Is it true that the scientists discovered parallel worlds, and who lives in them?

[Radagast]

Similarly, if you claim a god exists, and I say I don't believe you and I need evidence, that's not the same as saying no god exists.

What you describe is agnosticism, not atheism.

 

[Gene2memE]

What you describe is agnosticism, not atheism.

Those aren't exclusionary positions. I'm both an agnostic and an atheist. The former refers to a position on a knowledge claim, the latter refers to a belief claim.

I'm an agnostic, because I don't know if god(s) exist or not.
I'm an atheist, because I have no belief in god(s).

There ARE gnostic atheist - who make the knowledge claim no god(s) exist. I'm not one of them though.
There are also agnostic theists - who believe god(s) exist, but maintain this is a position of faith, rather than knowledge.

I'm certainly gnostic about concrete god claims I've been presented with - from Abrahamic monotheism through to the varied polytheisms.
However, certain god claims I find to be non-falsifiable (pantheism, panentheism). While these are functionally useless, I can't dismiss them out of hand. In addition, I have hardly been presented with every available god claim, so I feel I'd be intellectually dishonest if I didn't at least recognise the possibility of the existence of god(s) as more knowledge becomes available.

Thus, an atheist, and an agnostic.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...In addition, I have hardly been presented with every available god claim, so I feel I'd be intellectually dishonest if I didn't at least recognise the possibility of the existence of god(s) as more knowledge becomes available.

With the caveat, of course, that the more different god claims there are, the less likely any particular one of them is to be correct, and so the less justification you'd have for thinking that any of them are correct

 

[Ophiolite]

What is wrong about my text?

Which text? Do you mean the rest of your opening post? If so the problem with it is that it is unstructured, rambling and consequently incomprehensible.

Today the people are not complete, they are divided. They have replaced the call of the heart, the emotions with the mental reasoning, and vice versa.

So you believe that those people who used to think logically, now rely on their emotions and those who relied on their emotions, now apply logic? In that case, in the past, people were equally incomplete. It's as if yesterday some people wore black clothes and some wore white, but today the former black clad people wear white and vice versa. So, overall, there really hasn't been much of a change.

You just hate me, so you do say these mean things?

I don't know you. I had not said mean things when you wrote this, so who were you accusing of hating you? What mean things do you think have been said to you?

So, there are no particular problems with the article, you just hate all thing together? But is the hatred spread the same level through the text, or some parts of the text is less hateable? What are these parts? My top CV perhaps?

If the text you refer to is the rest of the OP, then it is not "hateable" it is just incoherent and consequently frustrating.

 

[stevevw]

Yeah I’m sure that happens a lot. This was on the BBC though, which tends to be pretty science friendly. Generally speaking I don’t pay a lot of attention to what is going on in the world of science, just reading the odd article or where something becomes relevant to my job. I don’t have a problem with any of it, meaning that I don’t consider the processes by which the universe came to be and how it operates to have any relevance to my faith.I just remain unconvinced by what I tend to think of as science ‘PR’, i.e the kind of presentation of a smooth progression from one set of theories to the next. That doesn’t seem to match up with what I see and read about in history, philosophy of science and other related info. This isn’t much more than a vague impression really, made up of a few things. My closest contact with the world of science, apart from my grandad who started his working life as a chemist, was with psychiatric medicine in my previous area of work. What frankly astonished me and quite often was the level of denial about the problematic history of psychiatric medicine and medical treatments. Both in(admittedly not very many) personal conversations and more often at conferences I was honestly flabbergasted at the kind of indoctrination that seemed to have imprinted an entirely phony version of the development of the field in the minds of trained professionals, something along the lines of a smooth progression bringing benefit to all and that everything was the best it could possibly be, and those wrong ideas about schizophrenia which were replaced by other ideas weren’t actually wrong and anyway we have it all right now etc etc., which is kind of like re-writing history. Another is the quality of the ‘public face’ if I can call them that, of scientific atheism in the UK, mainly thinking of Richard Dawkins - knows a lot about biology, but appears to suffer from an almost total absence of any self-awareness when it comes to tackling anything else. Add to that where there are conflicting ideas you can find scientists on either side who will speak with absolute conviction about their version of whatever it is, offering proofs, and another who will say ‘oh that guy isn’t a good scientist’, and do the same. When the odd truly gifted person comes along with a genuinely new idea, more often that not its their fellow scientists who refuse to accept or even listen to it, displaying an unwillingness to have their own ideas challenged. These things together make me dubious, not necessarily of some of the theories discussed above, but of the overall consistency of the world of science as it tends to present itself. From the outside it looks more like I imagine the world of religion must look like to people new to it.

For me I have noticed with certain areas such as quantum physics, and astrophysics that science is reaching a point where the explanation of what is being seen has to step outside the normal parameters of classic scientific explanations. Things like multiverses, paraelle worlds, hologram worlds, string theory, dark energy and matter, are being used but there is little direct evidence for them. Some scientists are even saying that the verification of things like multiverses should be reduced because they may never find any direct evidence yet the idea fits so well in explaining things.

It seems the more we come closer to how life and existence came into being especially at the quantum level the more things move away from classical science and the more willing science entertains far fetched ideas to help explain things. Perhaps there are other dimensions that we do not know about and have yet to understand. Some say that what we see is just a illusionary representation of other activities operating at smaller levels. For me there is not too much difference in appealing to God as a possible explanation as this can incorporate other dimensions and physics that defy our understanding of reality.

 

[lesliedellow]

Oh quite. true. The Australians live there, after falling off the bottom of the Earth and landing on the planet Zog.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Things like multiverses, paraelle worlds, hologram worlds, string theory, dark energy and matter, are being used but there is little direct evidence for them.

Multiverses are a prediction of currently successful physical models. Don't know what you mean by 'parallel worlds', but it's probably a multiverse. 'Hologram worlds' presumably refers to the 'holographic universe' concept, based on the holographic principle. This is simply a mathematical equivalence - the content of any n-dimensional volume can be completely represented as a holographic projection on its n-1-dimensional surface. String theory is a speculative theoretical framework, although it is testable, in principle. Dark energy and dark matter are names for observed but unexplained phenomena, i.e. direct evidence of something. They are also the names of the explanations considered most likely.