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

46 minutes ago, Habitat said:

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.

A bit tetchy Habitat. I believe that you believe your experience. If I didn't I would tell you directly, or probably stop responding. It's the explanation based on your mystical world view (and your mystically derived nonsense itself) that I find imaginative.

This is very similar to the "something from nothing" premise in the cosmological argument/fantasy put forth by pseudo philosophers god apologists that has already been dismantled. I remember one philosopher didn't even bother pointing out the fallacies, but simply commented that he personally had no trouble imagining a universe from nothing, in direct contradiction to your claims. He would be lying I suppose?

I personally see problems with something from nothing. Though I can't conclude from that that everyone else must feel the same, or that such explanation is impossible, I'm not a theoretical physicist and it seems a scientific explanation has already been put forward. The only thing you seem capable of doing about that is whinging like a champion. You certainly offer no coherent argument to discredit it. It's also not the only possible explanation. 

As to the underlined, "something from nothing" certainly isn't a part of creation myth in the bible. Which makes it more obvious why you are so vehemently opposed to it? As a Christian mystic?

The only thing you are convincing me of is that your mind is as closed as a steel trap.

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Habitat said:

there is always the antecedent condition. No orphans allowed.

There is, they exist for too short a tone to affect conservation of energy laws. 

As Dan pointed out, the effects have been verified, so we know they exist. Quantum correction reveals they are necessary for QM to 'work' 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_error_correction

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, joc said:

I actually do hate Unicorns!

51JaPkQ-R-L._AC_SY400_.jpg

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Horta said:

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.

And getting closer every day. 

 

https://www.space.com/revealing-universe-before-big-bang.html

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Will Due said:

Love for God exists.

Do you hate that?

No, I've already explained this to you. I despise the charlatans who keep feeding the ignorant with the god idea as if real. 

In many cases the choice has been removed by indoctrination. Those people deserve help, not hate. 

 

Ricky Gervais put it well when he said  he hates cancer, but not people with cancer. Same sort of thing. 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

he hates cancer, but not people with cancer. 

 

What do you think of misotheism?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pallidin said:

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.

How does that not explain the mechanics behind virtual particles elinainraing the god idea and allowing for a natural universe? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

What do you think of misotheism?

I think having an imaginary enemy is every bit as ridiculous as having an imaginary friend. As silly as religion in principle. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, psyche101 said:

I think having an imaginary enemy is every bit as ridiculous as having an imaginary friend. As silly as religion in principle. 

 

Misotheism doesn't have anything to do with enemies. I don't know where you got that from. 

Want to try again?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Will Due said:

 

Misotheism doesn't have anything to do with enemies. I don't know where you got that from. 

Want to try again?

 

 

It's a hatred of Gods, even considered punishing them by refusing to worship them. 

You want to try again? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pallidin said:

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.

You think the extra dimensions hypothesised in QM refers to entire universes like in Sci Fi don't you. 

While most semi-realistic models of particle physics derived from string theory work in an opposite limit, with the size of the extra dimensions close to the Planck scale and the natural string length scale around 10-32 centimeters, it is worth keeping these more extreme possibilities in mind. In any case, they serve as an illustration of how one can derive hierarchies in the strengths of interactions from the geometry of extra dimensions. Indeed, examples with milder consequences abound as explanations of some of the other mysterious ratios in Standard Model couplings.

https://www.learner.org/courses/physics/unit/text.html?unit=4&secNum=6

 

They are directions, not God's house. You really don't know what your talking about. 

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, psyche101 said:

It's a hatred of Gods, even considered punishing them by refusing to worship them. 

 

That's right. Hatred and punishment. Punishing God by not worshipping him.

Like a kid does to its parents when it doesn't get its way.

Do you think this plays into atheism? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far we have a self proclaimed fan of some vague "mysticism", who claims that while the paranormal exists it has no discernible pattern and therefore seems completely random, thus can never be scientifically documented because it relies on fluke, is immune to scientific study because scientific evidence isn't available, is also a non reproducible phenomena that is unable to be understood with logical reasoning. We also have a proposed god that is responsible for all of this, yet is given no properties whatever (funnily enough).

Therefore existence can never possibly be explained, but ghosts and god are real.

The only possible reason not to believe this, is foolishness.

The entire branches of science that do offer explanations (often based on experiment) for the paranormal can be dismissed as nonsense. The more popular proponents of modern cosmology and physics are not only fallible humans, but liars and delusionals. Endeavours involving evidence, experiment and reasoned argument are foolish within themselves wherever they applicably don't accept the paranormal.

Could anything really be less convincing?

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

Just now, Will Due said:

That's right. Hatred and punishment. Punishing God by not worshipping him.

That's what I said. People who consider God an enemy are just as nuts as those who consider him as a friend. God is an idea. 

Just now, Will Due said:

Like a kid does to its parents when it doesn't get its way.

Do you think this plays into atheism? 

Not at all, it's as pointless as faith, and as silly as any religion. 

God's don't exist because they are a man made idea. Not because someone hates that idea. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Horta said:

So far we have a self proclaimed fan of some vague "mysticism", who claims that while the paranormal exists it has no discernible pattern and therefore seems completely random, thus can never be scientifically documented because it relies on fluke, is immune to scientific study because scientific evidence isn't available, is also a non reproducible phenomena that is unable to be understood with logical reasoning. We also have a proposed god that is responsible for all of this, yet is given no properties whatever (funnily enough).

Therefore existence can never possibly be explained, but ghosts and god are real.

The only possible reason not to believe this, is foolishness.

The entire branches of science that do offer explanations (often based on experiment) for the paranormal can be dismissed as nonsense. The more popular proponents of modern cosmology and physics are not only fallible humans, but liars and delusionals. Endeavours involving evidence, experiment and reasoned argument are foolish within themselves wherever they applicably don't accept the paranormal.

Could anything really be less convincing?

 

Yes.

That would be misotheism disguised as atheism.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Yes.

That would be misotheism disguised as atheism.

But that's not been an issue in this thread. Are you Trying to raise it as your next straw man perhaps? 

 

b30.jpg

Edited by psyche101
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

God's don't exist because they are a man made idea. 

 

Which is in and of itself, THE man-made self-deceived idea, of all time.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

But that's not been an issue in this thread.

 

Oh yes it is. 

If it weren't for the blindness of self-deceptive misotheism (disguised as atheism) you would definitely see what the real issue is.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Horta said:

A bit tetchy Habitat. I believe that you believe your experience. If I didn't I would tell you directly, or probably stop responding. It's the explanation based on your mystical world view (and your mystically derived nonsense itself) that I find imaginative.

Not at all, my reportage of "experiences" is purely realistic, has nothing to do with imagination or based on pre-conceived beliefs, it is just observational, and as I have said, I am very cautious about what meanings can be read into it.

This is very similar to the "something from nothing" premise in the cosmological argument/fantasy put forth by pseudo philosophers god apologists that has already been dismantled. I remember one philosopher didn't even bother pointing out the fallacies, but simply commented that he personally had no trouble imagining a universe from nothing, in direct contradiction to your claims. He would be lying I suppose?

I don't know why you can't understand that I am making no observations about the need for  a cause for "existence", other than it not being a matter that can be addressed by logic and reason, which perforce must involve causality, which dooms it to not being able to explain it, there always needing to be an antecedent circumstance.

I personally see problems with something from nothing. Though I can't conclude from that that everyone else must feel the same, or that such explanation is impossible, I'm not a theoretical physicist and it seems a scientific explanation has already been put forward. The only thing you seem capable of doing about that is whinging like a champion. You certainly offer no coherent argument to discredit it. It's also not the only possible explanation. 

Discredit an existing rational explanation for existence ? What is rational about "there was nothing, and next thing there was everything, and that was what we could rationally expect" ? It discredits itself.

As to the underlined, "something from nothing" certainly isn't a part of creation myth in the bible. Which makes it more obvious why you are so vehemently opposed to it? As a Christian mystic?

The only thing you are convincing me of is that your mind is as closed as a steel trap.

I am neither a Christian nor a mystic, and all that dopey "nothing became everything" myth does, is attempt  to kill off the antecedent condition known as God, but fails miserably. God in this scheme is the "hidden chaos" we ought not to ask too many probing questions about. So nothing has been achieved, bar give God a name change.

 

 

Edited by Habitat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Will Due said:

Which is in and of itself, THE man-made self-deceived idea, of all time.

That's ridiculous Will. 

The only place we find any mention of God is in man's imagination. Absolutely nothing in natute suggests God exists. Only the opposite. 

Just because you particularly like the story doesn't make it true. Claims attributed to creator hods have been squashed. Roman and Greek gods who had roles in running the world have been superseded by better knowledge. The gods are all tumbling one by one. Your idea of your god will die with you. 

You can shut your eyes tightly and wish as hard as you can, but God will still be in the same realm as unicorns, fairies and mermaids. God is man made. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Will Due said:

Oh yes it is. 

If it weren't for the blindness of self-deceptive misotheism (disguised as atheism) you would definitely see what the real issue is.

Your confusing your own paranoia with misotheism I think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

God is man made. 

 

This is the claim of the age. A claim of desperation. A claim of punishment. A claim of reality denial.

I love you. But I don't like absurd claims like the ones you make. Oh so often.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I am neither a Christian nor a mystic, and all that dopey "nothing became everything" myth does, is attempt  to kill off the antecedent condition known as God, but fails miserably. God in this scheme is the "hidden chaos" we ought not to ask too many probing questions about. So nothing has been achieved, bar give God a name change.

There is an antecedent! 

Particle exchange at a subatomic level beyond the energy conservation threshold, catalysed by a difference of potential. Did you not read any of the links I offered at all? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I am neither a Christian nor a mystic, and all that dopey "nothing became everything" myth does, is attempt  to kill off the antecedent condition known as God, but fails miserably. God in this scheme is the "hidden chaos" we ought not to ask too many probing questions about. So nothing has been achieved, bar give God a name change.

Ah, the nitty gritty.

Using your own argument, where is gods causal antecedent? Why does he get a free pass?

Is your real beef that science doesn't share your terminology, they tend not to call things god?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

There is an antecedent! 

Particle exchange at a subatomic level beyond the energy conservation threshold, catalysed by a difference of potential. Did you not read any of the links I offered at all? 

There is always an antecedent, or has to be, for a causality based system to work.

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.