Why or what is it that makes you or leads or led you to believe that a God does not exist...?

[KCfromNC]

Well, I do tend to lean toward Panentheism rather than Pantheism for that very reason. Still, the physics would be exactly the same.

If the physics is the same with your god or any other in its place, it gets us back to the point that none of these ideas make a single bit of difference in how reality works. That's pretty much the opposite of a scientific idea.

It's far more restrictive of a standard of evidence than is ever applied in the realm of "science".

I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you have anything specific to discuss here?

 

[Michael]

If the physics is the same with your god or any other in its place, it gets us back to the point that none of these ideas make a single bit of difference in how reality works. That's pretty much the opposite of a scientific idea.

Not at all. The whole concept of living universe implies all sorts of "predictions" we might make about the nature and functions of spacetime, and Panentheism has the added benefit of being able to predict human interaction here on Earth. A living universe concept is exactly like any other scientific theory of the universe. It makes "predictions" which can be "tested" in the same way as any other cosmology theory.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you have anything specific to discuss here?

Yep. The whole point of my comments was to point out that "science" has never limited itself to empirically demonstrated cause/effect mechanisms, and therefore no concept of God can be ruled out based on a lack of an empirical cause/effect demonstration as atheists seem quite intent on doing.

 

[Michael]

Nobody is asking me to believe that. "just" or otherwise.

Of course they are. There's certainly no empirical cause/effect demonstration of any of the supernatural components of big bang theory.

 

[Michael]

"Accept" as what? Certainly not "truth".

When they try to claim they know how old the universe is, it's certainly presented as "truth" as far as the presentation is concerned. In fact, I've yet to see a TV, or mainstream presentation of cosmology history that admits that Edwin Hubble himself preferred a static universe solution to photon redshift, which would preclude them from making any statements about the age of the universe at all.

I'ld rather say "as the most likely idea currently available". Or "the least unlikely", if that makes you feel better.

No, just no. That statement just demonstrates how little you understand any of the empirical cosmological alternatives that are available to you. In fact I'd say that of all the cosmology concepts I've heard, LCDM is probably the second *least* likely to be true, only topped by YEC.

LCDM theory literally requires 4 unique "acts of faith" on the part of the believer which defy empirical cause/effect demonstration in the lab. How can it be "likely" at all?

"The most interesting field of study at the moment".

Based on the results of the past decade, it's the least productive field of study in physics.

"the track that is thought to have the best chance of providing answers"

Answers to what exactly? Of what use is "dark energy" in your daily life?

That is a lie.

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850&sid=30993776aeb094e4b6658f36d094cbbf

Nope. In fact the results of the past decade demonstrate conclusively that the whole LCDM paradigm is unfalsifiable by any known "test". Every lab test was a failure, and every "test" of their baryonic mass estimates from 2006 were blown completely away by later revelations of stellar miscounts and their underestimation of the effect of scattering in plasma. The only thing holding LCDM theory together today is pure denial of the scientific results of the "tests" applied to that theory for the past decade. The mainstream has the single worst case of confirmation bias in the entire history of physics.

That is essentially the same rant that you have replied to me several times over the past 2 days. It would be funny to see the statistical occurance of this rant in your total postcount. My money is on "many times". I also expect it to be evenly spread throughout the different sub-forums.

If you mean you expect/predict me to have discussed various areas of theoretical physics on various "science" forums, guilty as charged. Then again, that's not a particularly difficult "prediction".

 

[KCfromNC]

Not at all. The whole concept of living universe implies all sorts of "predictions" we might make about the nature and functions of spacetime, and Panentheism has the added benefit of being able to predict human interaction here on Earth. A living universe concept is exactly like any other scientific theory of the universe. It makes "predictions" which can be "tested" in the same way as any other cosmology theory.

Where are these testable predictions published?

Yep. The whole point of my comments was to point out that "science" has never limited itself to empirically demonstrated cause/effect mechanisms, and therefore no concept of God can be ruled out based on a lack of an empirical cause/effect demonstration as atheists seem quite intent on doing.

Interesting assertinos. Any reason to think they have anything to do with reality?

 

[Michael]

Where are these testable predictions published?

https://books.google.com/books?id=jZhEAAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Interesting assertinos. Any reason to think they have anything to do with reality?

Yes, for all the reasons that I just mentioned.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Why or what is it that makes you or leads or led you to believe that a God does not exist...?

I posted this here in the Physical and Life sciences forum, because those are atypically the ones who think they have a good, logical, valid, or scientific reason for not believing a God does or could exist, and I'd like to hear those...?

Please post any and all good, logical, valid, or scientific, or other reasons for believing a God does not exist and how you came to know or believe you are certain of it, please...?

Comments...?

God Bless!

"atypical" - NOT typical

My belief blew town when I started realizing that if there is a God, he's probably not happy that most of his followers have a collective IQ roughly equal to a box of rocks. If God created people, and people have been bestowed with intellect...then why do these followers have an amazing anti-intellectual bias? Wouldn't that be considered "wasting" a gift that God gave you?

And...once I got down in the weeds and started reading the arguments for "creation-science" and rot like that, I also discovered that it seems that belief requires something I am incapable of doing...leaving my brain/intellect at the door of the church.

So...with that...from evidence gathered from those who claim to follow the "one true God", I came to believe that if that's the Sovereign of the Universe, then we're ALL in big trouble.

 

[KCfromNC]

https://books.google.com/books?id=jZhEAAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=jZhEAAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Nothing peer-reviewed? Departments of Philosophy and Religious Studies? Doesn't sound very scientific to me.

Yes, for all the reasons that I just mentioned.

Such as?

 

[Michael]

https://books.google.com/books?id=jZhEAAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Nothing peer-reviewed? Departments of Philosophy and Religious Studies? Doesn't sound very scientific to me.



Such as?

Actually I haven't poked around much in terms of published papers on Pantheism/Panentheism per se, but it's worth checking out. It's a fair question and worth exploration on my part.

If you're looking for the mechanical/empirical physical aspects, and circuit theory as it's applied to space plasma, I'd start with Alfven's work on EU/PC theory, or Birkeland's solar model.

 

[mzungu]

Why or what is it that makes you or leads or led you to believe that a God does not exist...?

I posted this here in the Physical and Life sciences forum, because those are atypically the ones who think they have a good, logical, valid, or scientific reason for not believing a God does or could exist, and I'd like to hear those...?

Please post any and all good, logical, valid, or scientific, or other reasons for believing a God does not exist and how you came to know or believe you are certain of it, please...?

Comments...?

God Bless!

I stopped believing in God at the early age of ten. The reason was that deities and all manner of supernatural beings were in direct conflict with empirical science.
If however science were to bring forth evidence of the existance of God(s) I will accept but not worship him or them.

 

[Michael]

I stopped believing in God at the early age of ten. The reason was that deities and all manner of supernatural beings were in direct conflict with empirical science.
If however science were to bring forth evidence of the existance of God(s) I will accept but not worship him or them.

And yet you believe that 96 percent of the universe is made of supernatural forms of matter and energy that are more impotent in the lab your average concept of "God"?

 

[bhsmte]

Simple; i see no reliable or verifiable evidence a deity exists.

 

[mzungu]

And yet you believe that 96 percent of the universe is made of supernatural forms of matter and energy that are more impotent in the lab your average concept of "God"?

That is a non sequitur. Matter and energy are not supernatural in form. I specifically stated that I do not believe in the supernatural. I do not have any concept of God as I am an atheist.

 

[Michael]

I stopped believing in God at the early age of ten. The reason was that deities and all manner of supernatural beings were in direct conflict with empirical science.
If however science were to bring forth evidence of the existance of God(s) I will accept but not worship him or them.

You're using two different definitions of "evidence". Your supernatural definition of matter and energy come into direct conflict with billions of dollars worth of lab results all of which *falsified* all of your mathematical models.

 

[mzungu]

You're using two different definitions of "evidence". Your supernatural definition of matter and energy come into direct conflict with billions of dollars worth of lab results all of which *falsified* all of your mathematical models.

I know better than to debate with you. I do not accept your pseudoscientific beliefs and will not post further.

 

[Michael]

That is a non sequitur.

No it's not. It's a direct comparison.

Matter and energy are not supernatural in form.

Matter as defined by the standard particle physics model isn't "supernatural" because it shows up in the lab. Your "supernatural" extensions to the standard model never show up in the lab. Notice the difference?

I specifically stated that I do not believe in the supernatural.

Except that's simply not true since 96 percent of your cosmology beliefs require faith in supernatural constructs.

I do not have any concept of God as I am an atheist.

You can't reject something that you don't have a concept about.

 

[Michael]

I know better than to debate with you. I do not accept your pseudoscientific beliefs and will not post further.

You just know full well that your supernatural forms of matter and energy are more impotent on Earth than an average concept of "God", and you simply cannot handle it.

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850&sid=7162cef0c805dc1ba62da7b7491f3073

As a matter of fact, the whole astronomy community is incapable of dealing with their dark matter disaster. The last ten years have falsified exotic dark matter claims a half dozen different ways, and your baryonic mass estimates have been a complete joke as many studies from the past decade have demonstrated repeatedly. In short: "You can't handle the truth".

 

[KCfromNC]

You just know full well that your supernatural forms of matter and energy are more impotent on Earth than an average concept of "God", and you simply cannot handle it.

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850&sid=7162cef0c805dc1ba62da7b7491f3073

As a matter of fact, the whole astronomy community is incapable of dealing with their dark matter disaster. The last ten years have falsified exotic dark matter claims a half dozen different ways, and your baryonic mass estimates have been a complete joke as many studies from the past decade have demonstrated repeatedly. In short: "You can't handle the truth".

Conspiracy theory forum is over that-a-way --->

 

[Michael]

Conspiracy theory forum is over that-a-way --->

Since it's the mainstream that keeps falsifying their own CDM (and other) claims, and they keep pointing out their own stellar mass estimation problems, it would have to be the single worst "conspiracy" in the history of physics. If on the other hand they're conspiring to make themselves look bad for the past decade, they're doing a hell of good job!

 

[HitchSlap]

Not at all. The whole concept of living universe implies all sorts of "predictions" we might make about the nature and functions of spacetime, and Panentheism has the added benefit of being able to predict human interaction here on Earth. A living universe concept is exactly like any other scientific theory of the universe. It makes "predictions" which can be "tested" in the same way as any other cosmology theory.



Yep. The whole point of my comments was to point out that "science" has never limited itself to empirically demonstrated cause/effect mechanisms, and therefore no concept of God can be ruled out based on a lack of an empirical cause/effect demonstration as atheists seem quite intent on doing.

Do you think dark matter is the same as the god in the bible?