgies already. So why unlikely?

If you asked me 20 years ago, I'd probably have said, 'don't know'. But now I might say 'yeah, why not'. If you want a number, I'll stick 55-60% probability the positive claim - more likely than not. It's based on the findings and direction of modern physics. That's where they are heading. But this will firm up or weaken with future evidence, as the evidence is king.

I'm not scared of being wrong. Happens often, lol.

and then we have the kalam claim:

'Everything that begins must have a cause'

Must it? 100% certain? It certainly appears to be the case for this universe taking past evidence. But to make this a statement of truth for a logical argument applying in general to everything? That's a bad case of naive inductivism. Quantum physics is quite exotic, and I wouldn't want to make such claims as statements of truth even in this universe.

For example, causation requires the temporal a>b process. Does this even apply outside this universe? I think the answer is that we don't know. Especially the case if we want to apply it to a potentially timeless dimension which is nothing like where we based the original claim on.

That's even ignoring the imposition of magic as the cause. When using the same logic - 'everything that begins to exist has a natural cause' - is just as correct (i.e. wrong), but even more exact and based on the evidence than the more ambiguous claim which opens up a place for magic.



history isn't much of a champion for the infallibility of science either.


Never said it was infallible.

What I'm speaking to here is that throughout the history of mankind claims have been made for phenomena being supernatural in nature. Essentially god of the gaps arguments. From gods throwing bolts of lightning, to epilepsy being possession by evil spirits, to YEC creation, to fine-tuning by super-santa.

There's a trend in there methinks. None of which irrefutably falsify the god hypothesis as a whole. But, for example, we can be almost certain the god of the YECers is false.

We appear to have a tendency stick magic in areas of ignorance about nature. Indeed, some like to see god and miracles in the most mundane circumstances.

So, my suggestion to believers, don't make your belief in god dependent on gaps in real-world evidence. It will very likely just lead you to be in a position contradictory to the real-world and aversive cognitive dissonance. Apparently, you just need faith. Use nature to interpret your god, and not some book to interpret nature.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by 5thElement
Scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts...

If what you have here is hypothesis or theory, in order for it to be "scientific" you have to accept that it could be rejected at any point if better hypothesis or theory is found regardless of how you feel about it...

A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Again, if you think that that is what you have here, make a scientific journal, I'm curious how far you will get with peer review thing


Agreed.

Big Bang has so many holes in it, though. Swiss cheese. Crumbled swiss cheese. Cobbled back together with duct tape and bailing wire.

Too many unproven hypothetical entities, and too little use made of ACTUAL verified lab work in plasma, electricity, etc.

Simple facts:

1) The universe is threaded with magnetic fields, which have been implicated in everything from star and galaxy cluster formation to the helical twist of the double-helix nebula, and THEMIS' recently announced discovery of "magnetic flux ropes" (Birkeland currents, actually) connecting the Earth to the sun in a 650,000 Amp electric circuit.

2) Magnetic fields arise from electric currents. Look it up!

3) By extension, the universe *is* threaded with electric currents, as evidenced by their BYPRODUCT electric currents.

4) Astronomers IGNORE most evidence for electric currents (except where it performs a fish slapping dance on them and there is little other choice than to recognize electricity), thus completely miss the point of finding magnetic fields EVERYWHERE.

5) Plasma cosmology, though controversial and less developed due to lack of funding, appears to have issued a number of peer-reviewed articles that seem to be in accord with both lab work and data from space. Might be worth a second look, and a dialogue between astronomers and plasma physicists / electrical engineers.

In case you think I'm pulling the assertion about the relationship between magnetic fields and electricity out of a warm, dark place (I'm not!):

(Hyperphysics - Magnetic Field)
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

(NASA - Magnetic Fields)
www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

(World Health Organization - Electromagnetic fields)
www.who.int...

(Wikipedia - Electromagnetic field)
en.wikipedia.org...

The truth is "out there," if astronomers care to hear the argument for it (they don't, but that won't stop the message from being repeated until someone "gets it" and the paradigm pivot begins)... They may wish to say "now why didn't I think of that?"

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Seeing as this is peer review standard, I will try to watch my words.

The biggest problem with creationism is its sticking to old rules. The Catholic Pope has called the bible an allegory and accepted big bang.
I find it sad that the religions can accept evolution (albeit on an AD model), but science is not affected: in the future we can only randomise genetics. The Big Bang model has spawned a multiverse of mathematical possibilites, but is in trouble for the theory of inflation.
Science as ever has much to learn, but it is learning and sticking to the oldest religious dogma is not.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Ok in responce to cerain replys to my post ill take a calmer 'logical' aproach to this, as i must admit my words were quick and my anger clouded my judgement. Now of course the universe had a begining all things have a begining i don't believe the universe has always existed however just because the universe did have a begining why does it have to be created by a god?

What created this entity? How did this entity create the universe especially a god that has human form and isn't some cloud of sentient energy (aren't we made in his image?). Why should people just blindly believe that the authors of the books in the Bible were writing the word of God? And i'll restate that the reiligions of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Americas predate Judaism, why didn't they worship god.

And hell why didn't the Australian aborigines who have a history of over 40000 years ever hear about your god. And some of you are calling me ignorant, you Christians assume that your religion is the one true faith and all others are superstitious nonsense, talk about being closed minded and ignorant...until God shows up himself and not in the convient, easy to explain and ridiculous guise of some virgin born son, im just going to continue to believe that their is no god/s and certainly that the universe was not created by it.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by redled
 



" The Catholic Pope has called the bible an allegory and accepted big bang. "


The "p" also said the earth was at the center of the universe, and he said he was infallible as well.

Don't throw what he says into a barrel with everyone else, it's not a nice thing to do to a real Christian.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gigantopithecus


And now, mainstream science as presented by kids. Gigantopithecus hopes everyone, including the OP, watch it. It's not complicated, this is as easy as it gets.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by Gigantopithecus]




how come the kids can't tell us where this stuff of the "big bang" came together?

like it was just laying around, bored, with nothing to do, so it decided to explode!?


I'll stick with my teacher, who told me about the 3 earth ages. besides everything I've ever seen, had an origin.



Order is not the norm, chaos is what reigns without some kind of controls...just look at your closet a month after you clean it !!..
..
..
..



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mgmirkin
 


Yep, the Big Bang, even though it is a mainstream theory at the moment (there are few observations which go in favor of it), there is lots of problematic things in it...OP obviously accepted it as a fact in order to back up his view of how universe came to be.

The less holes in theory and more evidence found to support it, the closer it is to the actual truth, or to be a fact. It is probably never the absolute truth/fact, we can only get more closer to it...

EVOLUTION appears to be a FACT. Everything we see/observe around us evolves (one way or another).

Theory of evolution (or our explanation how things actually evolve), on the other side, is still a theory, even though there is a lots of evidence and there is less holes in it then in the past. It is indeed much stronger then it used to be.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by toasted
reply to post by redled
 



" The Catholic Pope has called the bible an allegory and accepted big bang. "


The "p" also said the earth was at the center of the universe, and he said he was infallible as well.

Don't throw what he says into a barrel with everyone else, it's not a nice thing to do to a real Christian.


He can pull one billion people, how many cany you pull into the future?

No go, just he can pull that trick off (actually, he was murdered from what I gather).



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by toasted

how come the kids can't tell us where this stuff of the "big bang" came together?

like it was just laying around, bored, with nothing to do, so it decided to explode!?

I'll stick with my teacher, who told me about the 3 earth ages. besides everything I've ever seen, had an origin.

Order is not the norm, chaos is what reigns without some kind of controls...just look at your closet a month after you clean it !!..
..
..
..


I agree with some of your points. As an agnostic, I am sure both sides hate my neutral position. Like creationists, I seek a balance and for all views to be heard. All views must be presented to the public to decide, hence I attached videos of an atheist and school kids. In fact I go as far as to support Evolution and Darwinism being taught in Churches, Christian Colleges and Sunday Schools. Fair is fair isn't it?

Anyway, coming back to your question. This video answers your question "how come the kids can't tell us where this stuff of the 'big bang' came together?". Remember, this is just one of the views that everyone should see to decide. You can't make judgment until you see all evidence. And after you view all the evidence, whatever you decide, I respect your decision.

Peace to everyone.





[edit on 8-7-2008 by Gigantopithecus]



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by redled
 



" He can pull one billion people "


P.T. Barnum must be salivating at the thought of gettin him to draw a crowd for the circus...



sure, barnum is dead, but you know what I'm sayin'...



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Oh, con. Come on.

It was meant to be a simulation of evolutionary processes. It used a solely random mechanism, where evolution is not solely random. Evolution has non-random selection processes.

In this case, we don't even know the mechanisms. It's similar to the situation before Darwin. It all looks so improbable it must be god, rofl.


I left your alleged rebuttal alone way back in the "Gullibility of Evolutionists Thread" that exposed the many hoaxes of Darwinisms dubious past. But I recently thought about this mutator. And since y'all brought it up. I have an answer for your rebuttal.

OK you hit the mutate button and the sentence mutates. This demonstrates how unlikely getting something that makes sense form a random process is.
It seems to only get worse never better.

Your objection "ohhhh nooooooooes where's the selection"

The selection is you watching it waiting for something that isn't nonsense. The problem is there is never anything to select. So it is a very valid argument for the fact random processes do not create usable valid information. Just jibberish.

The selection is the observer. Start mutating! When you get a Shakespeare sonnet... By all means SELECT IT!

Random Mutator

Instructions and experiments...
www.randommutation.com...



[edit on 7/9/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Great video Chris.... Kinda off topic but.. Wrap your head around this.. "Dark Matter is a spiritual matter"


Peace



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

Originally posted by melatonin
Oh, con. Come on.

It was meant to be a simulation of evolutionary processes. It used a solely random mechanism, where evolution is not solely random. Evolution has non-random selection processes.

In this case, we don't even know the mechanisms. It's similar to the situation before Darwin. It all looks so improbable it must be god, rofl.


I left your alleged rebuttal alone way back in the "Gullibility of Evolutionists Thread" that exposed the many hoaxes of Darwinisms dubious past. But I recently thought about this mutator. And since y'all brought it up. I have an answer for your rebuttal.

OK you hit the mutate button and the sentence mutates. This demonstrates how unlikely getting something that makes sense form a random process is.
It seems to only get worse never better.

Your objection "ohhhh nooooooooes where's the selection"

The selection is you watching it waiting for something that isn't nonsense. The problem is there is never anything to select. So it is a very valid argument for the fact random processes do not create usable valid information. Just jibberish.

The selection is the observer. Start mutating! When you get a Shakespeare sonnet... By all means SELECT IT!

Random Mutator

Instructions and experiments...
www.randommutation.com...



[edit on 7/9/2008 by Bigwhammy]


yes this is the problem with Dawkins random mutator is that you actually type in a sentence so it shows how many mutatations it would take but the unguided hand of Natural selection wouldn't have the information or target word for it much less an unguided hand to give it that target info.

- Con



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
I think we agree on much of that, J.

Never claimed to disagree with anything you said. I’m simply being contemplative.


So such a probability claim is somewhat a subjective assertion, based on pulling numbers from our asses? Heh. I sort of agree if so. We are talking about invisible, magical, and unfalsifiable things here.

Well then we agree. Such probabilities would have to be subjective. I came to my assertion based on balance of probabilities. Just like in a courtroom, there is no way to measure a jury’s doubt. When making such claims about percentages, they’re mostly just numbers that an outsider can relate to. Like when some one asks

“How good? From one to ten!”

Each number can mean a myriad of different things to every person. But it gives an outsider the ability to grasp an individuals indefinable personal assessment.

However, I'm sure that ash doesn't go for 50/50 - which to me says 'don't know'. But actually goes for 100%. Could be wrong, she might go for 99.9%, lol. But many theists do go for 100%. They just know. Even without any real evidence. The 50/50 is just based on a yes/no distinction I would think.

Well then what would be an atheists level of non-belief ? If someone believes “beyond a reasonable doubt” that there is no G*d. I’d say it’s at around 90%. I equate 90% with “beyond reasonable doubt.”

None of which would be really evidence-based, but culture-bound.

Would this fall under Nature vs. Nurture? That’s a whole other monster.


To even take me towards belief in gods, there'd have to be some compelling
reason. I see none. Not one at all. Well, maybe it would make me feel happy to think a super santa cares for me, will intervene for me, and will make me exist forever allaying any possible fears of non-existence. However, I don't personally fear death and see it as wishful-thinking.

Don’t take this the wrong way. But I have trouble believing anyone who says they’re not afraid of death until they’ve driven in a car with me.
You shouldn’t believe in a G*d out of fear. I think that fear is what drives most people in this world. I’d say a vast majority of theists AND atheists believe what they believe out of fear. Theists are afraid of the unknown. Atheists are afraid of what is known. That’s just my personal experience though . . .

This is a probability style statement. How unlikely? How likely? How do you determine this statement? Gut-feeling? Some aspect of the real-world? Or just pet theology?

A gut feeling based on internalist observations I suppose. If I had to place a percentage on my conviction, it would be 75% unlikely that there are parallel/multiple universes/dimensions. My “guess” has absolutely nothing to do with theology.

At this point, modern quantum cosmology is leading to multiverse style cosmologies. They are not like the Hindu revelations, they are a consequence of the theoretical physics. There is some tentative and controversial evidence for multiverse cosmolgies already. So why unlikely?

I have some major problems with current theoretical physics; most specifically SR.


If you asked me 20 years ago, I'd probably have said, 'don't know'. But now I might say 'yeah, why not'. If you want a number, I'll stick 55-60% probability the positive claim - more likely than not. It's based on the findings and direction of modern physics. That's where they are heading. But this will firm up or weaken with future evidence, as the evidence is king.

I can respect that. I too will reverse my beliefs if SR is not a superseded scientific theory in the near future.

I'm not scared of being wrong. Happens often, lol.

No one should ever be scared of being wrong. In the event that you are, it means you have realized a possible truth, and that, is always a beautiful thing.

'Everything that begins must have a cause'

I’d have to agree to tat to some extent. How much “cause” a grain of sand has is extremely minimal, but it has cause none the less.

Must it? 100% certain? It certainly appears to be the case for this universe taking past evidence. But to make this a statement of truth for a logical argument applying in general to everything? That's a bad case of naive inductivism. Quantum physics is quite exotic, and I wouldn't want to make such claims as statements of truth even in this universe.

Ha, very true, but my crotch tends to hurt when I straddle the fence for too long.

For example, causation requires the temporal a>b process. Does this even apply outside this universe? I think the answer is that we don't know. Especially the case if we want to apply it to a potentially timeless dimension which is nothing like where we based the original claim on.

I see your point, but to clarify . . . . When I say that I believe that there are not other universes, I mean universes akin to this one.

That's even ignoring the imposition of magic as the cause. When using the same logic - 'everything that begins to exist has a natural cause' - is just as correct (i.e. wrong), but even more exact and based on the evidence than the more ambiguous claim which opens up a place for magic.

Imposition is the perfect word to use here. You must acknowledge that by ignoring possible ethereal qualities within the universe, we take the easy way out. Of course, it’s also the safest ground to stand upon.

Never said it was infallible.

Never said you did, I was just illustrating a case in point.

What I'm speaking to here is that throughout the history of mankind claims have been made for phenomena being supernatural in nature. Essentially god of the gaps arguments. From gods throwing bolts of lightning, to epilepsy being possession by evil spirits, to YEC creation, to fine-tuning by super-santa.

The parallel that I offered is still pertinent. You’re saying that religions based on lack of human knowledge, have been wrong in the past. I said that science, because of lack of human knowledge, has been wrong in the past.

There's a trend in there methinks. None of which irrefutably falsify the god hypothesis as a whole. But, for example, we can be almost certain the god of the YECers is false.

Anyone can be almost certain of anything. It doesn't add any more validity to their beliefs.

[edit on 7/9/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
We appear to have a tendency stick magic in areas of ignorance about nature. Indeed, some like to see god and miracles in the most mundane circumstances.

True; and some like to consider getting a tan a phenomenon.


So, my suggestion to believers, don't make your belief in god dependent on gaps in real-world evidence. It will very likely just lead you to be in a position contradictory to the real-world and aversive cognitive dissonance. Apparently, you just need faith. Use nature to interpret your god, and not some book to interpret nature.

Is the G*d of the Gaps argument even valid when addressing theologians in modern times? ;scratches head; For the most part, I don’t think so.

[edit on 7/9/2008 by JPhish]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join