Our universe contains 10 times more galaxies than we thought

[Radrook]

The most consistent trend I've seen with respect to atheists, and "blind faith" in the 'unseen' (in the lab), is that as long as the concept has nothing to an intelligent creator, they're all in. They'll put their faith into just about anything, from "dark energy", to multiple additional spacetime dimensions, to unseen particles, just as long as the idea doesn't involve an intelligent creator.

If you tried to suggest that even the first form of life could have been 'intelligently created' and "designed" to thrive in various physical environments, that's typically rejected with prejudice based on a perceived 'lack of evidence'. If however you "assume" it may have begun purely by an unusual arrangement of physical conditions here on Earth, that's typically fine by them, even without a demonstration of concept in the lab.

Most atheists I've met "assume" that 95 percent of the universe is controlled by "unseen" (in the lab) and invisible and "supernatural" forces. The only "supernatural" concept they outright reject, is anything that has to do with an intelligent creator.

It's the only common denominator in terms of their pattern of 'blind faith' that I've seen to date.

It is indeed the common denominator. I once was told outright that it is the common denominator and that any attempt no matter how compelling the evidence or the argument might be would be rejected by default based on that common denominator. That isn't science nor has anything at all to do with being scientific or with the scientific method because the scientific method demands an open unbiased mind and strict objectivity. Such an attitude goes completely contrary to those two basic scientific method requirements.

The scientific method also demands a strict adherence to the principles of cogent reasoning in the formulation of hypothesis leading to theories via the inductive leap which is used to formulate a premise leading to conclusions upon which those theories are based. Atheists glibly cast such a basic requirement aside when convenient by ignoring logic and applying it only when it doesn't lead to a conclusion which they deem unacceptable-the existence of a creator or of a designing mind.

 

[Michael]

It is indeed the common denominator. I once was told outright that it is the common denominator and that any attempt no matter how compelling the evidence or the argument might be would be rejected by default based on that common denominator. That isn't science nor has anything at all to do with being scientific or with the scientific method because the scientific method demands an open unbiased mind and strict objectivity. Such an attitude goes completely contrary to those two basic scientific method requirements.

The scientific method also demands a strict adherence to the principles of cogent reasoning in the formulation of hypothesis leading to theories via the inductive leap which is used to formulate a premise leading to conclusions upon which those theories are based. Atheists glibly cast such a basic requirement aside when convenient by ignoring logic and applying it only when it doesn't lead to a conclusion which they deem unacceptable-the existence of a creator or of a designing mind.

I guess the part that I find to be 'fascinating' is that a physical lab demonstration of an empirical cause/effect mechanism is *not* a requirement in "science". If that were the case, we'd never hear about concepts like M-theory, SUSY theory, inflation, "space expansion", dark matter, gravitons, etc, and none of these ideas would be "popular" in scientific circles.

Sometimes the cause/effect relationship is *assumed* in science, which is then assumed to be useful in making claims about "evidence" to support an observation in question.

Only when we get to the topic of God do atheists typically deviate from the "scientific method", and instead impose their own personal "empirical" (cause/effect lab demonstration) requirement.

They then pretend to hold the "scientific" high ground with respect to "evidence", while not even understanding the meaning of the term "evidence" as it's *actually* (non empirically) used in "science".

Fascinating.

If we imposed the same standard of evidence as used in "science", a hypothetical entity like God can be "assumed", and the *effect* can be *assumed* as well. God's effect on humans could then be used as "evidence" of God. If it works for scientific claims like "space expansion", it works for the topic of God as well. Space doesn't "expand" in a lab. It's an *assumed* process, with an *assumed* effect on a photon.

Atheists typically put their "faith" in "science", but they typically deviate from the scientific method with respect to the topic of God, while misconstruing their position as being "scientific".

 

[Noxot]

Genuine Scientific inquiry and methodology Science isn't what is being criticized.

ofc and yet everyone tends to think they have the truth and are correct. and so saying " genuine scientific inquiry" often becomes fancy language for saying "i'm right and you are wrong" even though the ideal would be that facts are facts; theories are theories; hypotheses are hypotheses; math is math... ect ect.

 

[Radrook]

ofc and yet everyone tends to think they have the truth and are correct. and so saying " genuine scientific inquiry" often becomes fancy language for saying "i'm right and you are wrong" even though the ideal would be that facts are facts; theories are theories; hypotheses are hypotheses; math is math... ect ect.

Saying genuine scientific inquiry means exactly what it says. Genuine scientific inquiry. Your interpretation that it means something else and that the language used is unnecessarily fancy is simply your personal opinion. Also, anyone can chant Math! Math! Math! Theories! Theories! Theories! and be completely ignorant about what they entail or how they relate to any given subject. Usually, I have found that such chanting is indicative of a mentality that blindly attaches itself to what others say simply because those others are saying it and it feels dazzled by their credentials and not because the relevant issues involved have been rationally examined. Ironically, when questioned on the exact meaning of such chants, the typical reaction of such a mind is utter inability to explain accompanied by a desperate and embarrassed confusion followed by evasive action to flee the controversial situation.

 

[Radrook]

I guess the part that I find to be 'fascinating' is that a physical lab demonstration of an empirical cause/effect mechanism is *not* a requirement in "science". If that were the case, we'd never hear about concepts like M-theory, SUSY theory, inflation, "space expansion", dark matter, gravitons, etc, and none of these ideas would be "popular" in scientific circles.

Sometimes the cause/effect relationship is *assumed* in science, which is then assumed to be useful in making claims about "evidence" to support an observation in question.

Only when we get to the topic of God do atheists typically deviate from the "scientific method", and instead impose their own personal "empirical" (cause/effect lab demonstration) requirement.

They then pretend to hold the "scientific" high ground with respect to "evidence", while not even understanding the meaning of the term "evidence" as it's *actually* (non empirically) used in "science".

Fascinating.

If we imposed the same standard of evidence as used in "science", a hypothetical entity like God can be "assumed", and the *effect* can be *assumed* as well. God's effect on humans could then be used as "evidence" of God. If it works for scientific claims like "space expansion", it works for the topic of God as well. Space doesn't "expand" in a lab. It's an *assumed* process, with an *assumed* effect on a photon.

Atheists typically put their "faith" in "science", but they typically deviate from the scientific method with respect to the topic of God, while misconstruing their position as being "scientific".

The very sad part about such antics is that those employing them might fancy themselves as defenders of the scientific method against the irrational when it is just the opposite. Irrationality cannot be superimposed on the scientific method without it becoming mere chicanery or drivel dressed up with fancy expressions designed to camouflage a pathological aversion to anything that might indicate intelligence or purposeful design by a mind manifested in nature. The attempt to pass such an anti-scientific modus operandi off as science of course requires a glaring incontinency of policy involving selective blindness.

This inconsistency of policy involving selective blindness demands blind faith from the atheist layman which is only made possible by an assumed voluntary, temporary mindlessness in order to prevent logic from immediately disqualifying the whole charade as totally bogus.

Such blind trust necessitates a fervent belief in atheist-scientist total incapability of chicanery and that they MUST of course be in full harmony with the scientific method because obviously, otherwise, they would not have the credentials and would not, of course, qualify as scientists which obviously they, of course are.

However, when objectivity is allowed to kick in, then logic cannot be so easily dismissed and the ridiculous basis for such blind faith is easily revealed to those who examine the issues with an unbiased, rational, open mind.

 

[Michael]

This inconsistency of policy involving selective blindness demands blind faith from the atheist layman which is only made possible by an assumed voluntary, temporary mindlessness in order to prevent logic from immediately disqualifying the whole charade as totally bogus.

It's the selectivity of the blindness that I find most fascinating. The thread I have going on "Dark energy" is a great example of that process in action. An atheist in that thread is adamantly defending four unique "supernatural" constructs, not one of which enjoys even a shred of empirical laboratory support in a lab.

Reasonable people do not demand that the universe only contain dark matter particles that can be detected in labs here on Earth !

The amusing part of his argument is that he certainly puts "blind faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab), whenever and wherever it suits him. In fact he's quite belligerent about the fact that I personally refuse to do so. He even suggests I'm being "unreasonable" by not following his lead.

As soon as we get to the topic of God however, he does an about face and chooses to "lack belief" based upon a perceived "lack of evidence". No photon ever said that "Dark energy did it" to an astronomer with respect to the cause of photon redshift, yet plenty of human beings throughout human history have claimed that God has had a tangible effect on their lives.

The standard of "evidence" in "science' is not "empirical cause/effect lab evidence", and it never has been. To therefore claim that there is a "lack of evidence" of God is anything *but* a "scientific" viewpoint. In "science' the cause/effect relationship is typically *assumed* for purposes of the argument, and the observation is considered to be a justification of the *assumed* cause/effect relationship. It's often considered "evidence" in fact.

If we applied the same logic to the topic of God, the *effect* God has on humans is reported by humans. That should count as "evidence" of God if he was applying the same standards to that topic as he does to the dark energy and dark matter topics.

When I asked he about his double standard, he of course dodged the question outright.

This blatant double standard as it relates to "evidence" is impossible to justify.

 

[Noxot]

dark energy? seems like mainstream science is pretty adamant that it exist. I guess math does play a big role in science.

this was interesting. the pilot wave theory of QMs makes more sense from a common sense pov but I certainly am not involved in science enough to give a highly informed opinion.

 

[Radrook]

Mainstream means nothing more than that it is a currently accepted fashionable idea. There were many such ideas in the past that were once solidly mainstream science but which had to be unceremoniously discarded because they proved to have been sheer hogwash.

Here is a long list of them including mainstream ones:

Discarded Theories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...the pilot wave theory of QMs makes more sense from a common sense pov but I certainly am not involved in science enough to give a highly informed opinion.

Pilot wave theory is gaining some traction after years of neglect, but the silicone oil droplet demonstration is more of an analogy, an aid to visualization; there might be some common underlying mathematical principles at work, but there's a lot of quantum stuff it doesn't show.

 

[Michael]

dark energy? seems like mainstream science is pretty adamant that it exist. I guess math does play a big role in science.

Math only plays a "big role" when they claim it does, otherwise they ignore their own mathematical failures, like all those mathematical WIMP models that got falsified at LHC and all those SUSY particle maths that went up in smoke. Ooopsy? Does their math play a big role when it works against them or only when it works in their favor?

If math really *was* important to them, the fact it's only a 3 sigma confidence figure and only 740 data points should *preclude* them from claiming that dark energy even exists. Maybe, maybe not. The math *isn't conclusive* in that case because *5* sigma is the minimum standard for a "discovery" in physics.

LHC recently observed a 750 Ghz "bump" in their early data sets which implied a new particle might exist, and it enjoyed a greater level of confidence figure than "dark energy" does, before a larger data set showed that it was simply a statistical fluke which was based on too small of a data set. The larger set of data showed it simply didn't exist.

Three sigma isn't a "discovery" in physics, it's an "interesting anomaly" at best case.

 

[mzungu]

The most consistent trend I've seen with respect to atheists, and "blind faith" in the 'unseen' (in the lab), is that as long as the concept has nothing to an intelligent creator, they're all in. They'll put their faith into just about anything, from "dark energy", to multiple additional spacetime dimensions, to unseen particles, just as long as the idea doesn't involve an intelligent creator.

If you tried to suggest that even the first form of life could have been 'intelligently created' and "designed" to thrive in various physical environments, that's typically rejected with prejudice based on a perceived 'lack of evidence'. If however you "assume" it may have begun purely by an unusual arrangement of physical conditions here on Earth, that's typically fine by them, even without a demonstration of concept in the lab.

Most atheists I've met "assume" that 95 percent of the universe is controlled by "unseen" (in the lab) and invisible and "supernatural" forces. The only "supernatural" concept they outright reject, is anything that has to do with an intelligent creator.

It's the only common denominator in terms of their pattern of 'blind faith' that I've seen to date.

Oh! And your inteligent designer has been seen? You cannot even define this supposed creator.

 

[Noxot]

to say "has been seen" is to display an ignorance of how God is

 

[CrystalDragon]

to say "has been seen" is to display an ignorance of how God is

I think what he meant is that many cultures have had religions and their own concept of gods, some even having books in a similar vein to the Bible. Given that, and given that the books of the Bible took time to be decided on and compiled together, its hard to tell if what we see as "what we know about God" is really something that can be known about him or if parts of the Bible were just made up by humans in a patriarchal society (keeping the virgins for themselves in Numbers 31, for example).

Not to mention how even some Christians, even in the same denominations, sometimes can't agree on God's attributes, revelation, etc.

 

[Michael]

Oh! And your inteligent designer has been seen?

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/an-empirical-theory-of-god.7440288/

I can certainly "see" the "God" that I believe in. Even a "supernatural" definition of "God" is no more or no less "unseen" than any of your four invisible friends. You have zip in the way of cause/effect empirical evidence to support any of your claims. Furthermore, unlike God, no photon ever personally testified as to the cause/effect mechanism that is responsible for photon redshift.

You cannot even define this supposed creator.

You can't even define "dark matter" either, let alone inflation. Every mathematical definition of dark matter was *falsified* in some lab or another, and you can't even name so much as a single source of "dark energy". People in supernatural glass houses really shouldn't be throwing stones.

 

[Noxot]

I think what he meant is that many cultures have had religions and their own concept of gods, some even having books in a similar vein to the Bible. Given that, and given that the books of the Bible took time to be decided on and compiled together, its hard to tell if what we see as "what we know about God" is really something that can be known about him or if parts of the Bible were just made up by humans in a patriarchal society (keeping the virgins for themselves in Numbers 31, for example).

Not to mention how even some Christians, even in the same denominations, sometimes can't agree on God's attributes, revelation, etc.

there is a lot to say about such things but most people will either accept the outermost revelation of religion or reject it, they never want to dive deeper into the matter because spiritual wisdom is folly to the world. I dunno how one would prove God through scientific methods since the entire way reality is is what it is and people come to different conclusions based on their experience of reality and their perceptions of it.

some scientist have been convinced of God but that is after they had a meaningful encounter with him such as the lady who had a specific kind of stroke which enabled her brain to function differently for a while.

humans seem to know God more or less clearly and that is why there are different things that different people say about him.

in reality God is hiding in plain sight for those open enough but life is a mystery. people should take more time in their search for God if they wish to find since he says those who keep knocking will find. the struggle is unique to each and so too is their revelation of which God never runs out of.

Spoiler: mystical experience