Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Atheism is incompatible with science


Only_

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Arising from ?

Quantum chaos. That's why I said earlier that 'nothing' is not the correct term. Hidden would be a better descriptor. You've read all the links our God promoting dolphin left? 

Brian Greene would be a good source to familiarise yourself with. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try this Hab. 

 

But while the virtual particles are briefly part of our world they can interact with other particles, and that leads to a number of tests of the quantum-mechanical predictions about virtual particles. The first test was understood in the late 1940s. In a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton are bound together by photons (the quanta of the electromagnetic field). Every photon will spend some time as a virtual electron plus its antiparticle, the virtual positron, since this is allowed by quantum mechanics as described above. The hydrogen atom has two energy levels that coincidentally seem to have the same energy. But when the atom is in one of those levels it interacts differently with the virtual electron and positron than when it is in the other, so their energies are shifted a tiny bit because of those interactions. That shift was measured by Willis Lamb and the Lamb shift was born, for which a Nobel Prize was eventually awarded.

Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Quantum chaos. That's why I said earlier that 'nothing' is not the correct term. Hidden would be a better descriptor. You've read all the links our God promoting dolphin left? 

Brian Greene would be a good source to familiarise yourself with. 

Hidden chaos ? Sounds rather vague. Could mean anything. How is that different from God ? I am not seeing a sharp distinction between this stuff and "the Lord moves in strange ways".

Edited by Habitat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Hidden chaos ? Sounds rather vague. Could mean anything. How is that different from God ?

By reading and learning about it. The 'hidden' bit is the dimensions I've discussed with you earlier, that is the gap that the Dolphin is trying to shove God into and the chaos is the particle exchanges explained in the linked post I left you. 

You honestly should try applying the effort you put into chasing evidence to support your conclusions into understanding the cutting edge. I have no doubt that you would not claim the riddle of existance to be beyond the sciences if you did. 

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

By reading and learning about it. The 'hidden' bit is the dimensions I've discussed with you earlier, that is the gap that the Dolphin is trying to shove God into and the chaos is the particle exchanges explained in the linked post I left you. 

You honestly should try applying the effort you put into chasing evidence to support your conclusions into understanding the cutting edge. I have no doubt that you would not claim the riddle of existance to be beyond the sciences if you did. 

there is always the antecedent condition. No orphans allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

???? 

You sure fooled me. You don't seem to have any respect for it and undermine it with religious mumbo jumbo. 

Will, how does one hate something that doesn't exist. Do you hate Unicorns? 

What I object to is the people promoting the god fable as of fact. Its not even likely. God is as likely to exist as the Toothfairy is. So the god idea is an assault on logic and common sense. 

I actually do hate Unicorns!

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

there is always the antecedent condition. No orphans allowed.

Except for god, right?

Why must existence itself require a causal antecedent, simply because things within existence do? How do you know it must? This is a fallacy (of composition), assuming that something as a whole must have the same properties as it's constituent parts. Like saying "atoms are not conscious, therefore anything made of atoms cannot be conscious".

If the universe is your definition of existence, Krauss seems to offer that if we begin with no laws, no space, no time, no particles, no radiation we end up with a universe. His explanation is hypothetical in certain ways, but at least is generally considered logically consistent. Where is the antecedent there?

The reason you avoid backing the statement that existence can never be explained logically, is obviously because you can't. It's one of those instances where proving a negative doesn't really seem possible. Don't feel bad about that though, no one else really knows one way or the other as yet. They're working on it though.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Apparently only his so called knowledge of the beyond is infallible :rolleyes:

Yes, the knowledge he gains by that highly esteemed mystics principle of avoiding rational logic, no doubt. lol.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Horta said:

Except for god, right?

I don't attribute any properties to God at all, so your question is misguided.

Why must existence itself require a causal antecedent, simply because things within existence do? How do you know it must? This is a fallacy (of composition), assuming that something as a whole must have the same properties as it's constituent parts. Like saying "atoms are not conscious, therefore anything made of atoms cannot be conscious".

You are now getting confused. I did not say existence needed a cause, but existence "explained" by rational thinking certainly would. 

If the universe is your definition of existence, Krauss seems to offer that if we begin with no laws, no space, no time, no particles, no radiation we end up with a universe. His explanation is hypothetical in certain ways, but at least is generally considered logically consistent. Where is the antecedent there?

"Existence" does not need me to define it, It announces itself, the second you wake up in the morning. If you think that statement about starting with no ingredients of any kind and ending up with "existence" as we understand it, isn't the antithesis of "logically consistent", what can I say. It is consistent with a biblical tale though ! It seems as though the idea is to replace the loaded word "God", with jargon like "hidden chaos". Very well hidden !

The reason you avoid backing the statement that existence can never be explained logically, is obviously because you can't. It's one of those instances where proving a negative doesn't really seem possible. Don't feel bad about that though, no one else really knows one way or the other as yet. They're working on it though.

I'd say that when there is not just no conceivable logical explanation that can be generated by the imagination, to even then have to think about ways to test it, the penny should drop. It is even liar proof, no rogue scientist will be able to falsify the data. Logic itself is telling you, "No", as clear as day.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Will, how does one hate something that doesn't exist.

 

Love for God exists.

Do you hate that?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I don't attribute any properties to God at all, so your question is misguided.

That might not be as convenient for you as you would like, as something without definition or properties at all shares remarkable similarity to something that doesn't exist...coincidentally enough.  Even if it does exist, strange that you would be so adamant it does as you would have no idea yourself under those conditions. Well, maybe not so strange lol.

Quote

You are now getting confused. I did not say existence needed a cause, but existence "explained" by rational thinking certainly would. 

The confusion is yours. Again, why would rational thinking require an antecedent cause for existence? Because your mind is limited?

Quote

If you think that statement about starting with no ingredients of any kind and ending up with "existence" as we understand it, isn't the antithesis of "logically consistent", what can I say. It is consistent with a biblical tale though ! It seems as though the idea is to replace the loaded word "God", with jargon like "hidden chaos". Very well hidden !

Please be more specific. Outline the specific parts of the hypothesis that are logically inconsistent. 

Or do you mean you choose simply to see it as illogical regardless, because ...mysticism... beliefs?

There is no existence as "we" understand it. There is existence as mystics understand it, then there is actual existence. No need to conflate your understanding of it as being typical or representative. 

Quote

I'd say that when there is not just no conceivable logical explanation that can be generated by the imagination,

I'd agree if it were so. Though it obviously isn't and it seems a mistake to believe your personal imaginative limitations are representative of an entire species. Though you do seem to be rather imaginative in other areas lol.  

Quote

to even then have to think about ways to test it, the penny should drop. It is even liar proof, no rogue scientist will be able to falsify the data. Logic itself is telling you, "No", as clear as day.

No, it isn't telling me that as yet. It is indicating the likelihood that you made your mind up first, and then looked for ways to justify your mystically induced belief. It isn't convincing as yet.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Habitat said:

Another, who when asked to make some wild speculation, even one that would win the "biggest lie competition", comes up completely empty. I think in that alone, your rational sense is trying to tell you something. Maybe Phlogiston can explain it ?

Can you possibly get any more pretentious? 

This is a discussion forum.

You spout off a bunch of rhetoric and then become defensive and vague when asked simple questions to explain your position. 

Are you a Sye Ten Bruggencate acolyte? 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Can you possibly get any more pretentious? 

 

He does like questioning the intellect of others. I chalk it up to the "arrogance of youth". 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I had my pizza .. it was yummy.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Hey, I had my pizza .. it was yummy.

 

Took long enough.

Was it jumbo size?

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

Took long enough.

Was it jumbo size?

 

 

Just regular size... mmmmm... so good.

Reminds me of quantum weirdness and the pizza dilemma...

You know, decoherence and all those good toppings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agnostics and atheists refuse basic science, particularly quantum physics.

Dang near reminds me of 9/11 conspiracy adherents.

As a result they have no standing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agnostics and Atheists demand 100% fact, an "authentication"

Quantum physics demands that there is no such thing in true Reality until "state-collapse"

Repeatedly validated, yet oddly dismissed by agnostics and atheists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Can you possibly get any more pretentious? 

This is a discussion forum.

You spout off a bunch of rhetoric and then become defensive and vague when asked simple questions to explain your position. 

Are you a Sye Ten Bruggencate acolyte? 

I merely point out that the notion that "existence" has a prospective "rational" explanation, as a "faith", but is impossible not only in practice, but also in principle, as  the total inability of any person ever born, to even invent a "rational" scenario that could be tested, clearly shows. It really is one for the "true believers" to imagine otherwise, and looks no better than any ratbag religious belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science directly points towards extra dimensions and alternate realities.

Whether these extra dimensions and alternate realities point towards habitation within them is subject to debate, but their existence is not.

Reality does not solely exist in 4-D.

Edited by pallidin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the results of quantum physics clearly indicating that Reality is not fully what it seems, and that "extraordinary events" are an actual aspect of it, we must pause hard-headed beliefs to the contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Horta said:

That might not be as convenient for you as you would like, as something without definition or properties at all shares remarkable similarity to something that doesn't exist...coincidentally enough.  Even if it does exist, strange that you would be so adamant it does as you would have no idea yourself under those conditions. Well, maybe not so strange lol.

God is something I know nothing about, it may be more apt to say God is existence, rather than exists. As for your extrapolation into thinking something being unknown equating to non-existence, give yourself an uppercut to knock some sense into yourself !

The confusion is yours. Again, why would rational thinking require an antecedent cause for existence? Because your mind is limited?

Show me one example of  a cause that does not involve an antecedent condition, or a rational process that does not involve causality.  Nothing ?

Please be more specific. Outline the specific parts of the hypothesis that are logically inconsistent. 

Or do you mean you choose simply to see it as illogical regardless, because ...mysticism... beliefs?

There is no existence as "we" understand it. There is existence as mystics understand it, then there is actual existence. No need to conflate your understanding of it as being typical or representative. 

I'd agree if it were so. Though it obviously isn't and it seems a mistake to believe your personal imaginative limitations are representative of an entire species. Though you do seem to be rather imaginative in other areas lol.  

No, it isn't telling me that as yet. It is indicating the likelihood that you made your mind up first, and then looked for ways to justify your mystically induced belief. It isn't convincing as yet.

You are the one bringing mysticism into this argument , not me. But they are a big step up from the rubbish about a rational explanation for existence being forthcoming, at least they have laid out the conditions required to "know God" for thousands of years. It is up to the curious to conduct the experiment ! As for Krauss getting everything from nothing, and you want to know what is logically inconsistent about that ? Seriously, anyone that signs up to that has a screw loose, or even the whole box of screws. I know these people are your heroes, but alas, the world is full of false prophets. He and his ilk have stepped off the straight and narrow into wild speculation, and if that is typical of the results ("everything came from nothing") it seems pretty clear that a few creation myths beat them to it. And as for "you do seem to be rather imaginative in other areas lol ", that is just a thinly veiled accusation of lying, that turns out to be quite wrong. You sir, are not a man of knowledge's rear end.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, pallidin said:

With the results of quantum physics clearly indicating that Reality is not fully what it seems, and that "extraordinary events" are an actual aspect of it, we must pause hard-headed beliefs to the contrary.

If only Yogi Berra was still around to give a ruling on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religious "fervor" appears to be a primary, and potent cause of distress and death throughout our world.

From the Christian crusades to Islamic extremists, it is disturbing.

Nonetheless, theism is a reality.

As well as extremism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/03/2019 at 8:57 AM, Podo said:

Religion is illogical, I'm so glad that you agree. It should definitely remain behind closed doors, then, and away from the public sphere, since illogical things have no business in society. "I don't know why we exist therefore god did it" is something best kept to oneself.

There are a plethora of things that could be called "illogical", that have no relation to religion, that, do figure prominently is society and its running, but for some reason, the anti-religion nuts are not that interested. Some people are indoctrinated with being a supporter of a sporting team, and will even resort to violence to protect its "honour". The "fans" seem not to notice that the players play for whichever team will pay them the most, and are not afflicted with the fierce team loyalty thing. No logic in it, but there is no campaign to eradicate such lunacy, comparable to militant atheism. I don't care, and the atheists don't care about sporting fanatics and their strange obsession, but apparently religion is a different beast, there must be something more at stake than winning a sporting contest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
  • The topic was unlocked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.