Non-Believers who think science has all the answers, riddle me this

Originally posted by AQuestion

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by AQuestion

 

You wrote:

["If you choose to constantly post on the Faith forum and tell us that we are stupid and that science has all the answers then riddle me this."]

My question: Do you limit relevant answers to only coming from gnostic atheists? Or are answers from agnostic atheists and others in similar positions also acceptable?

Dear bobomil,

I don't limit who answers, I limit to the topic to the OP, to the question and none have bothered to attempt to justify it with logic.

Thank you.

Originally posted by AQuestion
Dear InfaRedMan,
How convenient, then you disagree with science and religion, what do you believe, not what don't you believe. Don't be a coward and only attack, put forth your belief and lets examine them. I put forth mine on many posts.

Firstly, I'm not your 'Dear'. Try not to be so patronising. Secondly, the only thing I believe in is myself. If you don't like the answer, then tough! I personally don't understand why you feel it's so important that we have to believe in any particular thing such as yourself.

All religious myth is completely unproven, Thousands of years on not one shred of proof for god. Faith does not constitute proof. I can have faith that the universe rests on the back of a giant celestial squid named Trevor but it still does not make it true. The result would still be the same if 6 billion people believed in Trevor.

Science is still learning. It's far from a complete knowledge that is still evolving but at least most of their theories are testable, repeatable and will generate a result. If I had to back a horse in this race, I believe science is at least going about it the right way. That does not mean that I have blind faith that every theory is true.

I am by nature a skeptic.

IRM

Originally posted by AQuestion

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by AQuestion

 

You wrote:

["Is there nobody who understands science on this whole site well enough to answer my question?"]

What are your criteria?

I have a college education in hard science and decennia of lay-interest in theoretical physics behind me. Does that qualify?

Dear bogomil,

How nice that you have a degree, I have many and it proves what, that you cannot answer a question or be responsive to the OP?

You asked a question about qualifications. I answered it. Nothing more, nothing less.

You have not answered MY question though: Do I qualify?

reply to post by AQuestion


I believe both can be wrong and right but that depends on one beliefs.

Science and religion are man made and both can be proven wrong, man isn't perfect so things get disproven over time.

I am more science oriented than religious, religion to me is more faith and I dont need a religion to have faith in anything.

reply to post by AQuestion


No attempt to misdirect. Just calling it like I see it. And I see things and multiple levels



Food for thought. DREAM PREMONITIONS. I have had them and they have come true in real time. My experience with them is that they are never quite clear to the point of what is to come, but reveal some sort of warning and/or insight to the event(s) which end up occurring.

Having had these experiences in my lifetime leads me to believe that there are in fact several outer dimensions within our conscience that which we are somehow restricted at this time of visualizing and/or experiencing at our own conscious will.

This leads me to believe that multiple dimensions do in fact exist and only time will tell what the make up and meaning behind each dimensional portal truly is.

Don't forget my post OP

reply to post by AQuestion


My next question:

You wrote:

["I will make it even easier, read this article and come back and explain it with simple, straight forward words that everyone will understand, if it is so sensible than this should be easy."]

Since you for three pages have insisted on a strict adherence to the formal OP requests, I ask:

What "is simple, straightforward" in this context and who are "everyone".

What's "simple" to me, may be complex to you. "Everyone" could include individuals not even able to speak, read or write.

reply to post by AQuestion


Aquestion,

The multiverse theorem is unfalsifiable, much like your God theory.

You've heard of the double-slit experiment? A key experiment that explains quantam theory. We have results, and we have some findings, No scientists states Quantam Theory is true, it's a theory in progression, and may ultimately be proved wrong, but the initial findings are still there; Quantam computers are being built. Call it whatever theory you like, the fundamental propositions of Quantam Theory are based on results.

While, multiverse theorem is unfalsifiable, it's "predicted" using the data and theory we have formed by studyging our own universe. Multiverse theorem is undemonstratable.

What reasoning, logic has the "GOD" theory been created with? We are creations therefore we must be created by a creator, and that creator must be a single entity that we call "GOD".

We can assume a watch has a creator, those parts don't just magically appear together in nature. We could assume if we found one in nature that they didn't magically form together.

Now take humans, is that the same? Are we created? Or do we evolve by mutation over a long period of time?

Careful which you choose; we have evidence for one of those theories. I think you'll find that the intelligent design or "creationist" argument has long since been refuted, so there's 1 version of "GOD" that has been falsified.

Again, note the difference between the gnostic atheist and the agnostic atheist.

Some atheists don't claim to any postive truth regarding causation (if any) of existence. Some atheists warrant their beliefs by there being insuffient evidence to form such a theory, and thus no reason to warrant "faith".

Some atheists demand that there is no God; that is deemed irrational by most Atheists, as it is deemed irrational to form theories beyond our imagination that have no founding.

Multiverse theory isn't a "faith", it's a hypothesis. So far (personally) i've found no coherent "GOD" hypothesis.

Originally posted by AQuestion

Originally posted by Gastrok
reply to post by AQuestion

 

You asked THREE questions in the OP.

Which ONE was it that you wanted answered?

Dear Gastrok,

I don't want to tax your thinking, how bout you answer this, "Explain how multi-universes and quantum physics makes sense?" explain how parallel universes make sense in science. I gave a link to the article, read it and explain it in simple terms to the rest of us and show us how it is obvious or a matter of faith. Does that make it easier for you?

Yes, much easier. But I'm not claiming to be qualified nor am would I be inclined to attempt an answer if I was. You are a negative, close-minded, angry person, bent on putting others down so you can feel superior. I view these traits as characteristic of someone who has succumb to faith, hope, and fear.

In any case, I was hoping to help focus the thread because you appear to be looking for one answer that somehow satisfied your 3 questions (plus the other implied questions, along with meeting the implied pre-requisites for being qualified to answer them).

I had no malicious intent, but clearly you do.

reply to post by AQuestion


I really enjoyed reading the lack of answers in this thread, I feel the OP proved a very valid point in displaying the true characteristics of these so-called atheist on this site. There are not many true intellects here.

However, the only way I could prove quantum physics, and other sciences mentioned here true, is by expressing my belief in a supreme being. Since my god is Omnipotent, making multi universes is an easy task for him.

I simply believe anything the mind can believe and conceive the mind can achieve. That sentence itself has been proven with science. Soooo If the mind conceives and believes that there is an omnipotent God, then it has to be so... Or if the mind truly believes there is no god, then that is its truth.

Science with out religion is lame, religion with out science blind

reply to post by bogomil


In answer to your post.
God only knows why you come to fight.
Each post you offer is a wish for conflict.
I wished to communicate on that last thread.
I am still waiting.

Originally posted by AdamAnt
There are not many true intellects here.

Oh great! We need more people in the world that think they are intelligent and others not.

/sarcasm

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil

 

In answer to your post.
God only knows why you come to fight.
Each post you offer is a wish for conflict.
I wished to communicate on that last thread.
I am still waiting.

This will be my last post here in this off-topic direction.

Do you believe epistemology is a branch of martial art?

Originally posted by AdamAnt
reply to post by AQuestion

 

I really enjoyed reading the lack of answers in this thread, I feel the OP proved a very valid point in displaying the true characteristics of these so-called atheist on this site. There are not many true intellects here.

However, the only way I could prove quantum physics, and other sciences mentioned here true, is by expressing my belief in a supreme being. Since my god is Omnipotent, making multi universes is an easy task for him.

I simply believe anything the mind can believe and conceive the mind can achieve. That sentence itself has been proven with science. Soooo If the mind conceives and believes that there is an omnipotent God, then it has to be so... Or if the mind truly believes there is no god, then that is its truth.

Science with out religion is lame, religion with out science blind

The knack is to avoid simplistic idioms and stay with what things say they are (self-defined).

Science/logic and objective procedure START from what's 'observable'.

Theism often start from pre-determined answers and then work backwards.

Any efforts of syncretism between these two methods require more than just a few stray-comments.

reply to post by bogomil


I don't think this thread is about 'epistemology'!!
It is your word, you should know what it is. Why should i care?

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Because you promote the gnostic idea that God is knowledge and morality. Does your God promote caring? How can you extract just that knowledge from simplying observing nature and living life? How can you even extract a God theory without (blind) faith?

Mutliverse isn't faith, it's a prediction. God has no founding to be a coherent prediction. Science doesn't demand that we believe in mutliverse theory, only that we consider it has a hypothesis, under the understanding that we could never demonstrate such a theory.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


What are you talking about, i was replying to bogomoil, who has brought up 'epistemology' from another thread.

Have fun kids. Don't forget, if you prove multiple realities are possible, you just proved heaven and hell are possible, have fun with that

I don't see how proving multiverses is proof of ideas of heaven and hell. There is a difference between truth and faith. Proving one idea based on observation is not evidence of another idea based on belief.

According to your bible, faith can be observed and measured (Hebrews 11v1). The proof of faith is in no way related to multiverse theory.

Since you challenge me to prove multiverse theory...I challenge you to prove faith. Pray to your God and ask him to reduce incidences of crime to zero on sunday June 5th. If there is not a single crime on sunday worldwide, then there is evidence of faith, otherwise faith just remains an idea that has no evidence.

reply to post by LiveEquation

I don't see how proving multiverses is proof of ideas of heaven and hell.

Multiverses can't be proved, nor can God. That's the point.

The difference between the two hypothesis are that one is founded in coherence with fundamental understandings of Quantam Theorem; one is not. God is semantical game in which we are to assume there is a single cause to reality/cosmos/universe.

Multiverse theorem doesn't claim any "truth" to any moral position either.