Gods Big Bang

[Michael]

Experiencing something is basically how the brains interprets the electrical signals it receives. The eyes do not actually see and the brain does not actually see reality but interprets it. In fact our brain learns to see; in fact much of what we think we see is basically our brains ability to fill in the picture with what it expects to see! (An excellent documentary on this will be posted later).

I basically agree with your statement, I just think you're ignoring the fact that the brain typically fills in details "correctly" as well.

You are mixing apples with oranges here. Science does not need faith in order to function and in fact faith can be a negative factor in some cases. Strict adherence to the fundamental principles governing science are required else one is doomed to delve into the quasi world of goblins and leprechauns.

I'm afraid it's too late IMO. Lambda-religion isn't based upon the laws of nature, or things that show up in a lab. It's based on three forms of metaphysics, dark energy gobblins galore, and dark matter SUSY leprechauns that fails to show up in the lab.

This happens when one is confronted with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Atheists will choose science over the supernatural for obvious reasons.

Like "inflation" isn't "supernatural"? Name one other form of energy that acts like inflation and will undergo multiple exponential increases in volume, with little or no loss of density? The EM field certainly doesn't act like that. You don't think that 'superluminal expansion" trick is a bit "supernatural"? When was the last time "space" expanded in the lab? That claim about expanding space isn't a "supernatural" claim? Show me where it happens here on Earth!

Like I said before; it is due to the creationists who insist on imposing into science that is the root of the problem.

The irony is that I actually agree with you, I just see Lambda-religion as one more instance where "creationists" are imposing on empirical physics IMO.

Many scientists worldwide are religious people yet atheists have no problem with them because faith has no room in science. My Biology professor was a devout Anglican yet he taught Evolution with a passion! Of course he was a Brit and not an American (there is a big difference). I attended hourly mass every morning at our schools chapel and was never bored.

Great. Try "questioning/debating" mainstream theory once and tell me there are no "fire and crackpot" preachers of science out there promoting "dark" forces.

Not once was fire and brimstone mentioned in the sermon. Not once were we told by the vicar that atheists will be damned and or other faiths are evil etc.

Well, scientists can't label me evil for my heresy of course, so they villianize me with labels like "crackpot" and "crank". The personal attack technique is exactly the same, although the appeal to authority figure is a bit different. It's their collective group, not a "god" per se. Even still, their "sky gods" are utterly impotent in the lab, and SUSY theory in particular seems to be the one that makes the fat lady sing. No other part of their theory can even be tested in the lab. They won't acknowledge their problem either. They are still publishing SUSY related "sky god" papers up through this very weekend. Even still, *I'm* the one that gets labeled a "crackpot" for my efforts at pointing out the empirical flaws in their beliefs.

The behaviors of personal attacks against the individual "disbeliever/heretic" is nearly identical in any group, it's just achieved in a slightly different way, with slightly different insults.

Instead we were told true stories of how people against great odds managed to achieve their goal(s) when they had faith in what they wanted to do. No Guns, God, and Glory rants. No anti Evolution sermons. And above all NO HATE messages! This was in England of course and not some backwater southern US school. BIG difference. Darwin was buried in Westminster Abbey and he was an Atheist, yet the Anglican Church saw fit to honour him by burying him in the Abbey and the British people and people worldwide respect the memory of this great man.

I don't really see how that helped your point actually. You seem to ignore that theists can hold atheist in high regard for their scientific achievements, yet disagree with them as it relates to the topic of God. IMO you just demonstrated that bigotry isn't limited to, or related to any specific group.

Ah but here is the BIG difference; You cannot question God nor can you change what is in the Bible. Whereas in science you are supposed to question and change whatever needs changing.

Um, in theory, sure. In "reality" however, it's pretty much the same dance, just a different tune. The personal attacks are pretty much exactly the same, in fact "scientists" tend to engage in that behavior rather frequently, more frequently IMO than your average theist during a discussion.

It will be science that will refute a theory.

LHC refutes Lambda-CDM theory. No CDM. When will you acknowledge that point, or did you intend to wave around mythical authority figures at me, none of whom can even tell me where 'dark energy' comes from!

Big Bang is basically a rock solid theory up to + zero hour.

Pfft. That is your "belief", and it's based on PURE FAITH IN THE UNSEEEN (in the lab). A 'rocks solid' theory is one that can be shown to be true, step by empirical step. SUSY theory is going down in flames and going down hard. It's the ONLY one of the three metaphysical amigos that can even be "tested" in a real experiment here on Earth with actual control mechanisms. The ENTIRE theory is now FALSIFIED in the lab, and yet you consider it to be "rock solid"? Really? When might I expect to see some evidence of "cold dark matter" from an LHC experiment?

What happened to cause the big bang we do not know.

So for all you know, even if it happened exactly as you think it happened, God may have been the one that set the whole thing in motion for all you know.

But we did not know many things until science discovered them. That is how science works.

Did science actually "discover" any "cold dark matter" or is that just a mythical entity related to a SINGLE CREATION MYTHOS?

Religion is basically static and the only way for it to continue is to follow it in a spiritual sense.

Spiritually however is fluid and anything BUT static. The only thing that is close to "static" is God's unconditional love IMO.

What Americans are doing by building Creation museums and spreading creationism through TV and live sermons will eventually cause the whole world Atheists and religious people to say "Enough of this nonsense". The whole world is laughing at you and for a good reason too.

Ya, but I feel the same way about Lambda-religion too. Enough nonsense. IMO you simply fail to apply those same psychological pitfalls and human tendencies toward the topic of science and toward Lambda-religion specifically. For some reason you seem to "have faith" that it's a "rock solid" theory, even though "cold dark matter" theory just went down in flames this year. Care to explain?

I am glad you watched it and gave your opinion on the documentary. See it was not that bad was it? I am sure you have seen your face a million times in the mirror yet you have not grown bored of it!

Have a nice day!

Yes, but as I noted, the things he mentioned, the pitfalls he properly points out, do NOT stop people from ACCURATELY assessing reality, and they apply to EVERY human group and theory, including so called "scientific" theories. When was the last time a "dark energy" thingy influenced you? Why do you believe in "dark energies" of any sort, spiritual or scientific without a physical, tangible proof of concept?

 

[Michael]

That is what tenure is supposed to be for - removing the fear of ridicule and loss of income and prestige in scientific inquiry so that people can focus on the important part, which is analyzing and interpreting the evidence that we get.

Well, that may be nice in "theory", but the practical truth is that everyone needs to be published to be considered a "professional scientist" and if one doesn't toe the party line, they don't get published. It's easy to publish something related to SUSY theory (even though it seems to have been utterly falsified by LHC experiments to date), but it's nearly impossible to publish anything related to "electricity' in cosmology publications today.

And in reply to your point about authority figures, I think this is appropriate:



From "Egnorance", the blog of neurosurgeon Michael Egnor. It is an interesting passage, to say the least. I don't mean to imply that this is extensible to all Christians,

Glad to hear that. I'm not even a Republican, and I support evolutionary theory, so if you're expecting me to rally to her defense, you're barking up the wrong tree. Some folks are just weird IMO and they can have weird religious idea too IMO. I don't blame God for that, anymore than I blame all Republicans for Ann's statements.

This does not show that accepting a particular interpretation of the available scientific evidence from an authority figure is a fallacious argument from authority. There are fallacious arguments from authority, and there are legitimate arguments from authority.

There are just as many illegitimate ones however. Just look at SUSY theory today. It's been all but EXPECTED to show up in LHC experiments based on "scientific" claims about things that happen in the distant sky. Not once has anything like it showed up on Earth. What value is an "authority" figure or system if the authority figure and system are simple wrong and therefore scientifically rotten to the empirical core? Dark energy? Really? Nobody even knows where I might get some, but atheists tend to believe in the stuff anyway.

Really? I never believed lightning was caused by my parents.

I wasn't thinking of lightning specifically, but many things that happened were caused by your parents, and you probably knew it, or correctly figured it out sooner or later.

This is sloppy thinking, regardless of who it comes from. However, evolution's validation as a theory does make the existence of god less likely, and the arguments for god's existence weaker.

Why do you "believe" that? How do you know that DNA wasn't "intelligently designed" in the first place, with the specific intent of making it "adaptable" to various environments?

As I am sure I have noted elsewhere, using the word "accident" is also sloppy, uncharitable, and a straw man. Because for an accident to occur there must have been an original purpose or goal.

You do not know how the first fully functional single celled organisms first formed. You have no idea why even a single celled organism is capable of optimizing it's dietary needs and shows all sorts of signs of sophisticated behaviors that are indicative of "awareness". In fact we really have no idea what "awareness" even is or how that concept might relate to a single celled organism.

They are not really incompatible; but scientific advancement, again, makes the existence of god less likely, and the arguments for god weaker.

This would be another excellent example of a "typical belief system' that is associated with atheism. How do you know it won't simply find more evidence of the Empirical God that I specified in the the other thread?

Do you really think it's more likely that the mainstream will find 'cold dark matter' in the lab, than we are likely to find evidence of an electrical universe interacting with electrical beings?

I always thought dark energy was a bit strange. Nevertheless, the fact that science is a self-correcting process makes your objection to dark energy a bit irrelevant.

Oh boloney. If it was "self correcting" the fact it requires "faster than light speed expansion" should have been plenty good enough of a reason to "self correct" and find another solution to the redshift phenomenon. They don't care about physics or correcting their mistakes or they would have done so by now.

And if dark energy is real, then your questions are very good ones. I am fine with saying that I don't know the answers, and I doubt anyone else does either. That's what makes science so exciting.

It's amusing that when atheists can't support a "scientific" idea, that's somehow due to the fact that "science" is exciting. On the other hand they assume anything a theist can't answer is direct evidence that religion is wrong. See a double standard in there anywhere?

As for 'faith' in instruments of scientific inference, it is a false analogy.

No it's not. When have you seen "space" do any expanding in the lab? When have you seen any form of matter expand faster than light in a lab? When have you seen "cold dark matter"? When did "inflation" ever influence you in any way? You simply "have faith' in these ideas, and you "lack faith" in ANY AND ALL theories related to God, even purely empirical theories that require no "leaps of faith" in anything unseen in the lab.

Atheists are equally guilty of accepting the word of an "authority" figure, just so long as that authority figure relates to 'scientific organization' and not a "religious" one. The psychological behaviors are identical, you just pick a different set of authority figures and put your "faith" in the different "unseen" (in the lab) entities.

 

[British Bulldog]

Yes, but my point is that the same could be said for light and sound. Anything we "experience" we tend to name.



It's more likely to explain a much broader range of human social structures, not just religious ones, but scientific ones as well. Since this is about BB theory, note that many of those same criticisms about fear motivations (loss of job, income, prestige, deferential treatment to authority figures, etc) pretty much apply to any scientific organization, or any political organization too. Atheists hold up "authority" figures related to "atheism" that they seem to revere more than others. It's actually pretty natural for all groups to have "authority' figures. It's simply an effective way to manage various organizations.

For instance, do you personally believe in mainstream BB theory, yes or no? If yes, why? If not, why not?



That is probably because much of what happens in an "unknown" manner for children is a direct result of the efforts of another intelligent being, typically their parent. The tend to recognize a pattern after awhile.



Well, that same conformational bias argument applies equally well to atheists. For some reason most atheists for instance will typically associate evolutionary theory with some sort of 'disproof' of God. Even your speaker was guilty of that behavior. He simply *ASSUMED* that life began as some sort of cosmic accident, and he ASSUMES that his "great findings' somehow apply ONLY to religion for instance. These are just two very blatant biases. Lots of atheists seem to think that science somehow disproves the existence of God, or is somehow in conflict with ALL religion. That's why everyone in that room clapped when the speaker claimed that religion and science were in conflict. They don't have to be in conflict. Evolutionary theory doesn't conflict with the Catholic faith in any way for instance.

I'm afraid his whole argument seems to be based on a (false) belief that his same argument do not apply to other 'organizations' specifically "scientific" ones. I can easily demonstrate to you that "faith in the unseen" (in the lab), and metaphysical dogma is just as prevalent in mainstream cosmology theories. Where does "dark energy" come from? How do you know it's real or has any ability to 'accelerate' anything?

I don't think you have understood his argument at all. Most of your above post has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted or what the lecture was about. It is as if you either can't wait to change the subject from evolutionary psychology and the theory of mind fast enough, or you genuinely don't understand what is being presented, or you have another agenda that you are more interested inpushing. I admit that I don't know which it is, but the above post is irrelevant to the video that mzungu posted.

In fact none of your replies discuss the subject of the video, which seems odd.

 

[Michael]

I don't think you have understood his argument at all. Most of your above post has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted or what the lecture was about. It is as if you either can't wait to change the subject from evolutionary psychology and the theory of mind fast enough, or you genuinely don't understand what is being presented, or you have another agenda that you are more interested inpushing. I admit that I don't know which it is, but the above post is irrelevant to the video that mzungu posted.

In fact none of your replies discuss the subject of the video, which seems odd.

IMO your unwillingness to see how that same lecture applies to atheists and the BB topic (dark energy, dark matter, inflation genies in the sky) says volumes IMO. You're more than willing to toss out any and all authority figures related to religion and demand empirical tangible evidence for each religious claim, but when 'scientists' tell you to 'believe in' extraordinary things like "dark energy" or inflation, you willingly just "accept' the idea and require no objective empirical evidence to support any of the mainstream claims. When have you ever seen "dark energy" accelerate even a single atom? What makes you think some mythical new form of energy that you've never seen in the lab, causes a whole physical universe to accelerate? Holy Moly, you can't even tell me where it comes from! Talk about an act of faith!

Honestly, you two need to rewatch your own video and notice how every bit of it also applies to contemporary BB theory. *IF* you two get that far, let me know. Until then I think you've entirely missed the point of human psychology since it applies to ALL groups and topics that humans engage in, including atheism (it too has authority figures) and including "scientific" groups/organizations. The fact that you two can't see how those same psychological processes and pitfalls relate to other topics, specifically your own faith in BB theory says volumes IMO.

 

[British Bulldog]

IMO your unwillingness to see how that same lecture applies to atheists and the BB topic (dark energy, dark matter, inflation genies in the sky) says volumes IMO. You're more than willing to toss out any and all authority figures related to religion and demand empirical tangible evidence for each religious claim, but when 'scientists' tell you to 'believe in' extraordinary things like "dark energy" or inflation, you willingly just "accept' the idea and require no objective empirical evidence to support any of the mainstream claims. When have you ever seen "dark energy" accelerate even a single atom? What makes you think some mythical new form of energy that you've never seen in the lab, causes a whole physical universe to accelerate? Holy Moly, you can't even tell me where it comes from! Talk about an act of faith!

Honestly, you two need to rewatch your own video and notice how every bit of it also applies to contemporary BB theory. *IF* you two get that far, let me know. Until then I think you've entirely missed the point of human psychology since it applies to ALL groups and topics that humans engage in, including atheism (it too has authority figures) and including "scientific" groups/organizations. The fact that you two can't see how those same psychological processes and pitfalls relate to other topics, specifically your own faith in BB theory says volumes IMO.

You are doing it again. You clearly do not understand the theory. If you were asked to explain the theory presented in the video I can only conclude from your posts that you wouldn't be able to do so.

 

[Michael]

You are doing it again. You clearly do not understand the theory.

On the contrary. I think you just don't like the implications of that same exact video, and those same "group think" human behaviors and tendencies, as it relates to your personal "faith" in BB theory. Anyone with a science slanted title is a "expert" that you "trust", and any published paper must be correct because it's "science"........

 

[British Bulldog]

On the contrary. I think you just don't like the implications of that same exact video, and those same "group think" human behaviors and tendencies, as it relates to your personal "faith" in BB theory. Anyone with a science slanted title is a "expert" that you "trust", and any published paper must be correct because it's "science"........

If you understood the theory you wouldn't keep making comparisons between the origins of religious thoguht explained in the video and atheistic thought and, what was it, light? You clearly don't understand that the theory of mind - where we have evolved to recognise other human minds - is behind religious thinking. If we have something we can't explain we automatically look for a human like mind or agency as its cause. This theory does NOT explain atheistic thinking, light, BB theory, or any of the other things you have insisted on talking about instead of the video.

Now can you comment on the contents of the video pleaase instead of your own hobby horses.

 

[mzungu]

On the contrary. I think you just don't like the implications of that same exact video, and those same "group think" human behaviors and tendencies, as it relates to your personal "faith" in BB theory. Anyone with a science slanted title is a "expert" that you "trust", and any published paper must be correct because it's "science"........

Bad scientists do not make science bad; they do bad science.

Sad as it may be; Your lack of understanding the documentary is probably due to either a lack of comprehension on what is being presented or wanton bias.

Whichever it may be; I feel I am knocking on a deaf man's door here.

Here is a song that may make you reflect on how this thread is going:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJt6keI3N94&ob=av2n
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xctadc_madrugada-majesty_music

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Well, that may be nice in "theory", but the practical truth is that everyone needs to be published to be considered a "professional scientist" and if one doesn't toe the party line, they don't get published. It's easy to publish something related to SUSY theory (even though it seems to have been utterly falsified by LHC experiments to date), but it's nearly impossible to publish anything related to "electricity' in cosmology publications today.

That is what anonymous peer review is supposed to accomplish. I admit, neither peer review nor tenure are perfect, and they have significant flaws, but this is still better than abandoning scientific inquiry completely - c.f. Nirvana fallacy.

There are just as many illegitimate ones however. Just look at SUSY theory today. It's been all but EXPECTED to show up in LHC experiments based on "scientific" claims about things that happen in the distant sky.

This is the way the process works. You make a hypothesis, and you then design an experiment to test this hypothesis. The LHC, and particle colliders like it, are the experiment.

Not once has anything like it showed up on Earth. What value is an "authority" figure or system if the authority figure and system are simple wrong and therefore scientifically rotten to the empirical core?

This is not entailed. Why, then, do you use 'therefore'?

Dark energy? Really? Nobody even knows where I might get some, but atheists tend to believe in the stuff anyway.

I ABSOLUTELY HATE IT WHEN SUCH SLOPPY AND FALLACIOUS GENERALIZATIONS AND CHARACTERIZATIONS ARE MADE. STOP DOING IT, OR I WILL STOP TALKING WITH YOU.

I wasn't thinking of lightning specifically, but many things that happened were caused by your parents, and you probably knew it, or correctly figured it out sooner or later.

Like?

Why do you "believe" that? How do you know that DNA wasn't "intelligently designed" in the first place, with the specific intent of making it "adaptable" to various environments?

I never said it entailed the lack of existence of a god.

You do not know how the first fully functional single celled organisms first formed. You have no idea why even a single celled organism is capable of optimizing it's dietary needs and shows all sorts of signs of sophisticated behaviors that are indicative of "awareness". In fact we really have no idea what "awareness" even is or how that concept might relate to a single celled organism.

True. But then why do you assume that there must have been an original purpose?

This would be another excellent example of a "typical belief system' that is associated with atheism. How do you know it won't simply find more evidence of the Empirical God that I specified in the the other thread?

Do you really think it's more likely that the mainstream will find 'cold dark matter' in the lab, than we are likely to find evidence of an electrical universe interacting with electrical beings?

I apologize for being unclear. I meant that scientific advancement thus far has made the existence of a god less likely and less necessary.

Oh boloney. If it was "self correcting" the fact it requires "faster than light speed expansion" should have been plenty good enough of a reason to "self correct" and find another solution to the redshift phenomenon. They don't care about physics or correcting their mistakes or they would have done so by now.

I don't see any problem with FTL expansion. Nothing can move faster than light. But that's not what expansion is.

It's amusing that when atheists can't support a "scientific" idea, that's somehow due to the fact that "science" is exciting. On the other hand they assume anything a theist can't answer is direct evidence that religion is wrong. See a double standard in there anywhere?

From now any passage that mischaracterizes scientists as atheists will simply be ignored.

No it's not. When have you seen "space" do any expanding in the lab? When have you seen any form of matter expand faster than light in a lab? When have you seen "cold dark matter"? When did "inflation" ever influence you in any way? You simply "have faith' in these ideas, and you "lack faith" in ANY AND ALL theories related to God, even purely empirical theories that require no "leaps of faith" in anything unseen in the lab.

It is inferred. Also, note that even if you are right, this does not make the arguments for god's existence any stronger.

Atheists are equally guilty of accepting the word of an "authority" figure, just so long as that authority figure relates to 'scientific organization' and not a "religious" one. The psychological behaviors are identical, you just pick a different set of authority figures and put your "faith" in the different "unseen" (in the lab) entities.

Ignored.

 

[Michael]

Bad scientists do not make science bad; they do bad science.

And anytime you can't even tell me where to go to get something you claim exists, it's "bad science". SUSY particles do not show up in the lab. Why then would you personally consider "dark matter" theories to be "solid science"? You don't seem to grasp the difference between empirical cause effect demonstrations and pure "dark" pie in the sky speculation.

Sad as it may be; Your lack of understanding the documentary is probably due to either a lack of comprehension on what is being presented or wanton bias.

The "wanton bias" was suggesting that these criticisms and human behavior issues applied *ONLY* toward religion and that "scientists" behaved any differently! It's not my fault if you fail to grasp the fact that atheists have their own biases, their own "authority figures" and their own "mythical thingies". As long as the term "science" is attached to the concept, atheists seem to believe just about anything. They are at least as gullible as anyone else when it comes to the difference between empirical facts and blind speculation. Inflation, dark energy and dark matter are more impotent on Earth than your average religious entity. They have no empirical effect on anything in the lab. That is the truth of the matter.

 

[Michael]

If you understood the theory you wouldn't keep making comparisons between the origins of religious thoguht explained in the video and atheistic thought and, what was it, light? You clearly don't understand that the theory of mind - where we have evolved to recognise other human minds - is behind religious thinking. If we have something we can't explain we automatically look for a human like mind or agency as its cause.

How is "dark stuff did it" not an "agency as it's cause", complete and absolute leap of faith in the "unseen" (in the lab), and how is it not a pure affirming the consequent fallacy? When did "dark energy" ever accelerate a single atom in a real experiment?

This theory does NOT explain atheistic thinking,

Many of the same "group think" criticisms that were raised in the video most certainly apply to scientific organizations at least as well as they apply to religious ones. As long as you remain in pure denial of how these same human psychology issues relate directly back to your personal "blind faith" in BB theory, you have no idea what your theory actually applies to in the first place. In fact it was a fallacy in the beginning to suggest that any of these psychological issues applied ONLY to religious organizations, and not to scientific circles and groups. That was the first fallacy of the video!

light, BB theory,

Light shows up in a lab. Inflation, dark energy and dark matter are purely figments of ONE creation mythos and they have no real effect on anything in any controlled experiment on Earth.

Now can you comment on the contents of the video pleaase instead of your own hobby horses.

I already did that. Instead of you accepting the fact that atheists have these same conformational biases, the same "deference to authority" problems and the same "leaps of faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab), you're in pure denial of scientific and empirical fact. How sad IMO.

 

[Michael]

That is what anonymous peer review is supposed to accomplish. I admit, neither peer review nor tenure are perfect, and they have significant flaws, but this is still better than abandoning scientific inquiry completely - c.f. Nirvana fallacy.

Sorry, but the "peer review" process only serves to keep it's members in line, just like any other authority based process. SUSY theory is falsified by LHC experiments, regardless of how many astronomers have pointed at the sky and claimed that SUSY particles did it.

Antimatter surplus is not dark matter's smoking gun - physics-math - 06 September 2011 - New Scientist

This is the way the process works. You make a hypothesis, and you then design an experiment to test this hypothesis. The LHC, and particle colliders like it, are the experiment.

In the case of SUSY theory, I agree. In the case of dark energy and inflation however, it's completely different. Can you or anyone even tell me where "dark energy" comes from? Can anyone demonstrate that "dark energy" causes anything to "accelerate"? Simply answer yes or no to both questions and tell me why you believe "dark energy did it"?

This is not entailed. Why, then, do you use 'therefore'?

You missed my point. Some theories (like SUSY theory) can and have been falsified in the lab. Nothing is going to solve the problem of missing particles in the lab. No amount of "wishing" that they had found something in those experiments is going to change the scientific fact that no SUSY particles have ever been seen, and all the "easy" brands have already been falsified by the LHC experiments. The emotional attachment that astronomers have toward exotic forms of matter has been proven to be false. Now what? Pure denial? More cosmology papers about how SUSY particles in the sky did it?

I ABSOLUTELY HATE IT WHEN SUCH SLOPPY AND FALLACIOUS GENERALIZATIONS AND CHARACTERIZATIONS ARE MADE. STOP DOING IT, OR I WILL STOP TALKING WITH YOU.

I'm just noting that never once have I heard an atheist apply the same basic criticisms they have toward God theories toward supposedly "scientific" theories of our universe. They typically will believe just about anything and everything as long as it has the label "science" attached to it. That's just been my experience during these discussions. You've never seen "dark energy" accelerate anything in the lab. You've never seen inflation do anything to a single atom in a lab. Why do you believe these things exist or have any effect on anything?

Like?

Like say, food kept appearing in your refrigerator, clothes you'd never seen before kept being put on your body, stuff like that. Sooner or later you probably did associate a PERSON/agent with these events.

I never said it entailed the lack of existence of a god.

Well, I never said DNA didn't mutate. We should then be able to find some middle ground. Some atheists however seem to automatically LEAP to the conclusion that if DNA mutates, God does not exist. There is no one to one correlation between evolutionary theory and the existence of God, but it's common atheistic fallacy that they are somehow related. I'm not saying it applies to you personally, but it's a common fallacy I've seen repeated often, including in that video.

True. But then why do you assume that there must have been an original purpose?

Maybe for the same reason you assume that there wasn't one?

I apologize for being unclear. I meant that scientific advancement thus far has made the existence of a god less likely and less necessary.

How so? How did any advancement in technology make the empirical theory of God that outlined in my thread any less likely in your opinion?

I don't see any problem with FTL expansion. Nothing can move faster than light. But that's not what expansion is.

Only *objects* expand in the lab. Space never does any magical expansion in the lab, so what makes you think it magically expands in somewhere out there?

From now any passage that mischaracterizes scientists as atheists will simply be ignored.

That was never my intent by the way. I'm more than happy to recognize that scientists come in all flavors, including theists.

It is inferred. Also, note that even if you are right, this does not make the arguments for god's existence any stronger.

Hmm. You seemed to have sidestepped my point. You don't apply the same basic "I wan't empirical evidence" sort of philosophy toward "dark energy causes acceleration" as you apply toward "God causes humans to experience God." Why? Have you ever seen "dark energy" accelerate a single atom in a real experiment in a lab? If not, what makes you think it even exists, let alone that it "accelerates" anything?

 

[British Bulldog]

How is "dark stuff did it" not an "agency as it's cause", complete and absolute leap of faith in the "unseen" (in the lab), and how is it not a pure affirming the consequent fallacy? When did "dark energy" ever accelerate a single atom in a real experiment?

Because it has nothing to do with the theory of mind. You know, the theory the video was about.

Many of the same "group think" criticisms that were raised in the video most certainly apply to scientific organizations at least as well as they apply to religious ones. As long as you remain in pure denial of how these same human psychology issues relate directly back to your personal "blind faith" in BB theory, you have no idea what your theory actually applies to in the first place. In fact it was a fallacy in the beginning to suggest that any of these psychological issues applied ONLY to religious organizations, and not to scientific circles and groups. That was the first fallacy of the video!

Group think is not the theory of mind. It is completely different. If you'd watched the video with anything approaching attention you'd know this.

Light shows up in a lab. Inflation, dark energy and dark matter are purely figments of ONE creation mythos and they have no real effect on anything in any controlled experiment on Earth.

This has nothing to do with the theory of mind.

I already did that. Instead of you accepting the fact that atheists have these same conformational biases, the same "deference to authority" problems and the same "leaps of faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab), you're in pure denial of scientific and empirical fact. How sad IMO.

No, you haven't. You have nowhere mentioned the theory of mind and how it directly relates to the origins of religious thought.

You either have no idea what the theory is - in which case your claims to have watched the video are suspect, or you just plain don't understand. I'm being charitable here because the other alternatives are that you are being deliberately underhand and evasive, which surely can't be the case, or you are just too plain dumb to understand what is being presented in the video - and as you seem moderately articulate this would seem unlikely too.

I'll give you one last chance. Explain to us exactly what the theory presented in the video says. I've already given you more than a couple of helpful clues. Show me you that you understand otherwise I'll just ignore you as a waste of space.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Sorry, but the "peer review" process only serves to keep it's members in line, just like any other authority based process. SUSY theory is falsified by LHC experiments, regardless of how many astronomers have pointed at the sky and claimed that SUSY particles did it.

Antimatter surplus is not dark matter's smoking gun - physics-math - 06 September 2011 - New Scientist

1) Absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. And there is other evidence for dark matter's existence.
2) As I said, there are some flaws with peer-review. Ideally, it should be completely impartial, as should all journals and editors. But that is obviously not going to happen. This is not a fault specifically of the scientific method, this is a fault of human psychology. And I don't see how worshipping a god is any better alternative.

In the case of SUSY theory, I agree. In the case of dark energy and inflation however, it's completely different. Can you or anyone even tell me where "dark energy" comes from? Can anyone demonstrate that "dark energy" causes anything to "accelerate"? Simply answer yes or no to both questions and tell me why you believe "dark energy did it"?

As I said, I can't tell you, becuase I don't know. You could say I'm agnostic to it. So why do you keep asking me?

You missed my point. Some theories (like SUSY theory) can and have been falsified in the lab. Nothing is going to solve the problem of missing particles in the lab. No amount of "wishing" that they had found something in those experiments is going to change the scientific fact that no SUSY particles have ever been seen, and all the "easy" brands have already been falsified by the LHC experiments. The emotional attachment that astronomers have toward exotic forms of matter has been proven to be false. Now what? Pure denial? More cosmology papers about how SUSY particles in the sky did it?

You really like supersymmetry, don't you? Cherry-picking much?

Also, see point 1 above.

I'm just noting that never once have I heard an atheist apply the same basic criticisms they have toward God theories toward supposedly "scientific" theories of our universe. They typically will believe just about anything and everything as long as it has the label "science" attached to it. That's just been my experience during these discussions. You've never seen "dark energy" accelerate anything in the lab. You've never seen inflation do anything to a single atom in a lab. Why do you believe these things exist or have any effect on anything?

This is a false analogy. I don't accept the theory that posits dark energy's existence to the degree that I accept the theory of gravity, if that is what you are wondering.

Also, theories about the existence of god are different theories to those that underpin our knowledge of the universe.

Like say, food kept appearing in your refrigerator, clothes you'd never seen before kept being put on your body, stuff like that. Sooner or later you probably did associate a PERSON/agent with these events.

I don't see how this is analogous to any other occurrence anywhere, nor do I see its relevance.

Well, I never said DNA didn't mutate. We should then be able to find some middle ground. Some atheists however seem to automatically LEAP to the conclusion that if DNA mutates, God does not exist. There is no one to one correlation between evolutionary theory and the existence of God, but it's common atheistic fallacy that they are somehow related. I'm not saying it applies to you personally, but it's a common fallacy I've seen repeated often, including in that video.

Not really relevant. Maybe you missed it the first time. I NEVER SAID EVOLUTION ENTAILED THE LACK OF EXISTENCE OF A GOD.

Maybe for the same reason you assume that there wasn't one?

The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for a purpose. Reflecting dad-style doesn't really work unless you're at a dad-like level of intelligence.

How so? How did any advancement in technology make the empirical theory of God that outlined in my thread any less likely in your opinion?

It simply means that god, if he exists, governs less of the universe. And if he governs that which has already been explained, then why can we not observe his presence? And if we cannot, then logically what is the necessity of his existence?

Only *objects* expand in the lab. Space never does any magical expansion in the lab, so what makes you think it magically expands in somewhere out there?

You would have to ask an astrophysicist. But from what I understand, it is the simplest explanation for Hubble's Law.

As for why you don't see it in the lab, if you look at the Hubble constant, and convert it into more everyday units, that comes out to a difference in velocity between 2 points, 1km apart, of 1m every 14 million years.

Hmm. You seemed to have sidestepped my point. You don't apply the same basic "I wan't empirical evidence" sort of philosophy toward "dark energy causes acceleration" as you apply toward "God causes humans to experience God." Why? Have you ever seen "dark energy" accelerate a single atom in a real experiment in a lab? If not, what makes you think it even exists, let alone that it "accelerates" anything?

Answers: I don't, really; I haven't; and nothing very conclusive at all.

 

[mzungu]

Can you or anyone even tell me where "dark energy" comes from?

Can you or anyone else tell me where God comes from?

If Science accepted the existence of Dark energy then it would not be trying to discover it.

Hypotheses are not final nor are they evidences.

Now care to answer my question (which is your question to us but supplaned the word Dark energy with GOD in case you missed it)!

 

[Michael]

Because it has nothing to do with the theory of mind. You know, the theory the video was about.

Actually, your claim that these human behaviors apply exclusively to religious ideas was never demonstrated, it was *ASSUMED*.

Specifically there was never any evidence presented in the video to suggest that the areas of the brain that they researched in association with these thoughts and with human religious thoughts specifically, were not also involved in virtually any and all other cognitive thinking. They simply saw the brain cells light up, while asking questions about God, but never once did they ask questions of the same group about something unrelated to God, say for instance "politics" or "science" to determine if these were "unique" patterns that were associated only with religious thought, or with ALL cognitive thought! They simply *ASSUMED* an exclusive relationship but no evidence was presented for a "null hypothesis" of any sort. The whole thing is about as 'unscientific' as it gets in terms of their 'study methods' IMO. No control groups. No other topics during the active brain scans were discussed and analyzed to determine the uniqueness of the brainwave pattern. In fact the whole thing was a sham in that sense. You need a 'control method' in real science. There was none presented. If there were any studies that were actually published that showed any such exclusive link, they failed to mention it.

Group think is not the theory of mind. It is completely different.

Not really. That fear of being ridiculed by the "group" is virtually unrelated to the topic we might apply it too. Astronomers that might favor EU theory would be wise to keep their mouth shut in this 'dark' age of astronomy if they hope to keep their job and feed their family. Those peer pressures effect ALL groups, even political groups. Again, this whole "the bad Christians pressured me into to" motivation was NOT related *EXCLUSIVELY* to religion, and yet nobody pointed out that flaw in the presentation other than me. Why not? Because you didn't want to find any flaws in that presentation and you certainly don't want do defend them publicly against an actual "skeptic" of their methods.

If you'd watched the video with anything approaching attention you'd know this.

I get the distinct impression that I not only watched it more attentively than you did, I actually thought about it, and how their methods might apply to other topics and other groups. You never seem to have even thought about whether or not their evidence related EXCLUSIVELY to religious thought, you simply ASSUMED it, just like they did.

This has nothing to do with the theory of mind.

Of course it does. If you intend to use psychology to "explain" something as broad and complex as "religion", you're going to have to understand how it applies to other topics as well, particularly if you intend to suggest 'it's all in their heads'.

No, you haven't. You have nowhere mentioned the theory of mind and how it directly relates to the origins of religious thought.

What exactly are you calling an "agent" if not an "object of the mind"?

You either have no idea what the theory is - in which case your claims to have watched the video are suspect, or you just plain don't understand.

Accusing me of the later is reasonable considering your concerns, but I did watch the video as you requested, I thought about the flaws in presentation, which you did not seem to have done, and I have expressed those concerns. I've yet to hear you address them. How do you know that the circumstantial evidence they provided related to brain scan evidence was limited to RELIGIOUS ideas and religious ideas alone? Did you even stop to think that those same regions of the brain that "light up" while we think about those questions might also be the same areas that light up when we discuss the topic of cosmology for instance?

I'm being charitable here because the other alternatives are that you are being deliberately underhand and evasive, which surely can't be the case, or you are just too plain dumb to understand what is being presented in the video - and as you seem moderately articulate this would seem unlikely too.

IMO, it's your side that is being evasive and not really providing an actual "scientific" argument based on non-circumstantial evidence. I saw nothing mentioned in his presentation that suggested he had discussed other topics with his participants and found a pattern that was exclusive ONLY to religious beliefs. Did you? At what point in the video did he present such evidence?

I'll give you one last chance. Explain to us exactly what the theory presented in the video says. I've already given you more than a couple of helpful clues. Show me you that you understand otherwise I'll just ignore you as a waste of space.

You'll give me one last chance? Is that your version of "peer pressure" or something? I've tried to explain now EXACTLY where I believe the FLAWS in that presentation are located. I'd like to hear your response, and give you the benefit of the doubt, just "one last time".

 

[Michael]

Can you or anyone else tell me where God comes from?

I don't know of any cosmology theory in the known universe that attempts to explain where the original energy of the universe comes from. Do you?

If Science accepted the existence of Dark energy then it would not be trying to discover it.

I thought you told me this theory of yours was "rock solid"? If you don't even know where it comes from or how I can lay my hands on some, how exactly is that a "rock solid" theory in your opinion?

Hypotheses are not final nor are they evidences.

It sounds to me like your beliefs about the cosmos have less evidential support than anything I've proposed. You can't get "dark energy" to do squat in the lab, yet your "faith" in dark stuff is strong, evidently "rock solid", with empirical supporting evidence and everything!

Now care to answer my question (which is your question to us but supplaned the word Dark energy with GOD in case you missed it)!

In case you missed it, no theory of the universe, not even big bang theories explain where the original energy came from. They simply TAKE IT FOR GRANTED. Every other THING/ITEM that I have proposed, up to and including AWARENESS shows up right here on Earth. You can't even tell me where to find any sort of exotic forms of "dark matter". See any problem with your concept of Lambda-CDM theory being "rock solid" yet?

 

[British Bulldog]

Actually, your claim that these human behaviors apply exclusively to religious ideas was never demonstrated, it was *ASSUMED*.

Specifically there was never any evidence presented in the video to suggest that the areas of the brain that they researched in association with these thoughts and with human religious thoughts specifically, were not also involved in virtually any and all other cognitive thinking. They simply saw the brain cells light up, while asking questions about God, but never once did they ask questions of the same group about something unrelated to God, say for instance "politics" or "science" to determine if these were "unique" patterns that were associated only with religious thought, or with ALL cognitive thought! They simply *ASSUMED* an exclusive relationship but no evidence was presented for a "null hypothesis" of any sort. The whole thing is about as 'unscientific' as it gets in terms of their 'study methods' IMO. No control groups. No other topics during the active brain scans were discussed and analyzed to determine the uniqueness of the brainwave pattern. In fact the whole thing was a sham in that sense. You need a 'control method' in real science. There was none presented. If there were any studies that were actually published that showed any such exclusive link, they failed to mention it.



Not really. That fear of being ridiculed by the "group" is virtually unrelated to the topic we might apply it too. Astronomers that might favor EU theory would be wise to keep their mouth shut in this 'dark' age of astronomy if they hope to keep their job and feed their family. Those peer pressures effect ALL groups, even political groups. Again, this whole "the bad Christians pressured me into to" motivation was NOT related *EXCLUSIVELY* to religion, and yet nobody pointed out that flaw in the presentation other than me. Why not? Because you didn't want to find any flaws in that presentation and you certainly don't want do defend them publicly against an actual "skeptic" of their methods.



I get the distinct impression that I not only watched it more attentively than you did, I actually thought about it, and how their methods might apply to other topics and other groups. You never seem to have even thought about whether or not their evidence related EXCLUSIVELY to religious thought, you simply ASSUMED it, just like they did.



Of course it does. If you intend to use psychology to "explain" something as broad and complex as "religion", you're going to have to understand how it applies to other topics as well, particularly if you intend to suggest 'it's all in their heads'.



What exactly are you calling an "agent" if not an "object of the mind"?



Accusing me of the later is reasonable considering your concerns, but I did watch the video as you requested, I thought about the flaws in presentation, which you did not seem to have done, and I have expressed those concerns. I've yet to hear you address them. How do you know that the circumstantial evidence they provided related to brain scan evidence was limited to RELIGIOUS ideas and religious ideas alone? Did you even stop to think that those same regions of the brain that "light up" while we think about those questions might also be the same areas that light up when we discuss the topic of cosmology for instance?



IMO, it's your side that is being evasive and not really providing an actual "scientific" argument based on non-circumstantial evidence. I saw nothing mentioned in his presentation that suggested he had discussed other topics with his participants and found a pattern that was exclusive ONLY to religious beliefs. Did you? At what point in the video did he present such evidence?



You'll give me one last chance? Is that your version of "peer pressure" or something? I've tried to explain now EXACTLY where I believe the FLAWS in that presentation are located. I'd like to hear your response, and give you the benefit of the doubt, just "one last time".

Right, you haven't got a clue what the theory is. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Michael]

1) Absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.

Which I suppose is why atheists are typically weak atheists rather than strong atheists. Consider me a "weak atheist" as it applies to any other theory of the cosmos.

And there is other evidence for dark matter's existence.

Which evidence suggests that any "missing mass" is found in exotic forms of matter that have yet to be seen on Earth?

2) As I said, there are some flaws with peer-review.

Some? It's all about peer pressure and toeing the party line. One can write about SUSY theories in astronomy till the cows come home, but never a peep about "electricity" in space. It's a sham IMO. More often than not the whole 'publishing' process is simply used to "remove dissent".

Ideally, it should be completely impartial, as should all journals and editors. But that is obviously not going to happen. This is not a fault specifically of the scientific method, this is a fault of human psychology.

You're right. All those psychological pressures and biases are bound to play a role in the process.

And I don't see how worshipping a god is any better alternative.

In an empirical sense, you might think of it as "worshiping empiricism" to the rejection of metaphysics entirely. Nothing I 'worship' cannot be tested in a lab.

As I said, I can't tell you, becuase I don't know. You could say I'm agnostic to it. So why do you keep asking me?

I was simply trying to get a handle on what exactly you consider to be 'evidence' of an idea. Your answers didn't help much.

You really like supersymmetry, don't you? Cherry-picking much?

Ok, so I admit, astronomy is my passion, and SUSY theory just so happens to span both the fields of astronomy and particle physics theory. It seems appropriate since SUSY theories appear in virtually EVERY scientific publication related to either field of study. Can you think of a "better' scientific analogy that might apply to this topic?

This is a false analogy. I don't accept the theory that posits dark energy's existence to the degree that I accept the theory of gravity, if that is what you are wondering.

That was a helpful answer. Thanks. I was wondering.

Also, theories about the existence of god are different theories to those that underpin our knowledge of the universe.

How so? How is your "preferred" understanding of the universe any "better" in terms of actual "knowledge" than mine?

I don't see how this is analogous to any other occurrence anywhere, nor do I see its relevance.

Through direct interactions we have learned that things that have come to us have usually come to us "intentionally". I think most theists have that same relationship with God.

Not really relevant. Maybe you missed it the first time. I NEVER SAID EVOLUTION ENTAILED THE LACK OF EXISTENCE OF A GOD.

Actually I'm fine with your position, I'm just figuring out your position on a variety of subtopics and you're not the only individual I'm talking to about these issues. Bear with me a bit.

The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for a purpose. Reflecting dad-style doesn't really work unless you're at a dad-like level of intelligence.

I can't really say that I know Dad, so discussing him with me is pretty much pointless IMO.

It simply means that god, if he exists, governs less of the universe.

I really think you should read through the first few pages of my first thread on the Empirical theory of God. Assuming I'm right, God governs everything, or in your vernacular at the moment, the laws of the universe govern everything. I think you're making "leaps of faith" where none are implied or required.

And if he governs that which has already been explained, then why can we not observe his presence?

I think we might and I suggested something similar to the brain scan experiments with EM measuring capabilities both inside and outside of the brain.

And if we cannot, then logically what is the necessity of his existence?

I don't believe one can adequately explain the wide range of human experiences with something they call God without it.

You would have to ask an astrophysicist. But from what I understand, it is the simplest explanation for Hubble's Law.

It's not really 'simple' because nothing travels faster than light, and space never expands in the lab. Other than that, ya, I suppose you could call the idea "simple" enough. Hubble himself wasn't as convinced as the mainstream that it was a 'law' by the way. It was more of a distance/redshift rule of thumb then.

As for why you don't see it in the lab, if you look at the Hubble constant, and convert it into more everyday units, that comes out to a difference in velocity between 2 points, 1km apart, of 1m every 14 million years.

There are a few basic problems with that concept. Nothing moves faster than light, space never expands in the lab, and the redshift phenomenon may be related to 'tired light' not movement at all.

arXiv.org Search

What make you prefer an "expansion of space" sort of "explanation"? What is 'space'? Only 'spacetime' is defined in GR. In GR objects in motion can stay in motion, but how does space ''expand"?

Answers: I don't, really; I haven't; and nothing very conclusive at all.

Helpful insights. Thanks.

 

[Michael]

Right, you haven't got a clue what the theory is. Thanks for clearing that up.

Ah, you can't handle a real debate nor deal with any criticisms about the content of the video. Thanks for clearing that up for us.