Atheistic Scientists Pushing Their Religion

[dcarrera]

That was a complete cop out, just like when you ran from Peratt's paper on galaxy mass layouts.

But that's what the definitions say! You posted them yourself. Didn't you read them?

And I do. I see *part* of the elephant.

Sigh... Ok, next time you see god take a photograph and post it, ok?

Pure smoke and mirrors. None of that necessitates 'space' do any magic expansion tricks since nothing of sort occurs *anywhere* humans have ever been, and gravity has been everywhere we've been.

If what you meant to ask is for a test as to whether space is capable of expanding, just say so clearly. Don't blame me for your inability to communicate.

You've still provided no falsification mechanism, nor can you eliminate Doppler shift and time dilation as the actual culprit based on the fact that you simply dodged the GR paper entirely.

You did not ask me for a test to eliminate Doppler shift or time dilation. You asked me for a test to falsify that space expansion can cause photon redshift. Eliminating Doppler shift or time dilation would not do that.

 

[Michael]

But that's what the definitions say! You posted them yourself. Didn't you read them?

I read them. I have no idea how you'd distinguish between them as it relates to your space expansion claims or your exotic matter of the gaps claims. Elendur at least made an honest attempt to differentiate between them, but you did not.

Sigh... Ok, next time you see god take a photograph and post it, ok?

The next photograph you take of deep space, just think of me and God and you'll get the picture.

If what you meant to ask is for a test as to whether space is capable of expanding, just say so clearly. Don't blame me for your inability to communicate.

Like you actually had no idea what I meant?

You did not ask me for a test to eliminate Doppler shift or time dilation. You asked me for a test to falsify that space expansion can cause photon redshift. Eliminating Doppler shift or time dilation would not do that.

Care to answer the question yet? How do I falsify *your* claim given the various options to choose from?

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

 

[BL2KTN]

That same 'pattern recognition' combined with observation is what makes 'science' even possible. Without it, there would be nothing like science at all. Our eyes evolved to observe *real* light. Our ears, to hear *real* sound, and our feelings to provide *useful* information about the *real* world around us. You're asking me to believe that something inside the brain evolved in a way to provide 'experiences' of something that people associate with God, but God is *not* real. Why would you assume that when every other structure inside that brain that evolved to provide input to awareness is designed to detect *real* things (like photons)?

Science is testable, falsifiable, repeatable... anecdotal experiences are not (though I look forward to unlocking memories in the brain over the next decades).

 

[lesliedellow]

It is a Christian forum, and you are evangelizing pantheism. I do not see the connection between the two.

You are not the only one.

 

[Davian]

.

 

[Michael]

Science is testable,

I can't test his claim that space expansion has some tangible effect on a photon in a lab. Space doesn't do such magic tricks in the lab.

falsifiable,

Let's first hear what Daniel comes up with before jumping to any conclusions.

repeatable...

I can't get space to do magic tricks to a photon even once in the lab, let alone repeat it.

anecdotal experiences are not

How is the statement of faith "photon redshift is caused by space expansion' not 'anecdotal'?

(though I look forward to unlocking memories in the brain over the next decades).

Me too by the way. You might check out Orch-OR theory sometime:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7817813/

 

[Michael]

To date, every "God" has been a dud in the lab.

At least I've proposed some ideas on how we might try to look for the connections in real lab experiments. That's more than Daniel can offer.

It is a Christian forum, and you are evangelizing pantheism. I do not see the connection between the two.

Really?

http://clayton.ctr4process.org/files/papers/TheCaseforXtianPanentheism1.pdf
Biblical Panentheism: God in all things

Just type in Christian Panetheism. You'll find *tons* of links and lots of debates on the topic. It's not like I was the first human being in the history of humanity to put the two concepts together. They're a bit like chocolate and peanut butter IMO.

 

[Michael]

You are not the only one.

John 17:

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it; that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

 

[lesliedellow]

John 17:

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it; that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

Only you could read that to mean that we are "of the same substance" as God. It is talking about the unity of all believers, which should ideally result from the activity of the Spirit in the hearts of each one of them. But of course that doesn't happen because of the effect of sin.

 

[BL2KTN]

I can't test his claim that space expansion has some tangible effect on a photon in a lab. Space doesn't do such magic tricks in the lab.

We can do the math. Well, you can't, but others can. This can then be tested by others. We're currently working on protein folding in a similar manner.

I can't get space to do magic tricks to a photon even once in the lab, let alone repeat it.

Calling something "magic" just makes you sound bitter. Teleportation was once though to be impossible, now we do it. Invisibility cloaks were once though to be impossible, now we do it.

How is the statement of faith "photon redshift is caused by space expansion' not 'anecdotal'?

Because we can do the math on it. It is verified by other observations. It doesn't produce any errors ever.

Me too by the way. You might check out Orch-OR theory sometime:

I'm aware of it. It has some evidence behind it in the past few months, but it also doesn't yet explain how consciousness is derived from quantum vibrations. For this reason it is inadequate in comparison to theories based on degrees of complexity within pattern recognition hierarchies (think Kurzweil, Kaku, Hawking). Ultimately I believe consciousness will be found to have a quantum or other-dimensional source, but we don't have the tools yet to prove it. Qualia is sufficient for me to show that something more is going on, but the philosophical zombie argument isn't in vogue right now.

 

[Michael]

We can do the math. Well, you can't, but others can. This can then be tested by others.

Unfortunately for you, your space expansion claim doesn't pass the smell tests by some of those 'others' that you mentioned.

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

We're currently working on protein folding in a similar manner.

Unlike Daniel's space expansion math, I'll bet it works in the lab when you're done too.

Calling something "magic" just makes you sound bitter.

Right, but when atheists compare God to magic or Santa Claus, it's somehow "clever"?

Teleportation was once though to be impossible, now we do it. Invisibility cloaks were once though to be impossible, now we do it.

Er, I seriously doubt we're beaming human beings point to point on the surface yet, let alone into space, or I'm pretty sure I'd have heard about it by now. I also seriously doubt that any 'cloak' we have created to date is anywhere near as cool as a Klingon cloak. I'll let you guys keep working on it awhile before I'll sign up to be the first human transport guinipig.

Because we can do the math on it. It is verified by other observations. It doesn't produce any errors ever.

Unfortunately the math doesn't actually support a "space expansion only" solution however. You can't claim exclusive support for space expansion claims based on GR.

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

I'm aware of it. It has some evidence behind it in the past few months, but it also doesn't yet explain how consciousness is derived from quantum vibrations. For this reason it is inadequate in comparison to theories based on degrees of complexity within pattern recognition hierarchies (think Kurzweil, Kaku, Hawking). Ultimately I believe consciousness will be found to have a quantum or other-dimensional source, but we don't have the tools yet to prove it. Qualia is sufficient for me to show that something more is going on, but the philosophical zombie argument isn't in vogue right now.

Interesting perspective. I like the fact that most of the key aspects are lab testable. That's very much like your industry, and very much like Daniel's expanding space and exotic matter claims.

 

[Michael]

Only you could read that to mean that we are "of the same substance" as God.

I seriously doubt it.

Panentheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.profligategrace.com/documents/Grant/Gregersen_Three Varieties of Panentheism.pdf

Only you would believe we could be the children of God yet made of a *foreign* substance.

It is talking about the unity of all believers, which should ideally result from the activity of the Spirit in the hearts of each one of them. But of course that doesn't happen because of the effect of sin.

Ya, that too.

 

[BL2KTN]

Unfortunately for you, your space expansion claim doesn't pass the smell tests by some of those 'others' that you mentioned.

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

This is not peer reviewed. It's just a random entry submitted by the author.

Unlike Daniel's space expansion math, I'll bet it works in the lab when you're done too.

I don't know who Daniel is and don't care.

Right, but when atheists compare God to magic or Santa Claus, it's somehow "clever"?

Being clever usually requires original thought. Whoever first came up with the comparison probably was clever in the moment.

Er, I seriously doubt we're beaming human beings point to point on the surface yet, let alone into space, or I'm pretty sure I'd have heard about it by now. I also seriously doubt that any 'cloak' we have created to date is anywhere near as cool as a Klingon cloak. I'll let you guys keep working on it awhile before I'll sign up to be the first human transport guinipig.

I'm not doing your work. We can teleport atoms and maybe molecules. We have been cloaking items in non-visible spectrums, and recently did it in the visible wavelengths. Google it.

Unfortunately the math doesn't actually support a "space expansion only" solution however. You can't claim exclusive support for space expansion claims based on GR.

Red shift occurs, it shows the celestial bodies are moving apart at increasing speeds. The bubble's getting bigger, however you want to view it.

Interesting perspective. I like the fact that most of the key aspects are lab testable. That's very much like your industry, and very much like Daniel's expanding space and exotic matter claims.

Consciousness is not yet lab testable - we don't even know what it really is. I guess that makes it supernatural... until we describe it, and then the magic of the gaps will be explainable.

 

[dcarrera]

I read them. I have no idea how you'd distinguish between them as it relates to your space expansion claims or your exotic matter of the gaps claims. Elendur at least made an honest attempt to differentiate between them, but you did not.

We are talking about the definition of two words, not about specific claims. You are getting side-tracked.

The next photograph you take of deep space, just think of me and God and you'll get the picture.

You equate god with the universe? I thought you were a Christian.

Like you actually had no idea what I meant?

I cannot read minds. I took time to read your question carefully, I thought about it, and I made a decision on what I thought was probably what you were asking.

Care to answer the question yet? How do I falsify *your* claim given the various options to choose from?

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

Well, let's see... cosmological redshift is ultimately an application of gravitational redshift (in the GR sense). If a test that showed that gravitational redshift does not occur in the manner predicted, that would automatically cast doubt on cosmological redshift.

Trying to discard Doppler shift is probably not a fruitful approach. Some people can argue that, by means of coordinate transformations, cosmological redshift can be called Doppler, and other people might take a different position. But to me that seems like an argument about semantics. Those who propose a Doppler shift interpretation do not argue that space is not expanding, or that the FLRW metric is not the apt description of the universe. Here is a paragraph from my link:

The cosmological redshift in a FLRW space is a geometric, non-local, coordinate-invariant effect. It seems that there is little point arguing in favour of one of its inter-pretations based on a set of observers versus another. However, in a FLRW space, there definitely is a set of physically preferred observers: they are the comoving observers who see the cosmic microwave background homogeneous and isotropic around them (apart
from small temperature fluctuations). It is arguable whether an interpretation of the redshift formula (1.2) derived in such a clear way in textbooks is really necessary but, if one opts for choosing an interpretation, this should be tied to the physically preferred comoving observers. For the latter, the redshift is definitely gravitational and not due to an ill-defined recessional motion of galaxies.

I think that that is a reasonable position to take.

 

[Michael]

This is not peer reviewed. It's just a random entry submitted by the author.

Really? Ok, try this one then:

[0911.3536] The kinematic component of the cosmological redshift

I don't know who Daniel is and don't care.

Actually, that figures.

Being clever usually requires original thought. Whoever first came up with the comparison probably was clever in the moment.

I'm just being blunt.

I'm not doing your work.

True. You're not even doing your *own* work in fact.

We can teleport atoms and maybe molecules. We have been cloaking items in non-visible spectrums, and recently did it in the visible wavelengths. Google it.

I've already seen our primitive first attempts. I'm not all that impressed yet actually, certainly not enough to be the first human guinipig.

Red shift occurs, it shows the celestial bodies are moving apart at increasing speeds. The bubble's getting bigger, however you want to view it.

Well, if in fact it was like that (bodies actually moving) I'd be 'ok' with that particular claim. That's just basic objects in motion staying in moation type of expansion. Unfortunately that's not their claim.

Consciousness is not yet lab testable - we don't even know what it really is. I guess that makes it supernatural... until we describe it, and then the magic of the gaps will be explainable.

No, it's not supernatural because it shows up on Earth in a wide variety of forms. Whatever it is, it's natural and it's lab testable to the degree that we can test for things like self awareness even in other species.

Space expansion is a supernatural claim because it cannot and does not happen anywhere near a lab on Earth (or anywhere else actually).

 

[Davian]

At least I've proposed some ideas on how we might try to look for the connections in real lab experiments.

Still, as you say, a dud in the lab.

Really?

http://clayton.ctr4process.org/files/papers/TheCaseforXtianPanentheism1.pdf
Biblical Panentheism: God in all things

Just type in Christian Panetheism. You'll find *tons* of links and lots of debates on the topic. It's not like I was the first human being in the history of humanity to put the two concepts together. They're a bit like chocolate and peanut butter IMO.

"According to this thought, God is fundamentally uninvolved. The universe is like a wind-up toy, left to go on its own, while God attends to—whatever. Once formed, natural laws work without any continued intelligence or consciousness, the true mindless governors of an inert and dumb universe."

Why care about that kind of god?

 

[Davian]

...
Space expansion is a supernatural claim because it cannot and does not happen anywhere near a lab on Earth (or anywhere else actually).

Again with the inadequacies of your... lab?

 

[dcarrera]

Why care about that kind of god?

Another POV: A watchmaker that has to constantly fix his watches is less skilled than one who makes watches that work correctly forever.

 

[Gracchus]

"According to this thought, God is fundamentally uninvolved. The universe is like a wind-up toy, left to go on its own, while God attends to—whatever. Once formed, natural laws work without any continued intelligence or consciousness, the true mindless governors of an inert and dumb universe."

You might be part of "an inert and dumb universe", but I am in it, and I am neither inert nor dumb. I would recommend The Book, by Alan Watts. Or maybe you could consider the idea that

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,..."

It could be "improv" theater, where lighting and scenery are automated, where the audience and the actors are the same, and no one knows how it will turn out. After all, if we knew, where would be the point?

Why care about that kind of god?

Who's asking you to care? Your own performance is "As You Like It", at least until the final curtain.

 

[Davian]

You might be part of "an inert and dumb universe", but I am in it, and I am neither inert nor dumb.

I was quoting from the link provided by Michael, if that was not clear from the quotation marks and italics.

I would recommend The Book, by Alan Watts. Or maybe you could consider the idea that

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,..."

It could be "improv" theater, where lighting and scenery are automated, where the audience and the actors are the same, and no one knows how it will turn out. After all, if we knew, where would be the point?

Who's asking you to care?

Michael.

Your own performance is "As You Like It", at least until the final curtain.

Indeed.