Religion versus Fiction

[Golden Duck]

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

If there was available evidence, the WHOLE WORLD would know about it. But, there are a number of people here who appear comfortable with the ridiculous assertions of P101, too bad they reached that unhappy state of affairs. There's no way back, too far gone.

You've already tried to assert this premise as meaningful.  It can be dismissed with the simple question "how many Nobel Prize winners can you name?"

 

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You've already tried to assert this premise as meaningful.  It can be dismissed with the simple question "how many Nobel Prize winners can you name?"

 

You are still kidding, you can dismiss what you like, but this would be the BIGGEST NEWS STORY OF ALL TIME. You'd have to be gone in the head to think otherwise. Lift your game man !

[psyche101]

2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I doubt any "meds" can help the "team", too far gone !

That's clearly not what he said. 

You have a habit of not relaying thing accurately don't you. Is that how you got your nick? 

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

That's clearly not what he said. 

You have a habit of not relaying thing accurately don't you. Is that how you got your nick? 

A slimy insinuation made by a grub, and you want to support that, do you ?

[cormac mac airt]

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

If there was available evidence, the WHOLE WORLD would know about it. But, there are a number of people here who appear comfortable with the ridiculous assertions of P101, too bad they reached that unhappy state of affairs. There's no way back, too far gone.

There IS available evidence, as limited as it might be, as I’ve posted before. That evidence suggests that God/a god IS NOT REQUIRED NOR IS VERIFIABLY EVIDENCED AS EXISTING to explain the origins of our universe. That DOESN’T mean that such DOES NOT exist but that there’s no verifiable evidence to support such a conclusion. Science doesn’t attempt to prove a negative.

cormac

[psyche101]

21 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I never said he offered any support, and I don't care one iota if he doesn't. The P101 claim is lunatic fringe stuff.

CALTECH isn't lunatic fringe. 

And you said he agrees with you. 

That's lie #7

[Golden Duck]

2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You are still kidding, you can dismiss what you like, but this would be the BIGGEST NEWS STORY OF ALL TIME. You'd have to be gone in the head to think otherwise. Lift your game man !

You said earlier that they'd be household names.  I'm saying Nobel Prize winners aren't.

Despite the Law of Thermodynamics evaporative coolers are still sold in Brisbane.

You're essentially saying the Logies (People's Choice Awards) are evidence of the afterlife.  Just how high do I need to lift my game?

[jmccr8]

4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

A slimy insinuation made by a grub, and you want to support that, do you ?

Hi Habitat

It was a fair question given your anger issues and lack of cognition of what is actually being said to you in an attempt to understand your responses.

jmccr8

[+Pettytalk]

21 hours ago, Habitat said:

Lots of head plumage, alright!

But perhaps, this would have served a better purpose, as its more of a "bald" statement.

 

[psyche101]

21 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

You BOTH go above and beyond the available evidence IMO. You just refuse to accept YOUR own incorrect assumptions about others because you’re too invested in trying to one-up a single poster you disagree with. I’m not on a team nor am I responsible for anyone else but myself. That’s YOUR problem. 

cormac

I have to say that I find that unfair on my part. I have not asserted personal conclusions, I only presented the physics as illustrated by Sean Carroll, who according to Hab is also a fact fudger and misrepresents science, and has no science to support his presentation. 

I have bullet pointed the argument for Hab clearly and asked him to show where the science is incorrect or has been misrepresented. 

Hab made the claim that what was presented was not science, that I had misrepresented it and that he knew better than Professor Carroll (he was bagging professor Cox a few weeks ago for saying there is no ghosts/afterlife) all I did was ask him to support those statements. At that point he started lying and the ad homs.

The science is sound. If anyone feels it is in error I am more than open to discussing if I have misunderstood the science, or completly got the entire presentation wrong. If I have gone beyond the evidence, as Hab has also claimed I'm more than open to discussing where why and how. I have made this offer to Hab and have only seen him dodge and throw insults from a distance. 

 

You're not being very supportive as a team member here you know..... apparently I'm the leader according to Hab, so can you pick up the respect and tow the line please

[danydandan]

Jeez, it's awfully venomous in here recently!

[psyche101]

4 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Jeez, it's awfully venomous in here recently!

Is it any different in any thread Hab posts in? 

[Golden Duck]

3 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

Lots of head plumage, alright!

But perhaps, this would have served a better purpose, as its more of a "bald" statement.

 

Err... no.

The bird in the picture is a galah.

Quote

The word galah comes from Yuwaalaraay and related Aboriginal languages of northern New South Wales. In early records it is variously spelt as galar, gillar, gulah, etc. The word is first recorded in the 1850s. The bird referred to is the grey-backed, pink-breasted cockatoo Eolophus roseicapillus, occurring in all parts of Australia except the extreme north-east and south-west. It is also known as the red-breasted cockatoo and rose-breasted cockatoo.

...

Very commonly in Australian English galah is used to refer to a fool or idiot. This figurative sense is recorded from the 1930s, and derives from the perceived stupidity of the bird. ...

http://slll.cass.anu.edu.au/centres/andc/meanings-origins/g

[cormac mac airt]

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

I have to say that I find that unfair on my part. I have not asserted personal conclusions, I only presented the physics as illustrated by Sean Carroll, who according to Hab is also a fact fudger and misrepresents science, and has no science to support his presentation. 

I have bullet pointed the argument for Hab clearly and asked him to show where the science is incorrect or has been misrepresented. 

Hab made the claim that what was presented was not science, that I had misrepresented it and that he knew better than Professor Carroll (he was bagging professor Cox a few weeks ago for saying there is no ghosts/afterlife) all I did was ask him to support those statements. At that point he started lying and the ad homs.

The science is sound. If anyone feels it is in error I am more than open to discussing if I have misunderstood the science, or completly got the entire presentation wrong. If I have gone beyond the evidence, as Hab has also claimed I'm more than open to discussing where why and how. I have made this offer to Hab and have only seen him dodge and throw insults from a distance. 

 

You're not being very supportive as a team member here you know..... apparently I'm the leader according to Hab, so can you pick up the respect and tow the line please

I go with the works of Stephen Hawking who suggested exactly what I said. Physics/QM DOES NOT prove or disprove the existence of God, but it does suggest that such IS NOT A REQUIREMENT for existence. I’d say take it up with Hawking but it’s rather too late for that. 

cormac

[danydandan]

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

Is it any different in any thread Hab posts in? 

There is nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree, sometimes.

We should all apply Bayes Theorem, the one thing that seems apparent is the the two of ye guys do not. 

[Habitat]

19 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You said earlier that they'd be household names.  I'm saying Nobel Prize winners aren't.

Despite the Law of Thermodynamics evaporative coolers are still sold in Brisbane.

You're essentially saying the Logies (People's Choice Awards) are evidence of the afterlife.  Just how high do I need to lift my game?

As I basically said, Einstein's insights would be small beer by comparison. I make no claims for transferable evidence of an afterlife, unlike P101, who claims it is settled in the negative, by science.

[+Pettytalk]

6 hours ago, psyche101 said:

“We must also learn to value the human race and take responsibility for our own survival. Why? [Points up to the heavens] Because there’s nobody else out there to value us or to look after us."

Not true, as somebody up there likes me, for sure.

 

[psyche101]

42 minutes ago, Habitat said:

If there was available evidence, the WHOLE WORLD would know about it.

Just about everyone but you does know about it! 

Your academic failings should not be applied to the rest of the world so you can feel better about yourself! 

Quote

But, there are a number of people here who appear comfortable with the ridiculous assertions of P101, too bad they reached that unhappy state of affairs. There's no way back, too far gone.

This poor me charade is wearing thin. 

The information is clearly laid out for you to easily discuss. The only person 'gone' here is you. The 'insinuation' you took offence to strikes me as highly plausible and very likely. 

Grow some man parts and stop asking everyone to argue for you. 

[cormac mac airt]

Psyche101:

In Sean Carroll’s article “Does the Universe Need God” he suggests that Science no longer needs God to explain the existence of the Universe, which is a far cry from saying God doesn’t exist. 

cormac

[Golden Duck]

I saw the advertisement for the ABC's Q&A episode for Monday 17 June 2019; and, thought line up might such that Brian Cox would be the least interesting.  The panellists were:

• Brian Cox, Particle Physicist and TV Presenter;
• Emma Johnston, Marine Ecologist and TV host;
• David Karoly, Leader of the Earth Systems and Climate Change Hub, CSIRO;
• Kirsten Banks, Astrophysicist and Science Communicator; and,
• Martin Van Kranendonk, Astrobiologist and Geologist.

The question raised about God was as follows:

Quote

TONY JONES [Host]

OK, let’s go metaphysical. We’ve got a web question, it’s from Keith Xiao in South Wentworthville in New South Wales. “Is there a place for God in science?” And, Brian, I’ll start with you, because I know you don’t like being referred to as an atheist.

 

BRIAN COX

Well, only because... So, I don’t have a... I don’t believe in a god. However, I don’t like the antagonism that occurs or is produced by this question. I mean, what you can say if you’re a cosmologist, what you should say is... So, we know that the universe was very hot and dense 13.8 billion years ago. We don’t know how it got hot and dense. We don’t even know, actually, if the universe had a beginning in time. We don’t know. So, that, to me, is where the science... Science starts for me with, “I don’t know the answer to that question.”

...

KIRSTEN BANKS

I’m going to give you my favourite answer to give to any science question if I don’t know. I don’t know. I’m with you, Brian. We don’t know. It’s like Brian says, I’m going to say there is null evidence. Not “no,” not “some.” Null. There is just...

So we can see that Brian Cox doesn't believe in God and doesn't know if the universe had a beginning.

The discussion develops...

Quote

BRIAN COX

There’s a very quick, serious point I’d like to make, which is that I remember once I was giving a talk to schools in London. And London is a very, very diverse population of many people, many faiths and none, and I was asked that question – “Is it possible to be a scientist and believe in God?” And I was taken back, actually. So I said, “Yes.” And I was going to have some common caveat. Like you said, a caveat is the... But I got a round of applause. And I thought, “This is important, because the last thing someone like we should do is close off that possibility of being a scientist because someone has faith.”

TONY JONES

Well, I mean, Professor Hanbury Brown, who built the interferometer up in Parkes, I think, he believed in God. I grew up with him, I know that.

BRIAN COX

So, the worst thing to do would be for, you know, a room full of students to say, “Well, you can’t be a scientist because you believe this thing or that thing or the other.” That would be a terrible thing.

https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/2019-17-06/11191192

It's reminiscent of Neil DeGrasse Tyson pointing out the three per cent of the Science Academy are religious.

Edited June 18, 2019 by Golden Duck
Link to the episode/transcript

[psyche101]

11 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

I go with the works of Stephen Hawking who suggested exactly what I said. Physics/QM DOES NOT prove or disprove the existence of God, but it does suggest that such IS NOT A REQUIREMENT for existence. I’d say take it up with Hawking but it’s rather too late for that. 

cormac

I agree entirely with that. I've told Hab far too many times I prefer the label teapot agnostic but default to atheist for ease. 

The physics being discussed dismisses the afterlife. As for God, we'll, I agree with all that up there, the concept is very unlikely. The gods that have been disproven are those attributed to natural forces like Thor, Zeus and Yaweh. Hab is just wildly expanding on the argument is all. Cox also says 'nobody is up there' so what I was saying to Hab is his assertion does not result in 50/50 odds, nor does it state that Cox considers God a likely option. Its a remote possibility that is not supported by observation or anything in nature. 

[Golden Duck]

13 minutes ago, Habitat said:

As I basically said, Einstein's insights would be small beer by comparison. I make no claims for transferable evidence of an afterlife, unlike P101, who claims it is settled in the negative, by science.

Really?  Who was the first person to climb Mount Olympus?

[psyche101]

2 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Psyche101:

In Sean Carroll’s article “Does the Universe Need God” he suggests that Science no longer needs God to explain the existence of the Universe, which is a far cry from saying God doesn’t exist. 

cormac

I agree. 

Our concepts of God however are man made, and nothing in nature supports a god idea. God might exist but there's simply no good reason to think so. 

[psyche101]

18 minutes ago, danydandan said:

There is nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree, sometimes.

Of course. Productive debate is why this forum exists. 

18 minutes ago, danydandan said:

We should all apply Bayes Theorem, the one thing that seems apparent is the the two of ye guys do not. 

Where have I not apllied probability? 

As far as I know there's no good reason to accept the god idea as valid and physics refutes an afterlife concept. Where is that in error? 

[cormac mac airt]

7 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I agree. 

Our concepts of God however are man made, and nothing in nature supports a god idea. God might exist but there's simply no good reason to think so. 

Just as long as you understand the opinion of “no good reason” IS NOT the same thing as “disproves”. The latter is untrue. 

cormac