The stumbling block for atheists.

[Michael]

Anyone...and I do mean anyone...with some depth of knowledge of a particularly deep field of study (especially those with their own languages like physics and computer science) typically realizes at some point the sheer volume of knowledge it would require to be considered an "expert" within those fields.

So what? Using FB's example, I'm sure that there are "experts" on the topic astrology, that understand all it's nuances way more than I do. That doesn't however make them right, or make random astrologers more "trustworthy" on the validity of the theory than I am!

You keep ignoring that key point. Furthermore your supposed "experts" made a host of *falsified* predictions with that model which directly undermines their credibility, not to mention the credibility of the entire claim!

In spite of his attempt at countering my point...I would definitely look to an expert in Catholic dogma if I wanted an expert opinion on Catholic dogma.

You don't however accept their "belief" in God as being correct simply because they are "experts" on Catholicism. Why then do you think I'm obligated to believe in "dark matter" simply because they do? You don't see the pure hypocrisy of that argument?

Saying that you believe an expert opinion isn't the same as saying "something exists because an expert says it exists". One is merely the belief that an expert knows more about his/her field than you do...the other is claiming a point of fact or truth based on nothing more than the words of an expert.

Michael doesn't seem to understand that I don't claim to know squat about dark matter...I simply trust those who do over him.

Oh I understand perfectly. It's exactly the same as me claiming that the Pope is right about the probable existence of God, and I trust him on the topic of God more than I trust you. If and when the Pope changes his mind about the existence of God, then I'll believe you, otherwise you're automatically wrong, because my "experts" know more on that topic than you do.

 

[Michael]

IIRC Michael initially did present his ideas to the scientific community and got his butt handed to him on a regular basis. That´s why he ended up here, licking his wounds and complaining about science.

Um, I hate to ruin your cute little (false) "story", but the reality is quite different. I have helped get several papers published in the Journal of Fusion energy and Physics of the Atomic Nuclei. Furthermore I've been handing the mainstreams' butt to them for the past decade, both here at CRUS and everywhere else in cyberspace. I can't make them embrace EU/PC theory however. That's not even my job.

More importantly however, astronomers themselves have been falsifying their own claims right and left over the past decade, and destroying their own credibility in the process. Just look at how many times has "dark matter" failed some lab "test" over the past decade. Even their original baryonic mass estimates from 2006 were shown to be flawed in *numerous* significant ways. They've been handing their own butt to themselves for a long time now.

I think of all my online debates, Clinger's "reconnection" fiasco at JREF/ISF was an absolute riot! Nobody at JREF/ISF caught his bush-league error except me, and everyone freaked out and went all ban happy when I pointed out Clinger's missing math formula. That was priceless, along with the fact that five years later none of them can still come up with that missing math formula. In short, I handed their collective butts to them in a paper bag using *math* no less, in this case a lack of math. So much for their superior math skills too.

 

[Michael]

Life as we know it requires DNA (unless you include RNA viruses), but we can synthesize the DNA from scratch.

My point is still valid because you can't start from scratch (raw elements) and create life. You *hold faith/belief* that it could happen naturally, but you can't even create life yet based upon an *intelligent design*.

 

[Michael]

I am an astrophysicist, and I'm bothered by people's thinking when it comes to dark matter.

I am an astrophysicist, and I'm bothered by people's thinking when it comes to dark matter. • /r/science

I think this forum could help Michael...give it a read. This is an astrophysicist who has spoken with a lot of people like yourself with misunderstandings about dark matter. He likens them to those creationists who get a little knowledge about evolution ( another dense topic) and then argue that all the experts are wrong.

So let me get this straight. In spite of the fact that the mainstream's baryonic mass estimates were shown to be flawed in numerous ways, and every lab test was a complete disaster and an outright falsification of their mathematical models (plural), I'm somehow obligated to agree with them, otherwise I'm going to be compared to a creationist (even though I don't hold any such belief) and badmouthed personally? You call that a scientific argument?

That guy wouldn't last five back and forth posts on this forum, let alone somewhere like Thunderbolts with more than one "skeptic" to worry about.

 

[Michael]

What is? Can you be specific?

Sure. Let's start with "dark matter". The entire basis of that claim has been shown to be flawed in at least five critical ways. Because they grossly underestimated the amount of scattering taking place in space, they botched the brightness of the various galaxies in their "Nobel Prize" winning 2006 paper by a factor of two to begin with, and the "brightness" of the various galaxies was the entire basis of their baryonic matter claim. That's just the tip of the iceberg too. The also botched the stellar mass estimates by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. The underestimated the number of stars *between* galaxies too! They didn't even know where *most* of the mass was located until 2012 when they found more mass in ordinary plasma *around* our galaxy than all the mass of all the stars combined!

If there was any doubt at all that their error was related to their mass estimation problems, just look at how many times they struck out in the lab. Billions of dollars wasted on an invisible snipe hunt, and they came up *completely empty*
.
Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

 

[Michael]

Ummm...aren't you assuming that life, consciousness, and awareness are possible with a "quantum god field" (which I'm assuming is something you made up and your alternative explanation for dark matter) existing? After all...your god is a living, conscious entity is it not? So what creates the "quantum god field" that gives your god life?

FYI, in most QM definitions of soul/God, it's a *conscious* field that is created and sustained consiously by God. It gives rise to physical things which we relate to just like the "God particle" is thought to give rise to objects with mass. It's no different than a Higgs field in that respect. Nobody knows where the Higgs field comes from.

I love when the massive technological strides we've made over the past 150 years are reduced to "but we can't even create test tube life yet!".

For all that progress, it's a true statement isn't it? FYI, since I'm quite comfortable with a "natural" definition of God, I'm also quite comfortable with a life forming "naturally" via abiogeneis, but we can't even create a living organism from scratch via "intelligent design" yet!

If you took a man from 200 years ago and brought him to the present we'd appear like magical gods to him...yet somehow you remain unsatisfied.

I'm not unsatisfied with empirical physics. I'm quite pleased with empirical physics and empirical science in fact. I use it and rely upon it every single day of my life. I'm quite a fan of empirical physics. That's why I embrace EU/PC theory in fact.

I'm less of a fan of astrology, LCDM theory, and pretty much any theory that has *zero* empirical cause/effect laboratory support however.

On behalf of all science I apologize that mankind hasn't unraveled every mystery of the universe yet.

You need not do that on my account. I'm sorry science hasn't discovered God yet for you too, particularly since your entire belief about the composition of reality is evidently based upon an appeal to authority fallacy.

This is starting to read like someone who has a little knowledge of physics...and has filled in the gaps of that knowledge with imagination. I don't know any physicist who believes in "gravitons" anymore.

I'm afraid that you just demonstrated your own ignorance on these topics. QM concepts of gravity are still going very strong in physics circles, and a "theory of everything" which includes gravity (usually via QM) remains the "Holy Grail" of physics.

Well I'll tell you what Michael...if you're confident in your understanding of this extremely dense and difficult topic....how would you feel about me copying and pasting these posts on an actual physics forum where scholars, experts, and the like can comment on your grasp of the topic?

That's absolutely fine by me. Go for it. I've probably already been there and asked them these same questions, and voiced my same criticisms there already, but you go right ahead. Post the link and I'll even respond to any responses that you happen to get. Start by posting this link:

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

 

[Michael]

Granted. But then, to my limited knowledge we have never attempted to do so.

A failure when no attempt has been made hardly constitutes a genuine failure. Are you aware of any such attempt?

http://gizmodo.com/5825539/scientists-striving-to-create-life-out-of-nothing

I'm pretty sure it's been "tried" many times now. I'm even "optimistic" they might succeed one day too, but thus far, no joy. I'm pretty sure if they eventually manage to pull off that feat, the first debate will be whether they created life via "intelligent design", or whether their accomplishment is an example of "spontaneous" formation. Even such a demonstration still wouldn't prohibit "intelligent design", particularly in a Panentheistic universe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Agree. Every time anyone of us goes to a physician for healthcare and we follow that physicians advice, we are appealing to their authority on the matter. Is that a fallacy?

Authorities can't be wrong/questioned.
Experts can - they are merely recognised as generally more knowledgeable then others when it comes to their respective fields of expertise.


Michael has a habbit of confusing "authorities" with "experts".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What makes you think that he doesn't understand that?

The same reason as when 100 oncologists tell me that I have a cancer, while some random guy on the internet says that I don't.

 

[Michael]

Authorities can't be wrong/questioned.
Experts can - they are merely recognised as generally more knowledgeable then others when it comes to their respective fields of expertise.

But since her entire basis of her "belief" in supernatural constructs is based upon their "opinion", they represent "authority" figures for her which even if "questioned" cannot be overturned unless they say so! It's a pure appeal to authority fallacy!

Michael has a habbit of confusing "authorities" with "experts".

The only thing that your 'experts' appear to have any "expertise' at is *wasting good money* looking for invisible snipes! That's their only *expertise* apparently since every "prediction" they ever made with respect to the lab was *falsified* by the data! Not only that, their "expertise" in calculating the mass of distant galaxies was also *falsified* at least five different ways. What exactly do you think they have any "expertise" in, and why? Being wrong? Making stuff up?

 

[Michael]

The same reason as when 100 oncologists tell me that I have a cancer, while some random guy on the internet says that I don't.

Absolutely false. You're blatantly ignoring the clear empirical difference between empirical physics and hypothetical claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But since her entire basis of her "belief" in supernatural constructs is based upon their "opinion", they represent "authority" figures for her which even if "questioned" cannot be overturned unless they say so! It's a pure appeal to authority fallacy!

That's not what she is doing, nore is any of what you described here an accurate representation of the facts.

When all doctors tell me that I have a cancer and then refuse to question their expertise because some random guy on the internet says otherwise, I'm not engaging in an argument from authority. No matter what you say.

The only thing that your 'experts' appear to have any "expertise' at is *wasting good money* looking for invisible snipes!

If only they were as brilliant as you, ha?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Absolutely false. You're blatantly ignoring the clear empirical difference between empirical physics and hypothetical claims.

No. I'm ignoring the random guy on the internet's opinion.

 

[Michael]

That's not what she is doing, nore is any of what you described here an accurate representation of the facts.

It is what's she's doing! She's *insisting* that their collective opinion about supernatural entities is somehow "superior" to mine, without demonstrating that is true, and without demonstrating that the supernatural entities in question (plural) even exist in nature! How can it be anything *other than* a pure appeal to authority since none of you can even demonstrate they have any "expertise" on these topics! Their own data refutes that claim in fact. Every "test" they ran blew up their own claim!

When all doctors tell me that I have a cancer

Cancer is an *empirical physical thing* with physical attributes that can be seen and observed by anyone with the right equipment. Your dark matter deity is apparently quite shy around every single lab on Earth. It's like claiming that "experts" in snipes know more about snipes than I do. Prove it.

and then refuse to question their expertise because some random guy on the internet says otherwise, I'm not engaging in an argument from authority. No matter what you say.

I don't say *you* did that, I said *she* did that. You haven't however explained why you think they are "experts" on anything "real".

If only they were as brilliant as you, ha?

Their "brilliance" isn't very impressive to an "average joe" when the average joe can see for himself that they've been wasting his money for the past several decades and they have *nothing* to show for it. I'm not impressed with your "experts".

 

[Michael]

No. I'm ignoring the random guy on the internet's opinion.

You are *still* doing it. You're ignoring the difference between *empirical* physics, and *hypothetical* physics, and you are treating them as "equal". They aren't equal and the same.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I think I can understand why atheists are atheists. After all, professing Christians don't love each other as we should. We judge each other too harshly. We get hung up over all kinds of unimportant minutia. To the atheist, Christianity probably just looks like any other kooky cult because we generally don't accurately reflect the nature of our Creator.

But atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses. Drop this assumption and the "magic" of miracles appears, the "pink unicorns" disappear, and the Creator God can become known.

How do they deal with death -That's what I'm curious to know. They must try to avoid thinking about their inevidable end, where everything they worked for will have been for nothing.

...Every day, getting one step closer, and closer, and closer...

 

[quatona]

How do they deal with death -That's what I'm curious to know. They must try to avoid thinking about their inevidable end, where everything they worked for will have been for nothing.

You telling me what I must think does not exactly prompt me to answer the question what I think.

 

[Landon Caeli]

You telling me what I must think does not exactly prompt me to answer the question what I think.

Help me understand how to handle my inevidable death in an atheistic perspective.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...By your logic, I'm *required* to accept the legitimacy of astrology simply because I'm not an "expert" in the field of astrology! By that same logic, the Pope must be right about God, and she/you have to be wrong about that topic too, because you're not "authorities" on the topic of God. It's a completely lame and bogus argument.

I'm sorry Michael, if you are unable to grasp the difference between authority and veracity, I really can't help you. Maybe someone with more time on their hands could have a go...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How do they deal with death -That's what I'm curious to know. They must try to avoid thinking about their inevidable end, where everything they worked for will have been for nothing.

...Every day, getting one step closer, and closer, and closer...

Not really. It doesn't work that way for me, anyhow.