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

There's as much proof for the multiverse as there is for God.
The multiverse is just a hypothesis. It isn't a scientific theory. It is not accepted as being true by the vast majority of scientists. It's also an untestable hypothesis, just like God.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by AQuestion

 

I'm sorry, but your idea of religion runs contrary to its practice for...oh...I dunno...tens of thousands of years. Furthermore, reading popular science articles if a far cry from reading proper published scientific papers.

Your idea of religion, even though it is not representative of any majority of its practice, still basically amounts to 'let's make up answers to questions without method or reason'. Question all you want, but you're still accepting the general premise of a deity without justification. You're not basing anything on a reasonable standard of evidence. You're not even worrying about internal consistency.

Science has a method, learn from how damn effective that's turned out to be.

Dear madnessinmysoul,

You make so many assumptions about my idea of religion when you have absolutely no idea what I do believe because I haven't posted it here. You also have no idea of why I believe, what makes you think you do, are you a mind reader if so get out of my head, if not then don't speak for me, I can do that quite well myself. In addition, you have absolutely no idea of what I do and do not read and it wouldn't matter because the question stands on its own and we should all question it. I don't believe in experts that know the truth and we have to believe them because we cannot understand it with our little minds, that again is blind and arrogant.

reply to post by bogomil


Dear bogomil,

Sorry I think I forgot to define my use of the term gnostic, I was referring to the belief set that all are one and one are all, that eventually we collapse into oneness. I was using it in a very broad manner because I didn't want to get into the individual schools of thought.

reply to post by AQuestion


To all, just so I am clear, the first sentence in my OP stated that I meant to challenge so don't be surprised by the fact that that is exactly what I did and that I was blunt with the trolls. I wanted to get to the higher question and not get stuck in this "there is no God" answer to every post about faith. If you believe there is not God then why do so many feel a need to attack the mere question, what is the deeper fear? You may have been beat to death by some religious fanatic in your life; but, that doesn't entitle you to stereotype us all or answer for us all.

reply to post by AQuestion

Originally posted by AQuestion
You tell me I am wrong, wrong about what? What in my OP did I say was the answer, you are not truthful.

...I'm replying to specific portions of your post. You can sort of see exactly where I am raising my objections and what I'm objecting to. If you fail at basic reading comprehension I can do little to help you.

Yours is the straw man, not mine.

"No you" is not an appropriate rebuttal and has never been.

You also spread falsehood when you say that nobody says science has all the answers, Hawkins does.

Ah the mythical "Hawkins". The man that is created when a person fails to remember that Richard Dawkins, famed British evolutionary biologist, and Stephen Hawking, famed British astrophysicist, are not the same person. And neither of those people says that science has all the answers. Please, show me where Dawkins (I'm guessing that who you're referring to) says that science has all the answers. I'd love to know because I must have missed it when reading his works.

You attempt to say that science is just a process, you don't have the answer except to say that faith in God is wrong, how arrogant.

I'm sorry, where did I say that? Faith in God is wrong, but I'm not going to say it as a statement of fact without justification. It's wrong because faith proves nothing. As Nietzsche said, we need only go through the insane asylum to see how little faith amounts to.

And science is just a process. I'm not attempting to say that, I have quite a history of the philosophy and practice of science backing me up on this. Science is the process of methodological skeptical inquiry into the function of reality, nothing more.

Well, nothing more except your dismissals and straw men.

You then attempt to say that I need someone to give me a piece of paper in order to learn about and understand quantum physics, why?

A higher degree in quantum physics is not about a piece of paper. That piece of paper is not about approval. It's a demonstration that you have put in about a decade's worth of work into understanding and furthermore contributing to the understanding of quantum physics.

Whose approval do I need to understand the cosmos or ask about it?

Nobodies. I'm just saying that you clearly no little of science beyond popular science magazines and websites. I doubt that you even approach my pitiful understanding of science, and my understanding is quite pitiful when compared to people who actually know what they're talking about.

It's not about approval, it's about demonstration. You've yet to show me that you even understand the basic precepts of science, let alone understanding anything at the quantum level. What do you know about Newtonian physics? I'm quite sure that even the worst quantum physicist knows more about Newtonian physics than the two of us together.

Your whole attack on me is silly, I did not create a straw man, I provided a link to an article that another wrote and asked people to justify it.

Yes, that was a red herring.

The straw man was that anyone thinks that science has the answer to everything. Science may be the method by which we can get at all answers, but nobody says that we have all the answers now.

Now, to explain the red herring. No lay person need explain complex science at a level that 'makes sense' (as you so ignorantly put it). Hell, a silly science journalism piece isn't anything related to the actual practice of science.

How about you try to understand this bit on quantum computation...from 1997, so you can tell it's already tossing you a softball as we have 14 years of further development on top of that :

We have studied the influence of piezoelectric fields on luminescence properties of GaInN strained quantum wells. Our calculation suggests that an electric field of 1.08 MV/cm is induced by the piezoelectric effect in strained Ga0.87In0.13N grown on GaN. The photoluminescence peak energy of the Ga0.87In0.13N strained quantum wells showed blue shift with increasing excitation intensity. Moreover, the well-width dependence of its luminescence peak energy was well explained when the piezoelectric fields were taken into account. These results clearly showed that the piezoelectric field induced the quantum-confined Stark effect.

From the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics

Can you understand that without looking anything up?


Or try reading an early objection from Einstein that is far lighter on the jargon.

Science isn't the stuff you find in New Scientist or Popular Science. Science is what you find in Nature and Science and in any other peer-reviewed work.

Of course, you'd just like my supposed inability to explain the multiverse hypothesis to invalidate the certainty of a great number of things about science...which is about as idiotic (as I have already point out) as saying that my inability to explain principles of civil engineering to invalidate the structural integrity of bridges.

reply to post by AQuestion


Dawkins? Bitter and arrogant? I'm sorry, but he's a quite cheery fellow. I've seen him in quite kind and cordial moods, even with those who he vehemently disagrees with. Of course, it's easier to just toss out personal attacks than to actually justify them.

There's a difference between "Being right" and "Being arrogant".

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by AQuestion

 

To all, just so I am clear, the first sentence in my OP stated that I meant to challenge so don't be surprised by the fact that that is exactly what I did and that I was blunt with the trolls.

Your question wasn't a challenge for the intelligent members of the audience. I answered in three sentences in the post at the top of the page. The only way your question was a "challenge" is that it was based on false premises.
One a side note, but equally important:
"Explain how multi-universes and quantum physics makes sense?"
Just because you have a question mark, doesn't make it a question. What you have is a command, not a question.

reply to post by AQuestion


I'm just going to ignore the majority of the text provided because I clearly pointed out that I'm only addressing what you've demonstrated. I do not find the amount of ignorance demonstrated to come from a person who regularly picks up tier-1 scientific journals and I'm only commenting on the idea of religion as you've passingly presented it. Do not fault me for not understanding fully that which you have presented poorly.

Originally posted by AQuestionI don't believe in experts that know the truth and we have to believe them because we cannot understand it with our little minds, that again is blind and arrogant.

...nobody is saying that. We're saying that these people are experts because they spend their time investigating the issues, they spend their time questioning.

I'd toss out the straw man image here, but it's just getting tired to point it out. I'm not saying this and neither is anyone else...except for quite a great many religious folk.

We can understand...the problem is that not a single person on this planet has enough time to devote to fully understand the totality of human knowledge. I have made my choice, I decided to enter into humanities and arts. Into creative endeavors. Sure, I do my best to understand a bit, but to claim that I could provide a proper commentary of any field of science would be truly arrogant.

The issue here is dedication. I decided to dedicate my time to one thing, scientists decide to dedicate it to other things...and they get pretty damn specific in their studies. You are free to dedicate your time as well...but you're clearly not doing that.

double.

Originally posted by Soldier of God
Sorry guys but the OP is right even if I may not agree with his way of saying it.
All you non-believer, science types take the theories given you as fact. Do any of you conduct your own experiments on creation/time or space??? No you do not but you believe everything you are told and then turn around and slam others for doing the same.
I would venture to say 99% of you are not rocket scientists or physicists but cling to every word that was told as the truth to you.

Yep, you've just been fed some of the same crap that you all dish out.

Do you have ANY idea of scientific systematic methodology whatsoever? Or do you just like black/white positions to the same extent you accuse atheists of.

*****************

And can I please draw your attention to the fact, that AQuestion and I (usually a strong theist-critic) can communicate peacefully and with meaning across our positions.

I consider AQuestion's little 'experiment' here justified, and he has been gracious enough to accomodate me in some ways, demonstrating his good will. Your flailing of arms is rooted in incompetence.

reply to post by AQuestion


I wish I could present you with a "Excellence in the construction of straw men" award, because you're really outdoing anything I've seen on ATS so far.

The vast majority of atheists do not claim 'there is not a god'. This is a position known as 'gnostic atheism', which is not held by anyone on ATS (so far as I know, but I'm sort of one of the bearded old atheists on here these days...benev might know, she's the only one that's more in touch with the ATS community than me).

Atheists do not believe in a deity. Even Richard Dawkins (aka "Hawkins") makes the claim that he is almost certain that there is no deity, in the same way that he makes the claim that he is almost certain that there is no tooth fairy.

So add philosophy to the list of things you're clearly not read up on.

Originally posted by AQuestion
I wanted to get to the higher question and not get stuck in this "there is no God" answer to every post about faith.

It's more like a "faith is a really stupid idea" answer. They may be a deity, but I see no good reason to believe in one.

If you believe there is not God then why do so many feel a need to attack the mere question,

Because religion hurts people time and time again.

what is the deeper fear?

See: The Dark Ages, Islamic fundamentalism, Sarah Palin, small-town bigotry, Pentecostals, the Vatican.

Oh, and the deepest fear of all? Holding beliefs that are not consistent with reality. Like the belief in a deity.

You may have been beat to death by some religious fanatic in your life; but, that doesn't entitle you to stereotype us all or answer for us all.

This is by and large the most ironic single statement I've seen today. You just tossed out the single most common stereotype of atheists as a call to atheists to not stereotype people.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by Soldier of God
Sorry guys but the OP is right even if I may not agree with his way of saying it.
All you non-believer, science types take the theories given you as fact. Do any of you conduct your own experiments on creation/time or space??? No you do not but you believe everything you are told and then turn around and slam others for doing the same.
I would venture to say 99% of you are not rocket scientists or physicists but cling to every word that was told as the truth to you.

Yep, you've just been fed some of the same crap that you all dish out.

Do you have ANY idea of scientific systematic methodology whatsoever? Or do you just like black/white positions to the same extent you accuse atheists of.

*****************

And can I please draw your attention to the fact, that AQuestion and I (usually a strong theist-critic) can communicate peacefully and with meaning across our positions.

I consider AQuestion's little 'experiment' here justified, and he has been gracious enough to accomodate me in some ways, demonstrating his good will. Your flailing of arms is rooted in incompetence.

Point me in the direction of any... any, experiments you yourself have conducted on the matter at hand and I will be silenced.

reply to post by bogomil


bogomil, you know I respect you dearly, but I must disagree with you here.

Please, lay out the plumbing for my house. Seriously, it's a mess and I've got to have someone fix that for me.

Can't? (I'm not going to necessarily say you can't beyond this little example as you may very well be well versed in plumbing)

Ok, I'll call someone who actually spends their life as a plumber and has experience with this sort of thing.

Ok here goes....

Scientists do not have a full working understanding of quantum, in fact quantum theory is still incomplete, however what it does raise thus far through experiments, and hypthothesis is that on a miniscule level the world operates in a very different manner.

Particles have been know to do some very strange stuff, no less the what I describe as the act of a particle non display of behaviour whilst being observed, that for me is the mind blower, which gives way to the possibility of conciousness or awareness residing in each individual particle, yet whilst grouped they all take on the same characteristics / function, sound familiar ? It should because stem cells behave in a similar manner, in one state they have the potential to become any cell in the body, once commited they take on the particular function of the cell they become, and in unison with the other cells that make up the organ work together in to acheive their goal if you like.

With the multiverse, again only a hypothesis, its the old Schrodinger's cat thought experiment (well you'd never use a real cat now would you), that best explains the concept, cat in a shoe box toxic substance, and a hammer, oh and lest we forget a timer, whilst the cat remains in the box, unobserved the cat presents as dead, alive, neither or both, and this is where it becomes more complex as multiverse deals with consiouness, and awareness the potential of what is going on inside the box is being played out regardless of being unobserved physically, yet to those looking at the box, it is their perception which answers the question, and there is no right or wrong answer, but with the many outcomes of what is occurring inside the box, is what is translated with multiverse theory in that actions can splinter off into infinte/ finite realities.

Believe it or not there are scientists who do believe in God, but believe God resides in all of us, we are God collectively.

Lastly entanglement, the reality of one particle affecting another over distance, I find this entrancing, a little like the butterfly effect, the action of one particle affecting the action of another has some basis in fact, and I even read of an experiment once where two photons were fired in different directions but the same distance, the one fired second arrived before the first, as though it had time travelled sorry I can't remember the name of the expriment, but it was fascinating, and so much of the quantum world is, but its not the full story yet, and mutliverse may well fal on its sword one day, in the meantime creative thought is key, and to look at the big questions from an entirely open minded perspective is the only way to ever seek answers.

reply to post by Soldier of God


You really don't understand science....or the idea of the written word for that matter. You see, writing allows people to convey ideas across time and space to others. I need not spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build my own particle accelerator to study subatomic physics. I can actually read the scientific papers published by those who have access to such material.

In the same way, I can read the works of people who have studied the question of the origin of our cosmos. I can study people performing an experiment and then read a follow-up study in which the same experiment was performed elsewhere to test the results. I can read critiques of methodology. I can read critiques of experimental setup.

Please, keep up with the times. I'm really surprised you're using language. When was the last time you performed any philological experiments yourself?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I will make it easy for you, cut and paste the statement in my OP that said what I believed rather than say that I should be able to know what you are thinking, I am not a mind reader either. As for understanding physics, there is a math answer and a philosophy answer, we are not playing a math game. The issue I addressed was the philosophical question behind the math and that can be explained without endless formulas, those are just a way of representing what is in essence a question. The question is about the nature of reality, about the nature of this universe and why it works the way it does. Guess what everybody can understand it if presented in those terms.

You can obfuscate all you want to pretend that only your genius can understand higher physics or discuss it like Dr. Michio Kaku does in its most fundamental terms, there is no need to get into the endless minutia.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


There is a big difference between book knowledge and working knowledge which I'm sure you are unfamiliar with but thank you for your wonderfully worded response.

reply to post by AQuestion


I have noticed that a lot of people who don't have a belief in The LORD often use tactics of ridicule upon Faith.

Why do people who don't believe feel that they have to ridicule people who do have Faith?

I never ridicule anyone for their beliefs, whatever they may be.

Any attempt to ridicule somebody here is really a low form of attempted sabotage of what they are trying to say.

Much better to discuss constructively. Differing opinions are fine but nothing to start getting rude about. That just shows immaturity, a lack of respect and also insecurity.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by AQuestion

 

Dawkins? Bitter and arrogant? I'm sorry, but he's a quite cheery fellow. I've seen him in quite kind and cordial moods, even with those who he vehemently disagrees with. Of course, it's easier to just toss out personal attacks than to actually justify them.

There's a difference between "Being right" and "Being arrogant".

Hawking not Dawkins, I had the same typo and always do for Hawking. I have more respect for Dawkins than Hawking. At lease Dawkins is direct and I believe more sincere.

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by AQuestion

 

To all, just so I am clear, the first sentence in my OP stated that I meant to challenge so don't be surprised by the fact that that is exactly what I did and that I was blunt with the trolls.

Your question wasn't a challenge for the intelligent members of the audience. I answered in three sentences in the post at the top of the page. The only way your question was a "challenge" is that it was based on false premises.
One a side note, but equally important:
"Explain how multi-universes and quantum physics makes sense?"
Just because you have a question mark, doesn't make it a question. What you have is a command, not a question.

edit on 4-6-2011 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

In fact the challenge was to address the question apparently for many.