|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Questions for Atheists | |||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Open MInd writes:
quote: What does this have to do with atheism? Are you saying that god is the difference?
quote: Why does the existence of god affect the nature of dark energy and who said it evolved?
quote: This is generally handled by the Standard Model. What does the existence of god have to do with it? Only atheists can describe quantum mechanics?
quote: Huh? Interactions between quarks are described by the Standard Model. What happens depends upon which kind of quark you're dealing with. Quarks are generally unstable outside of their triplet state when combined with gluons to form baryonic matter, but there are some particles that are made of pairs called mesons: Quarks
Three-quark combinations fit in the category of baryons. The best-known baryons are the proton (with two up quarks and one down quark) and the neutron (with two down quarks and one up quark). Particles that have one quark and one antiquark fit in the category of mesons. For example, the pion, or pi meson, contains an up quark and an anti-down quark. quote: Scientists are very clever at coming up with names. For example, "quark." After all, it was thought that you couldn't divide an atom and then it was found that atoms are actually made of sub-atomic particles: Protons, electrons, and neutrons. So then those became the smallest units until we found that they were made up of quarks and gluons. If we find that quarks and gluons are made of up of even smaller bits, we'll come up with new names for that. What does the existence of god have to do with this?
quote: Same thing. We'll come up with new names. At the moment, we have been unable to create any free quarks...they like to stick together. The theory of asymptotic freedom explaining why quarks splitting apart from their groups results in a stronger attraction from the strong nuclear force was given the Nobel Prize in 2004. One of the possible things that the new LHC might be tried to carry out is the creation of quark matter. Why does the existence or non-existence of god change this?
quote: This is literally nonsense. Many of the things you mention are the same thing. But what does this have to do with the existence of god?
quote: Huh? You seem to be indicating that interactions require interaction and are amazed by this tautology, as if physicists had never considered the possibility despite the fact that Newton's Third Law of Motion is precisely that: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Too, the entire concept of conservation is that everything has to go somewhere. But again, what does this have to do with the existence of god?
quote: Well, they don't because the physics is the physics. What breaks down is our model of the Big Bang. But what does this have to do with the existence of god?
quote: You've got the question wrong. Nature is the law. It follows itself. But what does that have to do with existence of god?
quote: We don't know. This is in marked contrast to evolution, for which we have an actual mechanism that we can manipulate directly. And yet, nobody seems to call gravity "just a theory" or propose that we "teach the controversy" regarding the standard description of gravity and the "tiny, invisible rubber band theory." That's right: Evolution is more solidly grounded and better understood than gravity, and yet it's evolution that gets all the hyperventilation. At any rate, what does that have to do with the existence of god? You seem to be indicating that is science is accurate, that means god cannot exist. Why? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Open MInd writes:
quote: Says who? Don't confuse your theology with a universal trait. Your god may say that you can't know the world but don't you dare presume to speak for anybody else. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Open MInd writes:
quote: Yes...and? Why is this considered problematic? If there was nothing else to learn, science would stagnate.
quote: Well, since everything we do know about the laws of nature was the result of humans using their brains, it would seem that your question is self-evident. But methinks you're looking for something like, "Because E = mc2, everything else follows." Well, the world is much too complicated for that. Just as a practical matter, there is too much to know for a single person to truly be able to understand it all.
quote: But you haven't. You have asserted that quarks can be broken down into smaller particles, but you haven't given any evidence that they can or how.
quote: You seem to be attaching philosophical significance to this "difference." Why are physical differences not enough?
quote: But if you know this, then you have just defeated your own claim. At any rate, you haven't shown this at all. Assertion is not proof.
quote: Um, do you mean that there are things in the world that cannot be explained by science? Well, of course. Science can tell you lots of things about an acoustic waveform: It's frequency, wavelength, modulation, shape, how much energy it has, how far it will propagate in various media, etc. What it cannot tell you is if it is music. And it doesn't even try. You're playing a game of gotcha, here, and I get the feeling you're trying to handwave past a troublesome part where you equivocate things that are amenable to scientific inquiry and things that aren't.
quote: And here it is: You are trying to say that because we don't know everything, this means we don't know anything, and there we find god. I dare say there are many people who believe in god who would disagree with you.
quote: And yet, the very existence of this discussion board proves that claim wrong. Clearly there are those who believe in god who quite strongly insist that their theism explains the universe.
quote: There are some who would say that. Others would disagree. As the cliche goes, "Proof denies faith." Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Open MInd writes:
quote: People have said that about a lot of things. What will you do when that becomes yet another false claim? This is what makes science such an effective field: It doesn't throw its hands up in the air simply because things seem too hard. It simply accepts that we don't know for right now and keep on plugging away, searching for new and different ways of looking at things.
quote: No, it can't. Why would god necessarily set the Big Bang up with any sort of precision? Perhaps god was curious and wanted to find out what would happen. Perhaps universe creation is a random process and god wouldn't know what happened until afterward.
quote: Why? This flies in the face of what we know about the nature of existence: It is inherently random. Newton and the rest of the 18th Century crowd certainly believed in the clockwork universe, but we have since come to learn that things are much messier. Einstein may have said in jest that god does not play dice with the universe, but Hawking jokingly replied that not only does god play dice, sometimes he throws them where we can't see them.
quote: Says who? You? Why should we believe you? Why would god want life to exist? Again, perhaps god was just curious and life was just a happy accident. Does the phrase "emergent property" mean anything to you?
quote: Why? Why would god necessarily have created a universe to create life? Why can't it have been a surprise?
quote: Again, this is in direct contradiction to what we know about the universe: There is no way to do this for the universe is quantum.
quote: But you can't know all the possible outcomes as the universe is quantum and doesn't play that way.
quote: This means that god is incapable of interacting with the universe for the universe is of time. As we know, interactions require interacting. Since we are of time, everything that interacts with us must also be of time.
quote: Why? Where is the evidence that god was in control from teh beginning? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Open MInd writes:
quote: And when was it decided that the Jewish god was the one that truly existed? I should think the Hindus, who have an older religion, might have something to say about that. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
mike the wiz writes:
quote: And the mere existence of atheists proves this to be true. Unless you're trying to say that atheists have no motive.
quote: God wants you to wash your socks? Is that what you're saying?
quote: Nobody said they did. But you have the reasoning backwards. Atheists have all the traits of theists but without the god and faith parts. Therefore, where do we find justification for the claim that god is required for whatever trait you deign to name? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Open MInd responds to me:
quote:quote: You're the one who brought it up. Therefore, it is your burden of proof. When asked about what you meant by "god," you were the one who said that it was the Jewish god. So when was it decided that it was the Jewish god that was the one that truly existed?
quote: The ability to read the texts of the Hindu religion. Besides, what makes you think I'm not Hindu?
quote: You tell me. You were the one who brought it up. You are the one who needs to explain yourself. Your own words from Message 33:
Open MInd writes: You asked me which god I am referring to, and my answer to you is: The G-d that is written in the Torah. Since when did we agree that god meant the Jewish one? Why should we accept your definition?
quote: I understand perfectly: You don't want to answer the question. You made assumptions about the nature of god and when it was pointed out to you that your assumptions are not shared by all, you're doing everything you can to avoid the issue.
quote: Because you're playing a game of "gotcha" and I don't play those games. Thus, I'm trying to get you to skip to the end where you reveal your "gotcha!" so that it can be handled directly. If your "gotcha" is dependent upon the setup that you're making, then it is sufficient to demolish your "gotcha" by pointing out that your setup is fallacious. So, help us out: Stop playing games and get to the point. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
I realize that this may be risking that which I am warning against:
Open MInd writes:
quote: You do realize that you are talking to one of the administrators of the board, yes? If you truly wish to remain here and discuss your topic, it would behoove you not to piss the admins off or you will find your tenure here cut short. Demonstrating that you will not listen to warnings by the administrators is one way to piss them off. Of course, if you're just trolling, you may not care.... Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
mike the wiz writes:
quote: This assumes the existence of "purpose," which is what you're trying to prove. Logical error.
quote: What is this "purpose"?
quote: Again, you're assuming what you're trying to prove. Logical error.
quote: Incorrect. Think about what the claim actually is. The point behind parsimony is that if you don't need to add the chocolate sprinkles, then there is no justification to insist upon them.
quote: Doesn't exist. So far, nothing that has ever been brought forward as "irreducibly complex" has ever managed to withstand scrutiny. You are assuming that which you are trying to prove. Design can never be assumed. It must always be demonstrated. To declare it to be a "truism" to engage in the logical error of affirming the consequent. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
mike the wiz responds to me:
quote: But that's just it: You have never defined it. You have tried to give examples, but every one you have has been demolished.
quote: What is this "purpose" of which you speak? Be specific.
quote: Then why do you keep bringing it up?
quote: And yet, the Casimir Effect proves this to be wrong. You can get something from nothing.
quote: You're confusing psychology with physics. What do you mean by "motivation"?
quote: Perhaps, but it is not my burden to show that it doesn't. You're the one claiming that it has one, therefore it is your burden to show that it does. If it can be shown that it is not necessary, then your burden becomes that much harder. This requires you to define "motivation."
quote: That requires you to define your terms. What do you mean by "motivation"? It appears that all you've done is shift one undefined word, "purpose," into another one, "motivation." What do you mean by these terms?
quote: So you're nobody? "Purpose of motive has been proven to exist in the physical universe." That's what you said. Now you're saying that it isn't required. So which is it? It would help if you would define what you mean by "purpose" and "motivation." And perhaps you'll be the first to answer my question: Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
mike the wiz writes:
quote: You do realize that Aristotle has long since been refuted, yes?
quote: Because we can see it happen right in front of our eyes.
quote: Huh? It isn't coincidence. It's physics. It happens all on its own, though. Or are you saying there is nothing that happens on its own? Please be the first to answer the question: Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
quote: What do you mean by "purpose"? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Dash on the Darkside writes:
quote: Of course, point c is contradicted by points a and b. If "nothing" can move itself, that also means god cannot, either.
quote: Same problem: Point d is contradicted by points a and b. If nothing can cause itself, that means god cannot either. In both cases, if we allow that god can self-create and self-move, why can't the universe? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024