Why I am not an atheist

[Michael]

That's not a cause.

Yes it is. It's a *repeatable* cause, a *cause* that isn't shy around the lab. If you doubt previous lab results you're welcome to recreate them youself, including standard control mechanisms. Chen even explains which mechansims might be useful to you.

That's faith, Michael.

Nope. With respect to emirical cause/effect demonstrations, it's *empirical physics*. No "faith" is required.

They are just assuming that inelastic scattering is causing the observed redshift.

No. They can *demonstrate* it by varying the flow of electrons through the plasma as Chen did and observe the changes in the photon redshift that result from the increase or decrease of electrons.

As your post shows, all you have is faith in inelastic scattering.

No, I have cause/effect evidence of a connection between redshift and *several* forms of inelastic scattering.

You must be in a hurting place to try to ignore the difference between an empirical demonstration in a lab, complete with control mechanisms, and a handwave about cause/effect relationships that has not, and *cannot* be demonstrated in a real lab with *real* control mechanisms.

It is just as supernatural as inelastic scattering.

Nope. Scattering happens. Many lab tests demonstrate the cause/effect relationships. Moving particles also produce redshift. I have two *empirical* options to choose from. I don't need your *supernatural* claims in the first place.

Scientists have established a cause/effect relationship

Correction: Some scientists have *alledged* a cause/effect relationship, one that *defies* any empirical support in any lab on Earth. With respect to cause, they have "faith" in the "unseen" in the lab.

between distance and redshift for space expansion, and yet you claim that it is not a cause/effect relationship.

Actually I claim it's not even an *option* since several other *empirical* options are already viable. Your supernatural friend loses the first Ockham's razor argument applied to it.

Therefore, inelastic scattering is no more proven than space expansion.

Pure denial. Both *moving objects*, and several forms of inelastic scattering have a *tangible/empirical* effect on photon redshift. In blunt contrast, your "space expansion" claims are completely impotent in the lab.

You mean like your assumed connection between inelastic scattering and photon redshift?

No I didn't. The connection has been empirically demonstrated in *multiple experiments on Earth*.

Man, you're sounding desparate at this point. You can't simply ignore the empirical differences with respect to lab demonstrated cause/effect relationships, and relationships based on pure faith. All my relationships can and have been demonstrated in a lab. Your claims *cannot* be demonstrated in a lab since there is no defined "control mechanism" for "space expansions", "inflation" or "dark energy".

 

[Michael]

As I've said, atheists tend to apply one *empirical* standard to the topic of God, and a different (scientific) standard of evidence with respect to anything else on planet Earth, or alledged to exist in spacetime. Science has never limited itself to a purely *empirical* standard of evidence.

 

[Gracchus]

As I've said, atheists tend to apply one *empirical* standard to the topic of God, and a different (scientific) standard of evidence with respect to anything else on planet Earth, or alledged to exist in spacetime. Science has never limited itself to a purely *empirical* standard of evidence.

Please note that I am not an atheist, but I cannot but note that some religious people on this forum have but one standard to philosophy, theology and science: The more absurd it is, the more firmly they believe it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing: Lawrence M. Krauss, Richard Dawkins: 9781451624465: Amazon.com: Books

The last question you asked is actually the key question. Krauss's 'nothing' isn't actually "nothing", but his pantheon of invisible sky entities are more impotent in the lab than an *average* 'supernatural' concept of "God".

Krauss clearly defines what he means by "nothing". And there are no "invisible sky entities" in his nothing.

It's one thing to disagree with him. It's another to misrepresent what he says.

And yet how do you know that Earth wasn't "formed" with "intent"?

The "not" in "wasn't" makes this a silly question.
How do you know we do not live in the matrix?

Why would I contemplate that question?

Even the concept of "evidence" becomes highly subjective at some point, particularly when the empirical standard get's left behind. "Science" has never been limited however to empiricism, and it's likely to *never* be limited to empirical cause/effect demonstrations of claims in the lab.

How is this related in any way to what I said concerning not requiring faith for not believing things that aren't supported by evidence?

 

[Michael]

Krauss clearly defines what he means by "nothing".

The term "clearly" is a tad subjective, but I agree that he's not actually talking about "nothing". Apparently astrophysicists even engage in a little confusing and false advertising while trying to sell books.

And there are no "invisible sky entities" in his nothing.

Oh boloney. He's got an invisible inflation thingy, and dark energy thingy, a magical space expansion thingy and an exotic sky matter thingy stuffed in there to "make it fit". There's at *least* four claims he's making that defy empirical cause/effect justification in the lab.

It's one thing to disagree with him. It's another to misrepresent what he says.

What he *says* is chalk full of claims that have *never* enjoyed, and in most cases *never could enjoy* any sort of cause/effect justification in the lab. His various claims are all affirming the consequent fallacy claims, starting with the claims that "space' does magical expansion tricks everywhere *except* where humans might ever go.

The "not" in "wasn't" makes this a silly question.
How do you know we do not live in the matrix?

Technically I don't.

Simulations back up theory that Universe is a hologram : Nature News & Comment

Why would I contemplate that question?

Because "How did we get here?" is still a valid scientific question?

How is this related in any way to what I said concerning not requiring faith for not believing things that aren't supported by evidence?

In terms of cause/effect justifications, all of Krauss's claims are not justified by *empirical* demonstrations of cause/effect relationships. They are all "acts of faith" that are simply required of the 'believer'. Krauss can't name so much as a source of his 'dark energy', yet it makes up almost 70 percent of his entire made-up universe. The exotic matter claims have been falsified not only by revelations of *massive* stellar underestimates, but also in the lab at LHC, LUX, PandaX etc. Falsifying a *faith* based belief system is impossible and therefore the results from the lab are irrelevant to Krauss.

 

[Michael]

Please note that I am not an atheist, but I cannot but note that some religious people on this forum have but one standard to philosophy, theology and science: The more absurd it is, the more firmly they believe it.

Apparently it's a "human" flaw regardless of one's theistic/atheists leanings.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes it is. It's a *repeatable* cause, a *cause* that isn't shy around the lab.

No, it isn't. All you have shown is a redshift. You haven't shown a cause.

Chen even explains which mechansims might be useful to you.

We have explained the mechanisms of space expansion, and you call it faith. Therefore, explanations of mechanisms for plasma redshift are equally based on faith.

Nope. With respect to emirical cause/effect demonstrations, it's *empirical physics*. No "faith" is required.

It is just as empirical as space expansion. In both cases, you are measuring a redshift after light passes through the medium.

No. They can *demonstrate* it by varying the flow of electrons through the plasma as Chen did and observe the changes in the photon redshift that result from the increase or decrease of electrons.

You can demonstrate space expansion by varying the distance between you and the galaxy.

No, I have cause/effect evidence of a connection between redshift and *several* forms of inelastic scattering.

By your definition, you don't. All you have is faith.

You must be in a hurting place to try to ignore the difference between an empirical demonstration in a lab, complete with control mechanisms, and a handwave about cause/effect relationships that has not, and *cannot* be demonstrated in a real lab with *real* control mechanisms.

Look at how tightly you grasp on to the faith of inelastic scattering. You don't have a cause. All you are measuring is redshift, and then you use faith to proclaim that plasma is doing it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The term "clearly" is a tad subjective, but I agree that he's not actually talking about "nothing". Apparently astrophysicists even engage in a little confusing and false advertising while trying to sell books.

Oh boloney. He's got an invisible inflation thingy, and dark energy thingy, a magical space expansion thingy and an exotic sky matter thingy stuffed in there to "make it fit". There's at *least* four claims he's making that defy empirical cause/effect justification in the lab.

What he *says* is chalk full of claims that have *never* enjoyed, and in most cases *never could enjoy* any sort of cause/effect justification in the lab. His various claims are all affirming the consequent fallacy claims, starting with the claims that "space' does magical expansion tricks everywhere *except* where humans might ever go.

Dude, I'm not going to engage you in this silly thing again.
These models aren't to be accepted as religions and they aren't suggested to be the "truth and nothing but the truth". It's theoretical physics. It's going to be theoretical and problematic. Every single model that is proposed for the origins of the universe is going to have a poo-load of assumptions. And the scientists publishing the models are brutally honest about that as well.

In fact, Krauss himself has said in a talk about origins that he expects that just about every model currently on the table (including his own) is wrong.

I don't see why you get so worked up about it. But whatever...

Because "How did we get here?" is still a valid scientific question?

Sure. But the problem I have is that your question was more like "how did we not get here?".

In terms of cause/effect justifications, all of Krauss's claims are not justified by *empirical* demonstrations of cause/effect relationships. They are all "acts of faith" that are simply required of the 'believer'. Krauss can't name so much as a source of his 'dark energy', yet it makes up almost 70 percent of his entire made-up universe. The exotic matter claims have been falsified not only by revelations of *massive* stellar underestimates, but also in the lab at LHC, LUX, PandaX etc. Falsifying a *faith* based belief system is impossible and therefore the results from the lab are irrelevant to Krauss.

yawn...

 

[Michael]

Dude, I'm not going to engage you in this silly thing again.
These models aren't to be accepted as religions and they aren't suggested to be the "truth and nothing but the truth". It's theoretical physics. It's going to be theoretical and problematic. Every single model that is proposed for the origins of the universe is going to have a poo-load of assumptions. And the scientists publishing the models are brutally honest about that as well.

In fact, Krauss himself has said in a talk about origins that he expects that just about every model currently on the table (including his own) is wrong.

I don't see why you get so worked up about it. But whatever...

That's a very nice 'theory' about how you "assume" that astronomy works in the real world today, but I assure you that any alternative theories aren't treated the same as "mainstream' beliefs. In fact Cosmoquest has a whole 'burn the heretic' section, where any and all "against the mainstream" beliefs may only be discussed for a limited time, and then all discussion is closed. It actually works more like inbred cult than the rose colored glasses version that you seem to believe in.

It's the affirming the fallacy nature of their cause/effect claims that irk me the most, along with their blatant *confirmation bias*. Pretty much all 'failures' of their 'falsified predictions' are swept right under the rug, and the blind allegiance to a supernatural creation mythos continues.

Sure. But the problem I have is that your question was more like "how did we not get here?".

It's more like acknowledging that there is actually more empirical theory to support Orch-OR theory and a concept of 'soul' than there is to support most mainstream cosmology theories, including Lambda-CDM and 'M-Theory" which isn't even a falsifiable hypothesis, but it's always falsely advertised as a 'theory' anyway.

yawn...

From my vantage point that a pretty cavalier attitude about our origins and nature of awareness itself. There are in fact a lot of cause/effect claims in 'science' that lack empirical laboratory confirmation, and yet atheists tend to claim "science' is on their side, while employing a purely *empirical* standard toward the topic of God.

Yawn indeed.

 

[Michael]

No, it isn't. All you have shown is a redshift. You haven't shown a cause.

Yes, Chen has. He's shown a cause/effect link between the flow of electrons through plasma and the amount of redshift that is likely occur. The effect can be *measured* in real laboratories, with real empirical control mechanisms like Chen controlled the current.

Likewise empirical experiments with Doppler shift demonstrate that there are *two viable* and entirely *empirical* ways of explaining photon redshift, "tired light"/inelastic scattering, and *object movement*.

This demonstrates that there is no *need* for your supernatural claims about 'space expansion' in the first place, and your claim loses the first Ockham's razor argument applied to it!

There's *no* empirical cause/effect link between your claims about some magical aetherical 'space expansion' and photon redshift. The cause/effect claim is *an act of faith* on the part of the believer.

We have explained the mechanisms of space expansion, and you call it faith.

You haven't "explained" any 'mechanisms' at all, in fact you've not even defined the term 'space' in any physical way in the first place. Only the term 'spacetime' is defined in GR.

Therefore, explanations of mechanisms for plasma redshift are equally based on faith.

Nope. My claims aren't shy around the lab when it comes to demonstrating the cause/effect relationships, including Chen's demonstration of a cause/effect relationship between redshift and photons.

It is just as empirical as space expansion. In both cases, you are measuring a redshift after light passes through the medium.

Yes, but I can *modify* the so called plasma "medium" by introducing more electrons as Chen did, and then *measure* the changes in redshift. How do I change the "medium" of space so I can watch it have a tangible effect on photons?

You can demonstrate space expansion by varying the distance between you and the galaxy.

I can't control galaxy separation, so that's not an option. It also wouldn't allow me to eliminate every other viable option all *by itself*.

By your definition, you don't. All you have is faith.

Nope, I have empirical cause/effect demonstrations in a lab, not faith. I'm quite free of 'faith' in EU/PC theory. Only if I tried to claim there was *only one possible* explanation for photon redshift could you accuse me of 'faith". Fortunately I don't even have to *choose* one specific cause of photon redshift in *all* instances. I can afford to incorporate all *empirical* options.

Look at how tightly you grasp on to the faith of inelastic scattering. You don't have a cause. All you are measuring is redshift, and then you use faith to proclaim that plasma is doing it.

Not at all. I haven't A) excluded object movement as a possible explanation in *some* instances and B) I haven't eliminated any *specific* type of inelastic scattering options either.

Only in your *faith* based reality can you claim to have *knowledge* that all the known *empirical* explanations are incapable of explaining photon redshift in spacetime, therefore your pantheon of *supernatural* claims *must* apply.