Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

[Guy1]

If they are scientists, then why are they not open to competing ideas which have empirical support in a science lab, such as plasma redshift?

They already did. For once I'll admit some bias. The fact that Michael is trumpeting this as some sort of ground breaking thing automatically makes me think the exact opposite (and that scientists do as well). Sadly I'm inclined to immediately disbelieve everything your guys say just to save myself the time.

The least they can do is check out the actual experiment in the science lab rather than pick at a math equation.

Science is all about the math; physics especially, since it's all basically applied mathematics.

So the only reason you support their ideas is because they are physicists? Is that it?

Basically. They know full well what they're talking about, so their opinion carries quite a bit of weight. When individual scientists poke at other scientists, you're about as justified regardless of which side you take. When scientists poke at laymen, you're better off just listening to the truly educated.

I think what you have here are two different and competing scientific ideas (the Big Bang model and EU/PC model), both of which are studied and proposed by physicists. Real physicists.

So far, General Relativity is winning out.

It's then a matter of which ideas and physicists you choose to support.

Not when there's a scientific consensus. In that case, majority is probably right.

I’m not a physicist, but I’m thinking mathematics is used in science to support an idea that has been empirically verified, so even if there are difficulties with the math that does not change the fact that the idea has been empirically verified.

Math is a part of empirical verification. If your numbers are off, you're clearly doing something wrong.

Maybe that's what Einstein was alluding to when he said:

"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically." - Albert Einstein

Why are you quoting the guy whose achievements weren't empirically tested until decades after their publication?

 

[mzungu]

If the soul is indestructible then how come the severely mentally handicapped people cannot function properly? How come substances such as alcohol and narcotics override this Soul's ability to control the brain?

What of the people who are born so incapacitated mentally that they cannot even feed themselves, do they have a soul? If yes then do they end up in heaven or in hell? Also does their soul have sentience?

My opinion is that such a thing as a soul does not and cannot exist as the evidence against it (brain damage or brain manipulation through chemical and or other stimuli) is so overwhelming that it relegates the Soul into the realms of make believe, superstition, supernatural.

 

[Michael]

They already did.

Like what? When did "dark energy" ever get linked to redshift in the lab?

For once I'll admit some bias. The fact that Michael is trumpeting this as some sort of ground breaking thing automatically makes me think the exact opposite (and that scientists do as well). Sadly I'm inclined to immediately disbelieve everything your guys say just to save myself the time.

Ya, I know exactly how you feel. I tend to tune out some atheists for pretty much the same reason.

Science is all about the math; physics especially, since it's all basically applied mathematics.

No, "science" is EMPIRICAL. Math is simply a "description" of what natures does, and how it does it. That math may or may not be accurate. Math isn't the king of physics. Emirical physics is it's own king. The mainstream math is simply magical forms of math applied to supernatural invisible sky entities, sky entities entirely DEVOID of ANY KIND of empirical qualification.

Basically. They know full well what they're talking about, so their opinion carries quite a bit of weight.

Appeal to authority much? So how do you personally compare to someone like Jesus who knew what they were talking about on the topic of their "expertise"? Why the heck should any theist here believe anything you have to say?

When individual scientists poke at other scientists, you're about as justified regardless of which side you take. When scientists poke at laymen, you're better off just listening to the truly educated.

So when atheist amateurs come a calling to this forum we should all tune them out and listen to those who are "truly educated" like the Pope? How far do you take this "experts are always right" thing of yours?

So far, General Relativity is winning out.

When was "dark energy" ever related to "General relativity" in a lab? You do realize that "blunder theory" with dark energy ad-ons is NOT the same as the form of "General Relativity" that Einstein taught, right? Do you even understand that GR is in no way dependent upon the dark sky entities of Lambda-magic theory?

FYI, PC/EU theory is simply a description of the universe based on a strict brand of GR theory (constant set to zero like Einstein did it), and MHD theory. GR theory isn't OWNED by the mainstream, nor is GR theory in any way dependent upon "dark energy". Dark energy isn't even something that belongs in a GR formula in the first place. It's like stuffing magic into a GR formula and trying to claim "magic did it, and GR proves it"! What a crock. GR theory will "win out" alright, but dark energy has nothing to do with GR anymore than magic is related to GR. The fact you stick something into a ZERO of a math formula doesn't mean you automatically gain credibility by that action.

Not when there's a scientific consensus. In that case, majority is probably right.

Well then, by you logic, more than half the planet honors Jesus and you're just another "amateur" we should simply ignore.

Math is a part of empirical verification. If your numbers are off, you're clearly doing something wrong.

Did you find any mathematical errors in that last redshift paper I handed you that applied the plasma redshift lab results to astronomy?

It appears that your ENTIRE belief system is predicated on nothing more than appeal to authority fallacy and "blind faith" in invisible sky entities that are more impotent on Earth than your average religious icon.

 

[Michael]

If the soul is indestructible then how come the severely mentally handicapped people cannot function properly? How come substances such as alcohol and narcotics override this Soul's ability to control the brain?

Who ever claimed that "soul" controlled physical flesh? Apparently that's YOUR strawman, not something we claimed.

What of the people who are born so incapacitated mentally that they cannot even feed themselves, do they have a soul? If yes then do they end up in heaven or in hell? Also does their soul have sentience?

Their soul "learns" from their experiences of life, but it's not physically damaged by them, nor it is limited to ONLY such experiences.

My opinion is that such a thing as a soul does not and cannot exist as the evidence against it (brain damage or brain manipulation through chemical and or other stimuli) is so overwhelming that it relegates the Soul into the realms of make believe, superstition, supernatural.

Absolutely amazing. Magical stuff, and obviously "supernatural" human creations, even RECENT human creations like "inflation" and "dark energy" get a free pass with you folks, but you write off a truly ANCIENT idea based on nothing more than a few frivolous handwaves and strawman arguments.

 

[mzungu]

Absolutely amazing. Magical stuff, and obviously "supernatural" human creations, even RECENT human creations like "inflation" and "dark energy" get a free pass with you folks, but you write off a truly ANCIENT idea based on nothing more than a few frivolous handwaves and strawman arguments.

You mean ancient ideas such as Geocentrism, a flat earth, talking snakes, 6,000 year old earth etc Yeah right

 

[Michael]

You mean ancient ideas such as Geocentrism, a flat earth, talking snakes, 6,000 year old earth etc Yeah right

No, I'm talking about ancient ideas like the Earth, suns, moons, God, tangible things that humans have interacted with and described since the dawn of recorded human civilization.

Inflation and dark energy sky deities are akin to a "new age" religion, something like "Scientology" and Xenu.

 

[Michael]

First of all- no. I am not one of those physicists. I am a 2nd year molecular biology undergrad.

So really, your whole argument boils down to an appeal to authority fallacy. How ironic considering the arguments comes from an atheist on a "Christian" website who fancies themselves as "smarter" than Jesus on the topic of God. Whereas Jesus is revered by billions of Muslims and Christians alike on the topic of God, they all consider atheists to be random schmucks off the street. Wow, talk about ironic arguments!

Now how do I know they're right? Well I don't know that they're right, but I have good reason to take their word over Michael's These people have spent a good portion of their lives studying, working, practically crawling over glass to understand the subject at hand.

Yet not a single one of them even knows where "dark energy" comes from. Pardon me if I find your "experts" to be a bit lacking in "knowledge" considering the fact that 95 percent of the universe is "dark" to them.

These are not some random schmucks off the street; they're scientists.

So what? Compared to Jesus, every atheist on this website is simply another random schmuck off the street on the topic of "God". When did appeal to 'authority' fallacies ever become the "be-all-end-all" of physics?

In the end it's the fact that I'm an elitist. I believe certain people are especially qualified in certain areas and whose opinions should be regarded above all other's.

Likewise Christians like myself tend to trust the word of Jesus over some random atheist I meet in cyberspace. So what?

We go to the doctor when we feel ill, we go to the dentist when we want our cavities filled, and we go to the surgeon when we need an operation. We do not go to the slack-jawed hillbilly when we want to learn about the laws that govern the universe.

So really, when you have no valid argument, when your pseudoscientific show comes crashing down to the ground, you pull the oldest, cheapest, dirtiest trick in the book and compare to me to a "slack-jawed hillbilly"? Wow, what a fine moral character you show while debating this topic. Shall I return the favor now and compare you personally to a "spawn of satan", or something equally ridiculous? Before I continue debating you, is there any "low road" you won't take in public debate?

When a scientist is telling you that every single thing you're saying is wrong, you stop and seriously reconsider your position.

I have done so over and over again. The fact that not a single one of your "experts" even knows of a single source of "dark energy", pretty much ruined their credibility in my eyes over the years. Guthianity was a terrible addition to BB theory, but the dark energy deity pushed me over the top I'm afraid.

Ok. I'm done for now. Sorry for dumping all of this on you, but scientists are my heroes. I can't quite stand it when people don't listen to them.

So you can imagine how "Christians" like myself, on a Christian website no less, might feel about evangelical atheists trying to undermine the credibility of Jesus. Does that mean we should compare all such individuals to "slack jawed hillbillies" and treat them with contempt?

They gave you the evidence,

What EMPIRICAL "evidence"? You keep IGNORING that plasma redshift observation from the lab and you keep IGNORING the implications of that observation just like they are doing. You can't demonstrate that "space" expands in the lab, or that matter expands faster than light, or that "dark energy" can accelerate even a single atom in a lab! These are all acts of PURE FAITH on your part, and their part. Ironically your sky deities are more impotent on Earth than any theist's concept of "God", and you can't site a single source for any of them.

they corrected your mistakes,

Which mistake? Did they even ADDRESS that plasma redshift observation in the lab? Hell no! The all ran from the conversation the moment I cited that data. You will too, just watch.

and they explained it in exquisite detail.

Except that small DETAIL about my request for empirical QUALIFICATION you mean?

You didn't like it, is the thing.

Well, EXCUSE ME for not being impressed with impotent on Earth sky deities that have no effect on my whatsoever in my daily life on Earth.

If you have a problem; I suggest you sit down, ask them honest questions, and listen to their answers before rationalizing it away and going into denial.

I did that first. They had no actual honest answers, just mathematical sky mythologies, and qualification problems galore. They took the "low road" like you did too, they CHEATED. They attacked the individual rather than address the ACTUAL ISSUES, like that redshift observation in the lab. They used pure denial as their primary means of self defense. They even denied that electrical discharges occur in plasma for God sake! I've seen them in action now for many years and their nonsense isn't impressive to me, nor to many others in the "scientific" community:

cosmologystatement.org

Slackjawed ignorant hillbillies one and all I presume?

 

[mzungu]

No, I'm talking about ancient ideas like the Earth, suns, moons, God, tangible things that humans have interacted with and described since the dawn of recorded human civilization.

Inflation and dark energy sky deities are akin to a "new age" religion, something like "Scientology" and Zenu.

Humans interacted with the moons and suns

Just as I said in my previous post: Flat earth, Geocentrism, talking snakes, etc. etc.

If you hate science so much then why on earth are you using a computer

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Who ever claimed that "soul" controlled physical flesh? Apparently that's YOUR strawman, not something we claimed.



Their soul "learns" from their experiences of life, but it's not physically damaged by them, nor it is limited to ONLY such experiences.



Absolutely amazing. Magical stuff, and obviously "supernatural" human creations, even RECENT human creations like "inflation" and "dark energy" get a free pass with you folks, but you write off a truly ANCIENT idea based on nothing more than a few frivolous handwaves and strawman arguments.

If your soul has nothing to do with your mind experiencing the world you are living in during this life, then, um, what is it? Because Mzungu has made it quite plain that the mind is a product of the brain. If the soul is something separate, what is it? And how do you know you have one?

 

[Guy1]

So really, your whole argument boils down to an appeal to authority fallacy.

No. I appeal to their education and as such, make the argument that their opinions carry more weight than yours.

It's an argument from authority used in a non-fallacious manner since: A) These people are actual authorities on the subject; and B) There is some consensus on the issue.

How ironic considering the arguments comes from an atheist on a "Christian" website who fancies themselves as "smarter" than Jesus on the topic of God.

So many things wrong with this statement.

Whereas Jesus is revered by billions of Muslims and Christians alike on the topic of God, they all consider atheists to be random schmucks off the street. Wow, talk about ironic arguments!

Yet some of them are theologians, former preachers, or other people one would consider "educated" on the subject.

Yet not a single one of them even knows where "dark energy" comes from.

Nobody even knows what it is; much less where it comes from.

Pardon me if I find your "experts" to be a bit lacking in "knowledge" considering the fact that 95 percent of the universe is "dark" to them.

I find you to be even worse off when you can't even wrap your head around the 5% they do understand.

So what? Compared to Jesus, every atheist on this website is simply another random schmuck off the street on the topic of "God". When did appeal to 'authority' fallacies ever become the "be-all-end-all" of physics?

When did the conversation shift over to Jesus?

Likewise Christians like myself tend to trust the word of Jesus over some random atheist I meet in cyberspace. So what?

I'm still not getting where all this is coming from.

So really, when you have no valid argument, when your pseudoscientific show comes crashing down to the ground,

Pseudoscientific show? No valid argument?

you pull the oldest, cheapest, dirtiest trick in the book and compare to me to a "slack-jawed hillbilly"?

Michael, I think there's been a misunderstanding here. I'm not comparing you to a slack-jawed hillbilly in my other post. I'm outright calling you one. I can see how you would miss that. My apologies for not making it clearer.

Wow, what a fine moral character you show while debating this topic. Shall I return the favor now and compare you personally to a "spawn of satan", or something equally ridiculous?

Go for it. Hell, you could call me "Lucifer's evil twin" if you want. Unlike you, I don't get my panties in a twist over what people call me.

Before I continue debating you, is there any "low road" you won't take in public debate?

Resorting to logical fallacies.

I have done so over and over again. The fact that not a single one of your "experts" even knows of a single source of "dark energy", pretty much ruined their credibility in my eyes over the years.

I'm still not getting how "They don't know" translates to "I know better."

So you can imagine how "Christians" like myself, on a Christian website no less, might feel about evangelical atheists trying to undermine the credibility of Jesus.

"Evangelical atheists." That line made me giggle.

Does that mean we should compare all such individuals to "slack jawed hillbillies" and treat them with contempt?

You do the latter anyway. You might as well go all the way and call em names.

What EMPIRICAL "evidence"? You keep IGNORING that plasma redshift observation from the lab and you keep IGNORING the implications of that observation just like they are doing.

You keep RUBBING it in the molecular bio undergrad's FACE as THOUGH he UNDERSTANDS the subject WELL ENOUGH to ARGUE with you on it in ANY MEANINGFUL WAY. TALK to THE physicists if YOU want TO have any SORT of DEBATE. (I am indeed mocking you.)

You can't demonstrate that "space" expands in the lab, or that matter expands faster than light, or that "dark energy" can accelerate even a single atom in a lab! These are all acts of PURE FAITH on your part, and their part. Ironically your sky deities are more impotent on Earth than any theist's concept of "God", and you can't site a single source for any of them.

This all reads as "You're no different than me, so I win!" In reality though, the people looking into dark matter and dark energy actually know what they're talking about.

Which mistake? Did they even ADDRESS that plasma redshift observation in the lab? Hell no! The all ran from the conversation the moment I cited that data. You will too, just watch.

Several things:

I'm sure they took care of everything. One thing I've come to expect of the scientists on here is just how thorough their responses are. They know you won't listen, yet they spend god knows how long working to respond to every last one of your points.

Except that small DETAIL about my request for empirical QUALIFICATION you mean?

WHAT do you MEAN by EMPIRICAL qualification? Are you talking about Quantification? (Again I mock you.)

I did that first. They had no actual honest answers, just mathematical sky mythologies, and qualification problems galore.

Mathematics and physics are inextricably linked, Michael.

They used pure denial as their primary means of self defense.

This is coming from the guy who refuses to see the value of mathematics in physics.

cosmologystatement.org

Slackjawed ignorant hillbillies one and all I presume?

Or, more likely, a misrepresentation. Much the same way creationists compiled a list of people with degrees who had signed a document saying they were skeptical of evolutionary theory, then trumpeted said list around as though these people were creationists.

Aside from this, I'll let the smart people take over again (If they feel like dealing with you again).

 

[Michael]

No. I appeal to their education and as such, make the argument that their opinions carry more weight than yours.

Then you're already off to a bad start IMO because most of them don't even own a book, nor have they ever read a book on the topic of plasma physics. Only a very few seem to understand it, but the vast majority of them are clueless as to even BASIC plasma physics. Plasma redshift? What plasma redshift? Discharges in plasma? What discharges? Sheesh!

Most of them are CLUELESS about the fact that plasma redshift has already been observed in the lab too. So much for their "education" in important aspects of ACTUAL PHYSICS.

What you're talking about is an "education" in the religious "dogma" of the "dark energy/matter" metaphysical arts. Unfortunately their education seems quite limited even in these areas, since not one of them can even cite a single known SOURCE of "dark" anything and dark things make up a whopping 95 percent of their entire theory! Education in physics and education in a "dark religion" are two entirely different issues.

It's an argument from authority used in a non-fallacious manner since: A) These people are actual authorities on the subject; and B) There is some consensus on the issue.

So what? "Scientific consensus" doesn't define "truth", not in "past sciences", and not in today's "scientific consensus" either. It's still an appeal to authority fallacy used in a FALLACIOUS manner because you too failed to produce even a SHRED of EMPIRICAL data that actually supports their dark sky religion.

Yet some of them are theologians, former preachers, or other people one would consider "educated" on the subject.

So what? They surely aren't the "consensus" on the topic so according to you their opinions are irrelevant too.

Nobody even knows what it is; much less where it comes from.

You call that "education" eh? I call that "indoctrination" into the dark arts.

I find you to be even worse off when you can't even wrap your head around the 5% they do understand.

They, as a group, don't understand much about plasma physics. Anyone that would deny the fact that electrical discharges can occur in plasma can't be particularly "educated" on that topic.

When did the conversation shift over to Jesus?

Since you started using authority figures as the be-all-end-all on a CHRISTIAN website no less.

I'm still not getting where all this is coming from.

You're not getting it because you refuse to embrace the flip side of your own argument. If consensus is all that matters, and "authority" is paramount, your "atheism" amounts to a "slackjawed hillbilly" position. I guess you don't apply the appeal to authority concepts to your OWN beliefs.

Pseudoscientific show? No valid argument?

Name ONE valid empirical lab experiment that demonstrates that "dark energy" isn't a figment of your overactive imagination and a direct result of your LACK OF KNOWLEDGE related to plasma redshift!

Michael, I think there's been a misunderstanding here. I'm not comparing you to a slack-jawed hillbilly in my other post. I'm outright calling you one. I can see how you would miss that. My apologies for not making it clearer.

Your emotional need to attack the individual will not ever justify your faith in dark energy. It won't change those laboratory confirmations of plasma redshift, and it weakens not only your argument itself, but it speaks to your own hypocrisy as well.

Go for it. Hell, you could call me "Lucifer's evil twin" if you want. Unlike you, I don't get my panties in a twist over what people call me.

You missed the point. Attacking PEOPLE is really a pathetic excuse for a scientific argument. The fact you can't show any empirical connection between acceleration and dark energy is no skin off my nose, and no amount of personal attacks will make up for you own lack of an empirical argument.

Resorting to logical fallacies.

Not me, you. I'm resorting to tested empirical laboratory physics. You're the one who has an emotional need to attack PEOPLE not ideas.

I'm still not getting how "They don't know" translates to "I know better."

You don't see the irony yet? I don't see how "they (astronomers know better in your opinion) translates to anything about your personal knowledge claims. The fact you're just as ignorant as they are in terms of where dark energy comes from isn't making you look "knowledgeable", nor is it making them look knowledgeable. In fact it clearly points out the QUALIFICATION problems of mainstream theory.

"Evangelical atheists." That line made me giggle.

They certainly exist.

You do the latter anyway. You might as well go all the way and call em names.

I don't have to. I can show that there theories are useless. That's better in the final analysis IMO.

You keep RUBBING it in the molecular bio undergrad's FACE as THOUGH he UNDERSTANDS the subject WELL ENOUGH to ARGUE with you on it in ANY MEANINGFUL WAY. TALK to THE physicists if YOU want TO have any SORT of DEBATE. (I am indeed mocking you.)

You're essentially mocking me from a place of pure ignorance, and you're mocking empirical physics. You'll understand if I don't find you mocking to be of much value.

This all reads as "You're no different than me, so I win!" In reality though, the people looking into dark matter and dark energy actually know what they're talking about.

The hell they do. They don't "understand" the first thing about it, namely a SOURCE! They don't understand it at all! That's how little YOU even understand THEIR theories.

Several things:

I'm sure they took care of everything.

I'm sure they RAN AWAY the moment that the topic of observed (in the lab) plasma redshift came up. Why do you suppose they didn't respond to such an IMPORTANT VERIFIED PREDICTION of PC/EU theory?

One thing I've come to expect of the scientists on here is just how thorough their responses are. They know you won't listen, yet they spend god knows how long working to respond to every last one of your points.

Their responses included no empirical qualification of dark energy, and no justification for the idea. The moment we observed plasma redshift in the lab, is the moment their theory was falsified. They don't even know that plasma redshift has been observed in the lab, so their theory is really a walking zombie theory at this point. It's based primarily upon IGNORANCE of the empirical facts, specifically the fact that plasma redshift has ALREADY been observed in the lab.

WHAT do you MEAN by EMPIRICAL qualification? Are you talking about Quantification?

No, I"m talking about QUALIFICATION. Slapping numbers on "magic energy" and then replacing a ZERO in a GR formula with my "magic energy" has one very glaring problem. There is no justification for replacing that zero with anything, let alone "magic energy". There is no empirical evidence that "dark energy" even exists, let alone that it causes anything with mass to accelerate. Therefore stuffing "dark energy" into a GR formula is no better than me slapping "God energy" into that same formula.

Mathematics and physics are inextricably linked, Michael.

Ya, but when I handed you a mathematical link between observed plasma redshift in the lab, and events in space, you utterly ignored it. You ignored that particular math entirely. So much for math. You don't give a damn about math.

This is coming from the guy who refuses to see the value of mathematics in physics.

BS. I handed you math. You ignored it. You're the one that refuses to see the value of PHYSICS, particularly lab tested physics. Math has nothing to do with it.

Or, more likely, a misrepresentation. Much the same way creationists compiled a list of people with degrees who had signed a document saying they were skeptical of evolutionary theory, then trumpeted said list around as though these people were creationists.

Aside from this, I'll let the smart people take over again (If they feel like dealing with you again).

If they actually were as "smart" as you claim, they would A) be more educated in PLASMA PHYSICS, and B) have some idea of the source of "dark energy", and C) already be aware that plasma redshift occurs in the lab. Since they typically deny the fact that electrical discharges occur in plasma, they're clueless that plasma redshift has already been observed in the lab, and they have no idea where dark energy comes from, your claim about them being oh so "smart" rings rather hollow.

Go ahead and worship "scientists" all you like but they're human beings just like you and me and they're fully capable of making mistakes just like you and me. No amount of trying to ride their coattails makes up for the fact that "dark energy" has never been linked to redshift in the lab, or make up for the fact that plasma redshift has been observed in the lab. You seem so ignorant of the core issues, I doubt you even realize WHY observed plasma redshift in the lab is such a threat to their "religion".

 

[Michael]

If your soul has nothing to do with your mind experiencing the world you are living in during this life, then, um, what is it?

The point I'm trying to convey is that nobody suggested that a soul could take over, nor make up for bodily functions of the flesh. I wouldn't expect a soul to "take over" and replace the physical functions of a liver or a kidney. Likewise I wouldn't expect a soul to be able to compensate for brain damage.

 

[mzungu]

The point I'm trying to convey is that nobody suggested that a soul could take over, nor make up for bodily functions of the flesh. I wouldn't expect a soul to "take over" and replace the physical functions of a liver or a kidney. Likewise I wouldn't expect a soul to be able to compensate for brain damage.

So what is its function and what good is it for

 

[Guy1]

Then you're already off to a bad start IMO because most of them don't even own a book, nor have they ever read a book on the topic of plasma physics. Only a very few seem to understand it, but the vast majority of them are clueless as to even BASIC plasma physics. Plasma redshift? What plasma redshift? Discharges in plasma? What discharges? Sheesh!

I can't do anything more than refer you to the smart people. I can't make heads or tails of what you say regardless of whether or not it holds water.

I'm just going to delete every tangent that has to do with plasma redshift from now on.

What you're talking about is an "education" in the religious "dogma" of the "dark energy/matter" metaphysical arts. Unfortunately their education seems quite limited even in these areas, since not one of them can even cite a single known SOURCE of "dark" anything and dark things make up a whopping 95 percent of their entire theory! Education in physics and education in a "dark religion" are two entirely different issues.

You undermine the knowledge these people worked for years to absorb, the consensus that a majority of physicists have reached, and reject physics education as "dogmatic." There is no talking to you anymore when you choose to ignore, demean, and undermine everything and everyone that disagrees with you.

So what? "Scientific consensus" doesn't define "truth", not in "past sciences", and not in today's "scientific consensus" either.

Now you undermine the very scientific method by rejecting the consensus reached through it's very application?

It's still an appeal to authority fallacy used in a FALLACIOUS manner because you too failed to produce even a SHRED of EMPIRICAL data that actually supports their dark sky religion.

It is not since: A) These are actual authorities on the matter, and B) There is a strong consensus among them.

So what? They surely aren't the "consensus" on the topic so according to you their opinions are irrelevant too.

Who knows? We'd have to bring up an individual claim to see if it is or not.

You call that "education" eh? I call that "indoctrination" into the dark arts.

I call that hypothesizing.

Since you started using authority figures as the be-all-end-all on a CHRISTIAN website no less.

That... makes no sense.

You're not getting it because you refuse to embrace the flip side of your own argument. If consensus is all that matters, and "authority" is paramount, your "atheism" amounts to a "slackjawed hillbilly" position. I guess you don't apply the appeal to authority concepts to your OWN beliefs.

We listen to theologians when we want to hear about religion, no?

You missed the point. Attacking PEOPLE is really a pathetic excuse for a scientific argument. The fact you can't show any empirical connection between acceleration and dark energy is no skin off my nose, and no amount of personal attacks will make up for you own lack of an empirical argument.

You're barking up the wrong tree here. I'm an undergrad. I don't recall ever doing anything more than referring you to smarter people.

Not me, you. I'm resorting to tested empirical laboratory physics. You're the one who has an emotional need to attack PEOPLE not ideas.

I keep telling you to listen to the physicists. What more can one do when you refuse to actually talk to smarter people?

You don't see the irony yet? I don't see how "they (astronomers know better in your opinion) translates to anything about your personal knowledge claims.

I've made personal knowledge claims?

The fact you're just as ignorant as they are in terms of where dark energy comes from isn't making you look "knowledgeable", nor is it making them look knowledgeable.

I'm actually worse off. While they have an idea of what the possible culprits might be, I can't even begin to conceive of their existence without serious help.

In fact it clearly points out the QUALIFICATION problems of mainstream theory.

I shrug.

They certainly exist.

Of course they do little Mike.

I don't have to. I can show that there theories are useless. That's better in the final analysis IMO.

Then get a degree and take the world by storm.

You're essentially mocking me from a place of pure ignorance, and you're mocking empirical physics. You'll understand if I don't find you mocking to be of much value.

No, I'm mocking your capitalization of words. Sorry I couldn't make that clearer. I just thought you could have figured that out on your own.

The hell they do. They don't "understand" the first thing about it, namely a SOURCE!

What's with this obsession over a source? You're chastising them for not knowing everything. If you think you can do a better job, then get a degree and publish your research. While you're at it, why don't you produce the Final Theory for us?

There is no empirical evidence that "dark energy" even exists, let alone that it causes anything with mass to accelerate.

You know the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up, right? We call whatever is causing that "Dark energy."

In this case I deleted all the stuff I couldn't get. It's not because I don't think it holds water.

Ya, but when I handed you a mathematical link between observed plasma redshift in the lab, and events in space, you utterly ignored it. You ignored that particular math entirely. So much for math. You don't give a damn about math.

Michael. You do understand I'm a molecular bio undergrad, right? I can't assess this paper on my own. If the smarter people agree with it, then I'll be inclined to do as as well.

If they actually were as "smart" as you claim, they would have some idea of the source of "dark energy."

Not necessarily. I still don't get the point of chastising people for not knowing things.

Go ahead and worship scientists all you like

When did worship come into any of this?

But they're human beings just like you and me and they're fully capable of making mistakes just like you and me.

Nobody's said otherwise. But those human beings actually know what they're talking about. They may make mistakes, but they're not dishonest.

 

[Doveaman]

If the soul is indestructible then how come the severely mentally handicapped people cannot function properly? How come substances such as alcohol and narcotics override this Soul's ability to control the brain?

My view of the soul is that it communicates with the body through the brain. So if the brain is altered or damaged, the soul's ability to communicate with the body becomes disrupted. The brain may become altered or damaged, but the soul is not. However, the soul's mechanism for communicating with the body is no longer functional, therefore the soul has no way of communicating with the body.

The soul and brain working together give rise to the human mind.

 

[Doveaman]

I believe certain people are especially qualified in certain areas and whose opinions should be regarded above all other's. We go to the doctor when we feel ill, we go to the dentist when we want our cavities filled, and we go to the surgeon when we need an operation.

If my doctor only understood 5% of the information related to his line of work I would change him quickly.

When a scientist is telling you that every single thing you're saying is wrong, you stop and seriously reconsider your position.

Not if he only understands 5% of the information related to his line of work.

Would you say you are naive?

 

[Elendur]

If my doctor only understood 5% of the information related to his line of work I would change him quickly.
Not if he only understands 5% of the information related to his line of work.

Would you say you are naive?

Why would you say he knows only 5% of the information related to his line of work? In fact, how would you know he knows that little (since you would probably know a lot less)?

 

[Michael]

I can't do anything more than refer you to the smart people.

What "smart people"? The fact they're in denial of the fact that electrical discharges occur in plasma, and are ignorant of the fact that plasma redshift has been documented in the lab shows that they aren't nearly as "smart" as you claim they are.

I can't make heads or tails of what you say regardless of whether or not it holds water.

That is because you are entirely ignorant of this topic and you have no idea about any of the importance of anything! You're ignorant not only of the history of BB prediction failures over time, you're also ignorant of plasma cosmology/electric universe theory and the importance of that redshift observation to BOTH theories!

I'm just going to delete every tangent that has to do with plasma redshift from now on.

The fact you think it's unrelated to the 'dark energy" claims of maintream theory is a RIOT!

You undermine the knowledge these people worked for years to absorb, the consensus that a majority of physicists have reached, and reject physics education as "dogmatic."

Pure BS. Physics education in cosmology theory SHOULD begin with a firm grasp of plasma physics because most of the KNOWN mass of the universe is in a plasma state. I get on them because they are NOT educated on plasma physics or plasma redshift, because they education is LACKING in the basics, not because they ARE properly educated. At least get your facts straight. I don't care if they've "worked for year" on "dark energy dogma". It's BS. Dark energy is just the last metaphysical gap filler they added that is DIRECTLY (not indirectly) related to that their claims about expansion and acceleration.

There is no talking to you anymore when you choose to ignore, demean, and undermine everything and everyone that disagrees with you.

Accept for our conversation, I've pretty much limited my disagreements to "ideas". I can't say I much care for your personal attack style however. I'm allowed to demean "ideas" in a debate, but you choose to take the cheezy way out and attack and demean PEOPLE. That behavior is just downright sleazy during debate IMO.

Now you undermine the very scientific method by rejecting the consensus reached through it's very application?

No, the scientific METHOD requires active EXPERIMENTATION and a method for falsification. They don't even understand the difference between pure OBSERVATION and a real experiment with real control mechanisms.

Keep in mind that I only reject ONE scientific theory, not the whole of science. I realize that you've love to dumb down my dissent for on cosmology theory and make it SEEM like I reject the whole of science, but that's just a ridiculous claim. You don't see me complaining about particle physicists, or electrical engineering do you?

It is not since: A) These are actual authorities on the matter, and B) There is a strong consensus among them.

It doesn't matter! They're still just PEOPLE, and that's still just an combo fallacy, specifically an appeal to authority fallacy (other experts disagree with them), and it's an appeal to popularity fallacy rolled into one.

Who knows? We'd have to bring up an individual claim to see if it is or not.

Huh? Christianity is *THE* single largest religion on the planet. They all honor Jesus. Islam is the SECOND largest religion on the planet. They all honor Jesus. There are pastors and religious leaders of both religions. You're just a "nobody" and so are those who've gone OUTSIDE of their "consensus" over the value of Jesus and the topic of God. Denial is your game I see. When in doubt, ignore the data that you don't care to deal with eh?

I call that hypothesizing.

It's akin to "hypothesizing" with dead and impotent sky deities. "Oh look, "dark sky energy god did it".

I need to stop here for a minute. I'll pickup where I left off in the next post.

 

[Michael]

That... makes no sense.

Well, it wasn't exactly great grammar, but the idea was correct. If you're going to pull a "consensus is all that matters" argument on me, and then claim that everyone outside of that consensus is a "slackjawed hillbilly", then that leaves you as an atheist simply swinging in the wind as it relates to the topic of God and the consensus of the "experts" in that particular field. By your own logic, you're nothing but a "slackjawed hillbilly" on that topic.

We listen to theologians when we want to hear about religion, no?

We listen to those that we ASSUME know more about the topic than we do. We seek "expert" advice.

You're barking up the wrong tree here. I'm an undergrad. I don't recall ever doing anything more than referring you to smarter people.

You never demonstrated that they're really all that "smart" in the first place. You've never demonstrated that being "smart" has anything to do with the QUALIFICATION problems of mainstream theory. You've never shown them to be "smarter" than me, or to you for that matter.

I keep telling you to listen to the physicists. What more can one do when you refuse to actually talk to smarter people?

I've talked to them and listened to them for 7 years now in cyberspace. They aren't nearly as "smart" as you seem to think they are. They're average people (some above average I'm sure) and they make mistakes just like you do, and just like I do. They aren't "smart" because they "understand" dark energy because none of them actually profess to "understand" it in the first place. Not one of them knew that redshift was observed in the lab. Not one of them told me that fact, I had to DISCOVER IT ON MY OWN. So much for them being particularly "smart".

I've made personal knowledge claims?

Apparently you're sure "smart people" know something about "dark energy" when none of the astronomers I've talked to even claim to "understand" it to begin with. Apparently you have knowledge that I'm a "slackjawed hillbilly". I have no idea how you decided that one.

I'm actually worse off. While they have an idea of what the possible culprits might be, I can't even begin to conceive of their existence without serious help.

So despite your hero worship of astronomers, you apparently know LESS about this subject than a "slackjawed hillbilly'. BEAUTIFUL!

I shrug.

Right. You shrug while I do real research yet in your mind *I* am the "slackjawed hillbilly". Wow!

Of course they do little Mike.

And the term "little" is mean to be personally derogatory I presume?

Then get a degree and take the world by storm.

A degree is necessary for some reason?

What's with this obsession over a source?

It's an obsession with empirical physics and QUALIFICATION, not just "quantification".

You're chastising them for not knowing everything.

I'm chastising them for not knowing ANYTHING useful about it! More importantly and specifically, I'm chastising YOU for acting like they have some "understanding" of this subject. They have almost NO understanding of this topic.

If you think you can do a better job, then get a degree and publish your research. While you're at it, why don't you produce the Final Theory for us?

I already provided you with a degreed scientist that produced a paper that explains redshift WITHOUT dark energy. Did you even bother to read it? If not, why should I believe that my personal statements and ideas are valuable to you or anyone else?

You know the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up, right? We call whatever is causing that "Dark energy."

No, actually I *DO NOT* actually KNOW any such thing. In fact it's the claim of KNOWLEDGE that is direct opposition to LABORATORY PHYSICS. Even if plasma redshift didn't occur in the lab AS PREDICTED by PC/EU theory, there would STILL be no qualified empirical link between acceleration and "dark energy".

Michael. You do understand I'm a molecular bio undergrad, right? I can't assess this paper on my own. If the smarter people agree with it, then I'll be inclined to do as as well.

So really your beliefs on this topic (including your claims about me) were not actually based upon personal KNOWLEDGE of the topic, but upon FAITH in unnamed "scientists" and some concept of a "consensus" that amounts to an appeal to authority fallacy in the final analysis.

Not necessarily. I still don't get the point of chastising people for not knowing things.

Except Christians and their beliefs about "soul" and God?

When did worship come into any of this?

You personal brand of hero worship came into this discussion the moment you labeled me a "slackjawed hillbilly" for daring to disagree with "smart people". It turns out that I know WAY more about this topic than you do.

Nobody's said otherwise. But those human beings actually know what they're talking about. They may make mistakes, but they're not dishonest.

Honesty begins by acknowledging your mistakes. They don't even KNOW yet (as a group) that plasma redshift has been observed in the lab. They aren't even that "smart" yet. What little they THINK they "know" turns out to have actually been falsified in that observation of plasma redshift in the lab, but unlike you they KNOW why it's an "issue" for them.

Maybe you personally should educate yourself on this topic before you start hurling personal insults at people who actually do understand it better than you do. Considering the fact you're blissfully unaware of the ramification of that laboratory observation of plasma redshift and it's implication on dark energy theory, you have no right to be complain about MY lack of an education. At least this "slackjawed hillbilly" knows a hell of a lot more about this topic than you do. What does that make you?

 

[Michael]

So what is its function and what good is it for

According to all the traditions of various religion, it's apparently quite good for housing awareness/consciousness after physical death.

I really don't know of anyone that expects a soul to be able to physically take over for damaged human body parts, not a liver or a brain. I tend to agree with Doveman. The connection point to soul would likely be a brain. If that brain is damaged, it's not like there's even necessarily a working connection anymore.