Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Loudmouth]

You misunderstood me. I simply meant that humans write songs about God, they write books about God, they talk about meeting God during NDE's, etc.

They can also write stories about Leprechauns, fairies, and hobbits in Middle Earth. That doesn't make them real.

 

[Davian]

Actually....

The laws of physics *insist* that some form of energy has existed eternally in some form or another. Even Alfven posited a 'bang' theory where clumps of matter and antimatter come together and blow apart again, but not all the matter of the universe comes together to a single point. In other words, even in an expansion scenario, the whole notion that anything began at a 'point' is pure speculation. The whole notion that all mass has some special creation data is a pure mythology based on 3 or maybe now 4 different supernatural claims, none of which can be demonstrated on Earth, nor will they *ever* be demonstrated on Earth in most cases.

If you think mainstream science is pure speculation, you are not doing science.

Yes, I did. It acknowledges that there is a *perfectly natural* way to a higher intelligence to "evolve" in this physical universe, *long, long, long* before humans ever evolved on Earth. The structures of spacetime may have taken this basic shape more than a hundred trillion years ago for all we know.

Compared to the puny supernatural invisible deities of BB theory, you have absolutely *nothing* to complain about.

You have what the article said backwards. The article states "A particular problem is that most Boltzmann brains will exist in the far future when the universe is no more than an inky void, with a past indistinguishable from the future. This would make our experience of time's arrow highly unusual.

However, if we can demonstrate that the universe has a finite lifespan, that would deny Boltzmann brains the infinite time they need to outnumber us. "

You didn't read it, did you?

 

[Tomk80]

The universe doesn't even have to be "eternal" actually. Even based on *mainstream* claims, the universe has had *more time* to "evolve", since the universe is 13.7 billion years old (according to the mainstream) and the Earth has only existed for about 4.6 billion years. You can't hide from the fact that that the universe has had more time to evolve than humans.

Time doesn't give you a carte blanche. The probability of a macroscopic intelligence forming can be so small that it's occurrence in the past 13.7 billion years would be extremely unlikely.

In principle, quantum mechanically, I might be able to vanish from where I am working now and rematerialize somewhere else. However, the probability is so vanishingly small, that it is extremely unlikely that something like that has ever happened anywhere in the universe in the past 13.7 billion years. Long periods of time do not give you a carte blanche for your claims.

 

[Tomk80]

You misunderstood me. I simply meant that humans write songs about God, they write books about God, they talk about meeting God during NDE's, etc. I can verify the *effect* just as I can verify the *effect* of redshift.

Humans also write books about encountering talking snakes, leprachauns and fairies. Doesn't mean any of those are real.

You are not able to verify those effects on the same level as you can verify redshift, because you have to rely entirely on the perception of the people describing the events. And we know from psychological research that those perceptions are easily influenced. That is why being able to verify every step of a process empirically is so important, something you cannot do with NDE's or "meeting God".

 

[Michael]

If you think mainstream science is pure speculation, you are not doing science.

It is pure speculation that inflation exists or ever existed. That's why it's a *hypothetical* entity. Likewise it's pure speculation that "dark energy" exists or has any effect on a photon. Ditto for exotic matter. Speculation with math is still "speculation". All the popular SUSY theories went up in flame already at LHC. It's now an 'exotic matter of the gaps' claim. Yep, that's "speculation' alright.

You have what the article said backwards. The article states "A particular problem is that most Boltzmann brains will exist in the far future when the universe is no more than an inky void, with a past indistinguishable from the future. This would make our experience of time's arrow highly unusual.

However, if we can demonstrate that the universe has a finite lifespan, that would deny Boltzmann brains the infinite time they need to outnumber us. "

You didn't read it, did you?

I read it. I've also been the mainstreams biggest critic for the better part of decade now. I see no evidence at all that the universe has a finite age, a finite size, a finite *anything*!

 

[Loudmouth]

It is pure speculation that inflation exists or ever existed.

Already covered in this series of threads:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7754178/

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I've also been the mainstreams biggest critic for the better part of decade now.

Has the mainstream noticed you?

 

[Michael]

Humans also write books about encountering talking snakes, leprachauns and fairies. Doesn't mean any of those are real.

You're now trying to distinguish between "cause/effect" which can *only* be verified by controlled experimentation. Likewise I can't verify that dark energy is a 'cause' of photons redshift without *active experimentation*.

You are not able to verify those effects on the same level as you can verify redshift,

Of course I can. Humans have been repeating that behavior since the dawn of recorded human civilization.

because you have to rely entirely on the perception of the people describing the events.

So what? I have to rely upon their testimony and perceptions about 'dark energy' too.

And we know from psychological research that those perceptions are easily influenced. That is why being able to verify every step of a process empirically is so important, something you cannot do with NDE's or "meeting God".

Perceptions related to the cause of redshift also easily influenced, however, some things work in the lab (like inelastic scattering) and others don't (magical space expansion).

 

[Michael]

Has the mainstream noticed you?

Noticed? The active ones on the internet have surely "noticed" me.

 

[Loudmouth]

You're now trying to distinguish between "cause/effect" which can *only* be verified by controlled experimentation.

The entirety of science disagrees with you.

So what? I have to rely upon their testimony and perceptions about 'dark energy' too.

False. You can do the same experiments they did.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Noticed? The active ones on the internet have surely "noticed" me.

You think posting on a Christian forum is making waves in mainstream science?

 

[Michael]

You think posting on a Christian forum is making waves in mainstream science?

I've been making waves all over the internet for about 8 years.

I have also published a few papers as well.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I've been making waves all over the internet for about 8 years.

That wasn't the question.

I have also published a few papers as well.

In proper journals?

 

[Loudmouth]

I've been making waves all over the internet for about 8 years.

I have also published a few papers as well.

In which journal?

 

[Michael]

The entirety of science disagrees with you.

The entirety of science cannot even tell me where dark energy might come from, they cannot tell me how to control it, and not one of them can demonstrate their claim in a controlled experiment. Who cares what a handful of old guys that are convinced they see invisible stuff in the sky think? For crying out loud, the whole lot of them thinks "reconnection' happens *without* plasma, and most of them have never read a plasma physics textbook, including you!

False. You can do the same experiments they did.

Nope. Those aren't 'experiments', those are "pure observations". You can't even tell the difference between an uncontrolled observation and a real experiment with real control mechanisms!

 

[Tomk80]

You're now trying to distinguish between "cause/effect" which can *only* be verified by controlled experimentation. Likewise I can't verify that dark energy is a 'cause' of photons redshift without *active experimentation*.

Of course I can. Humans have been repeating that behavior since the dawn of recorded human civilization.

So what? I have to rely upon their testimony and perceptions about 'dark energy' too.

And this is where your understanding of science goes haywire once more.

Dark energy, Dark matter and inflation are not directly observed, nor are they claimed to be. They are conclusions based on the observed evidence. You can in principle check those observations, all the way from the measurement devices that measure redshift, gravitational lensing, through the theories underlying those devices, through the measurements they have made, right up to the conclusions dark matter, dark energy and inflation. At any point in the chain of reasoning you can point to where you think the conclusions are wrong in a certain step. Something you do with gusto, no matter how ineffective.

This is different from descriptions of NDE's or encounters with God. You only have the descriptions of the people having the experience. That is it. Between their reports of what they feel (which is a black box) and the conclusion they draw from it (encounter with God), you have absolutely no point where you can check their reasoning or their observations, or whether they even are observations at all. All you can do is accept their testimony or reject it. This is a qualitative difference between the two that you fail to acknowledge.

Perceptions related to the cause of redshift also easily influenced, however, some things work in the lab (like inelastic scattering) and others don't (magical space expansion).

All the observations can be checked, whether they have been made inside or outside the lab. All the measurement devices used to make those observations can be checked, whether they were used inside or outside of the lab. The chain of reasoning from measurement to observations can be checked. You can check each of the intermittent observations.

You cannot do so with NDE's. You rely entirely on the description of an experience of a person and the conclusion that person draws from it. You cannot check the experience, you cannot check the conclusion, you cannot check the reasoning from experience to conclusion. It's a black box.

 

[Tomk80]

Nope. Those aren't 'experiments', those are "pure observations". You can't even tell the difference between an uncontrolled observation and a real experiment with real control mechanisms!

Observations that can be (and have been) repeated, using measurement devices that can be checked and investigated. In contrast with NDE's and the like, where this cannot be done.

 

[Loudmouth]

The entirety of science cannot even tell me where dark energy might come from, they cannot tell me how to control it, and not one of them can demonstrate their claim in a controlled experiment. Who cares what a handful of old guys that are convinced they see invisible stuff in the sky think? For crying out loud, the whole lot of them thinks "reconnection' happens *without* plasma, and most of them have never read a plasma physics textbook, including you!

Your avoidance mechanisms are kicking in.

Nowhere in the scientific method does it require all observations to be made within the walls of a building. That is what you are running away from time and again. You simply can not engage in an adult conversation.

 

[Michael]

In proper journals?

Proper?

On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars - Springer
Observational Confirmation of the Sun’s CNO Cycle - Springer
The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass - Springer

You tell me.

 

[Loudmouth]

Proper?

On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars - Springer
Observational Confirmation of the Sun’s CNO Cycle - Springer
The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass - Springer

You tell me.

And yet nothing on plasma redshift or the refutation of the Big Bang model.