Originally posted by -Pr-
not bad, but tbh, i've always thought of richard dawkins as a bit of a tool.
So do many. The point is not to let that obscure the message of either Dawkins himself or those he associates himself with. He's a smart guy. A tool, yes. But usually it doesn't mean he's in the wrong.
Originally posted by ushomefree
You are correct; I did not watch the presentation. First, it was too long, and second, it's guaranteed to contain information/theories that have been presented by a dozen other scientists in the recent past. I chose not to subject myself to repetition.Thank you. I've heard it before, and I'm sure others on the forum have as well. No pun intended.
Stop extrapolating! You assume too much, dear friend. If two opposing energy sources cancel one another, such does not demand (or even prove for the matter) the non-existence of energy. It only reveals a "relationship."
no i dont. you are using simple and {known to be} vague and presumptuous linguistics to create an argument which is neither reflective of facts, nor of logic or scientific findings.
it proves that all ENERGY that we see has an opposite component called NEGETIVE energy. which cancels it out and brings the TOTAL ENERGY OF THE SYSTEM to zero, nulling any argument about the energy of the world having to COME FROM sumwhere{i.e. a childish father in the sky}, proving that fluctuations at the zero energy quantum level without adding anything or taking anything out by an outside force can create the universe as it exists.
again, WATCH it before commenting. his oppinions are significantly superior to ours in the subject seeing as he is the scientist. oversimpliostic arguments from language dont oppose the mathematical findings of science and mathematics.
so a few things. it was EINSTIEN who said that about the cosmological constant he added to account for the expansion of the universe as hubble saw it when his own theory predicted that the system would collapse under gravity in general reletivity. basically it was an OPPOSING force to gravity pushing the universe out.
however, MUCH later we find that more sensitive observatoins indicate that such a force{albeit weaker than einstiens} actually exists and so the cosmological constant is reintroduced in the reletevistic equations.
and lastly id like to say sumthing about dawkins. its been a long standing tradition on kmc {propogated by people who are mostly "tools" themselves} to trash him and call him an EXTREMIST in his own right or fundamentalist scientist/atheist etc. this is VASTLY misleading. and i can guaruntee that most people due to this perception havent even bothered to read any of his books or watch his debates or lectures. the man is anything but an extremist, hes rather huble and straight. takes a critical view of relegion but isnt dogmatic in ANY SENSE of his own views{dont take my word on it, watch his debates and lectures or read one of his books}. its very unfair to trash him as such. as a result of such idiocy on part of the people, the entire new atheist movemnt is marginalised and no1 even cares to read or hear people like hitchens/dennet/harris.
christopher hitchens is a lot more extreme in his critique and a lot more fun. doesnt make him an extremist either. nor a fundamentalist, unlike relegious nuts these peope actually give good arguments for their critique and it just so happens that relegion doesnt like that mirror held up to its ugly face{the only thigs hitchens is extreme/wrong in is his views on the iraq war}.
basically dont let the world define a skewed centre{a bit like how noam chomsky or howard zinn or john pilger are defined as ultra leftist loons in a desperate bid to marginalise their position as "equally as extreme as ruch limbaugh" its an old tactic and it works by making people slf concious that when they are supposedly condemning one extreme they shud also condemn people in their own camp on account of their "self righteousness"} and marginalise perfectly valid oppinion. {for instance, how many people here call msnbc AS extreme as fox or call micheal moore the right wing rush limbaugh?}
Re: A UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING {creation ex nihilo}
so has any1 actuallu watched this yet?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
and lastly id like to say sumthing about dawkins. its been a long standing tradition on kmc {propogated by people who are mostly "tools" themselves} to trash him and call him an EXTREMIST in his own right or fundamentalist scientist/atheist etc. this is VASTLY misleading. and i can guaruntee that most people due to this perception havent even bothered to read any of his books or watch his debates or lectures. the man is anything but an extremist, hes rather huble and straight. takes a critical view of relegion but isnt dogmatic in ANY SENSE of his own views{dont take my word on it, watch his debates and lectures or read one of his books}. its very unfair to trash him as such. as a result of such idiocy on part of the people, the entire new atheist movemnt is marginalised and no1 even cares to read or hear people like hitchens/dennet/harris.
some of us actually have read up on dawkins, so don't go tarring everyone with the same brush.
Originally posted by -Pr-
some of us actually have read up on dawkins, so don't go tarring everyone with the same brush.
i wasnt necessarily painting YOU with that brush unless you knowlingly propogated the wrong oppinion about him. many people beleive it{wrongly}. i was referring to those people who start it to marginalise him. {btw have u read his books?}
Re: Re: Re: A UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING {creation ex nihilo}
Originally posted by Robtard
^Was going to, then I read your 'negative forces negating the positive'; that's not nothing, unless nothing doesn't mean the complete absence of something.
Maybe I'll still give it a shot, later on.
which is why language is deceptive. in the video he explains how over 90% of the energy and mass are actually present in EMPTY SPACE and how space itself through quanum fluctuations is an ESSESNTIAL part of the general equation. so it isnt like positive enrgy vs negetive energy IN SPACE. infact space itself is PART of the positive energy.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
i wasnt necessarily painting YOU with that brush unless you knowlingly propogated the wrong oppinion about him. many people beleive it{wrongly}. i was referring to those people who start it to marginalise him. {btw have u read his books?}
no, i havent read his books. ive seen several interviews with the guy, though, where he was allowed to talk at length. and i looked at his site a while back too. and read various bits and pieces dotted around.
i just think it's wrong of him to presume to tell people that they're wrong for having faith.
Re: Re: A UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING {creation ex nihilo}
Originally posted by leonheartmmYes. Finally. Very well done. There was nothing I hadn't already heard/watched/read about before, but I liked his clarity (some things I grasp better now), and his humor, though the snipes against religion really weren't necessary (if still funny). No doubt, he was venting frustration or annoyance from dealing in the past with his fundamentalist counterparts. I really did appreciate, though, the bit about European high school students (ie, by implication, the crack about American HS students).
so has any1 actuallu watched this yet?
One thing I think he could've included (I remember this from some previous show/lecture), that would've better explained the relationship between "energy" and "nothing" is this (IIRC): press both your hands togther with equal force. One hand is positive energy, the other is negative energy. Press as hard as you can. Because the forces are equal (symmetry), neither hand moves, ie, there is zero work being done. In other words, I observe nothing (happening), though a lot of energy is present.
Anyway, again, this is a video worth watching. I could almost see Larry as the heir to Carl...almost. Carl was more diplomatic, kinder and gentler in his pointing out the problems when religion tries to do science's job.
Two things:
1. A hearty lol at ushome complaining that the video was too long, and contained repetitive ideas. The irony of that statement made me smile for minutes.
2. Maybe it makes me evil, but I love how polarizing Dawkins is to religion forum threads. I replied to Pr about Dawkins knowing full well that I was likely sidetracking the thread forever. My apologies leon.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I must question how this is meaningfully different from "god did it", unless we're all expected to get the grounding in quantum physics (and I mean actual education in it not learning a couple buzz words) and then purchase the billions of dollars in equipment needed to confirm this ourselves.
There's a certain amount of faith involved, yes, which is ironic. But there's different kinds of faith. Putting faith in scientific theories (that the earth is not the center of the universe, for example, which we also don't have the equipment in our houses to confirm or deny) is based on facts, consensuses among those we consider experts, tested or testable theories, etc. etc. In other words, no we can't confirm it ourselves, but there is a rational foundation for the belief.
Religious faith is utterly blind. No facts exists, no testable theory exists, to support "god did it." Therefore, "god did it" and "what the scientific community says" are vastly different in terms of degree of faith.
Originally posted by Digi
There's a certain amount of faith involved, yes, which is ironic. But there's different kinds of faith. Putting faith in scientific theories (that the earth is not the center of the universe, for example, which we also don't have the equipment in our houses to confirm or deny) is based on facts, consensuses among those we consider experts, tested or testable theories, etc. etc. In other words, no we can't confirm it ourselves, but there is a rational foundation for the belief.
Believing in something you will never be able to test, cannot arrive at logically and cannot even meaningfully understand requires a lot more than "a certain amount of faith".
You have essentially decided to believe in something for no other reason than you are told it is true by a person you respect. That's not any more rational than a person 4000 years ago believing in the gods because the local wise man tells him to.
Originally posted by Digi
Religious faith is utterly blind. No facts exists, no testable theory exists, to support "god did it." Therefore, "god did it" and "what the scientific community says" are vastly different in terms of degree of faith.
You cannot look at the data and determine if it is true.
You cannot even look at the data and determine what it means.
You cannot produce the data yourself.
You cannot arrive at their conclusions based on what you know.
All you can do is say take it completely on faith that physicists have an accurate model of the beginning of the universe.
That's blind faith, except that you chose to listen to scientists rather than priests (something I happen to agree with doing, btw).
Keep in mind, I'm not saying this is wrong or inaccurate just that this is all so far beyond us that we would never know if it was wrong and it approaches saying "a wizard did it" only with longer words.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I must question how this is meaningfully different from "god did it", unless we're all expected to get the grounding in quantum physics (and I mean actual education in it not learning a couple buzz words) and then purchase the billions of dollars in equipment needed to confirm this ourselves.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Believing in something you will never be able to test, cannot arrive at logically and cannot even meaningfully understand requires a lot more than "a certain amount of faith".You have essentially decided to believe in something for no other reason than you are told it is true by a person you respect. That's not any more rational than a person 4000 years ago believing in the gods because the local wise man tells him to.
I disagree, because I do understand and trust the scientific methods of testing that are used to reach such conclusions. Simply understanding that there's a logical underpinning to the process eliminates absolute blind faith.
Also, this:
Originally posted by King Kandy
That applies to all advanced science though. The key difference here is that you know that your belief COULD be confirmed empirically, whereas religion makes no bones about being completely unscientifically justifiable.
I also think, on this particular point, that one need not be able to produce the results to understand the concept sifficiently. Just because we aren't scientists ourselves doesn't mean we can't understand the reasoning behind, say, the idea that the earth revolves around the sun. Quantum mechanics are considerably more advanced, granted, but the fact that there's so much popular media and literature to describe it to laypeople means that the concepts involved can indeed be grasped.