Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

so this is a video of astrophysicist lawrence kraus explaining in a very lucid and scientific way how our universe came from nothing. explaining where were headed and commenting on the role of relegion{or lack thereof}. its just over an hour long at an event where christopher hitchens/dan dennet etc spoke too. hosted partly by richard dawkins. i must say its a WONDERFUL hour and every1 shud check it out and not be daunted by the time period.

enjoy.

7ImvlS8PLIo

Please define nothing.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please define nothing.

As a noun, verb, adverb or as used in idiomatic speech?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
As a noun, verb, adverb or as used in idiomatic speech?

As in context with the subject of the thread.

If a person says that the universe came from nothingness, then are they saying that nothingness is something? Or are they saying that the universe was at a zero state?

Note: I have not seen the video. I cannot get YouTube at work. It is blocked. I might watch it later when I get home (depending on how board I am).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please define nothing. Nothing, as in that which makes no sense to our current understanding of physics.

Thank you, everyone. Good night, Happy New Year, and may Nothing Bless you and your loved ones.

P.S. I didn't watch the video either (an hour!?!), but I like to think I have some meager understanding of the subject (eg, chaotic inflation, anyone? false vacuum? Stay tuned for these and other exciting topics next year).

Originally posted by Mindship
Nothing, as in that which makes no sense to our current understanding of physics.

Thank you, everyone. Good night, Happy New Year, and may Nothing Bless you and your loved ones.

P.S. I didn't watch the video either (an hour!?!), but I like to think I have some meager understanding of the subject (eg, chaotic inflation, anyone? false vacuum? Stay tuned for these and other exciting topics next year).

It feels like we've had this conversation before.

Nothing, IE, vacuum
It has been known for a long time that there exists such a thing as "Vacuum Fluctuations". Energy spawning form nothing, and negative energy going backwards in time at the same time, thus eliminating itself.

It is thought that the Big bang is a Vacuum fluctuation in which its symmetry broke, thus expanding. Like braking a magnet, they form their own poles and can not be brought back together.

I'll probably watch it at some point. I have a cursory interest in the topic, since it seems to be where a lot of my religious discussions end up leading when I talk to people in my life. I'll cite points A, B, C, D, etc. to support my non-religious views, and they'll usually concede quite a bit of it. Then I don't know enough to say anything about the creation point of the universe and they're kinda like "well there ya go" and claim their de facto victory, while I end up having to retreat to some form of agnosticism.

Nothing is free in this world, my dear friends. The same applies to mass, energy, space and time. Something (or someone) brought the Cosmos into being. Science doesn't try or pretend to know the latter, but Religion does. Science tells us that... whatever that something is (or was) must of had value -- a value that superceedes the physical laws that you and I occupy. "Nothingness" has zero power (energy) to create something. To think otherwise, is not only unwarranted, but obnoxious. It would be like watching a lamp fall off a table, only for someone to say, "Oh... nothing did that. I just happened!" You'd be offended, and I'd understand why.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Nothing is free in this world, my dear friends. The same applies to mass, energy, space and time. Something (or someone) brought the Cosmos into being. Science doesn't try or pretend to know the latter, but Religion does. Science tells us that... whatever that something is (or was) must of had value -- a value that superceedes the physical laws that you and I occupy. "Nothingness" has zero power (energy) to create something. To think otherwise, is not only unwarranted, but obnoxious. It would be like watching a lamp fall off a table, only for someone to say, "Oh... nothing did that. I just happened!" You'd be offended, and I'd understand why.
"Nothingness" has a nonzero energy value. This is a known fact in science.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Nothing is free in this world, my dear friends. The same applies to mass, energy, space and time. Something (or someone) brought the Cosmos into being. Science doesn't try or pretend to know the latter, but Religion does. Science tells us that... whatever that something is (or was) must of had value -- a value that superceedes the physical laws that you and I occupy. "Nothingness" has zero power (energy) to create something. To think otherwise, is not only unwarranted, but obnoxious. It would be like watching a lamp fall off a table, only for someone to say, "Oh... nothing did that. I just happened!" You'd be offended, and I'd understand why.

you didnt watch the video and felt like commenting anyway didnt you? this is the closemindedness of dogma. if you had WATCHED the video, it wud have easily taken care of "exactly" the question you asked. krauss explains how the total energy of our universe is now KNOWN to be COOMPLETELY ZERO. this isn an hypothesis, he explains how it is one of the facts of today, and explains how it is calculated.

yes, the cosmological constant+gravity=spacial energy+energy contained in all the mass of the universe.

meaning that the negetive energy COMPLETELY cancels out the positive energy of the universe thus making the ENTIRE SYSTEM "EXACTLY" EQUAL TO "ZERO. explaining how zero point fluctuations can create a universe without any OUTSIDE injection of energy.


WATCH IT!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It feels like we've had this conversation before. Probably. Does that mean I've been here too long?

Damn, I just finished watching the entire thing. Some mind blowing stuff that makes me feel and my -Philosophy major in progress- retarded in comparison to these guys.

i wish i was smart enough to understand what was being said throughout the majority of the lecture.

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."

Originally posted by leonheartmm
yes, the cosmological constant+gravity=spacial energy+energy contained in all the mass of the universe.

Didn't Hubble lament the cosmological constant as "my greatest mistake"?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Didn't Hubble lament the cosmological constant as "my greatest mistake"?

The professor in the video mentioned something about Hubble being off by a factor of ten. That could be what Hubble was talking about.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Didn't Hubble lament the cosmological constant as "my greatest mistake"?
It was Einstein who said that, based on science from 70 years ago. It's now known from experimental observations that there is a cosmological constant of significant value.

Coolio

Originally posted by leonheartmm
so this is a video of astrophysicist lawrence kraus explaining in a very lucid and scientific way how our universe came from nothing. explaining where were headed and commenting on the role of relegion{or lack thereof}. its just over an hour long at an event where christopher hitchens/dan dennet etc spoke too. hosted partly by richard dawkins. i must say its a WONDERFUL hour and every1 shud check it out and not be daunted by the time period.

enjoy.

7ImvlS8PLIo

not bad, but tbh, i've always thought of richard dawkins as a bit of a tool.

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 Digi
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.

nor does it make him right, though.

I'm surprised Dawkins always seems to be singled out for those complaints. Hitchens is way, way worse. Hell, Mark Twain is way, way worse.

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?}

7ImvlS8PLIo

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.

^

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.

There's no such thing as nothing whatsoever in science. Vacuums have their own energy.

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?}

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.

Originally posted by -Pr-
i just think it's wrong of him to presume to tell people that they're wrong for having faith.
But it's not "wrong" to tell people they're going to hell for not having faith?

Originally posted by King Kandy
But it's not "wrong" to tell people they're going to hell for not having faith?

of course it is, but i consider those people to be tools too.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
so has any1 actuallu watched this yet? Yes. 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).

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

Digi... not so fast! Symmetric Chaos has a point.

Although your respect/outlook of the scientific method may be strong, many others do not share your honesty and compassion; they merely believe what they want to believe. Pure emotion, and scientists are not immune! They are people too. They twist, contort and ignore information for a pat-on-the-back from peers, self gratification and/or funding. The same nonsense applies to persons within the religious community! Your latter point is correct, but it is not always followed. Whoever has the biggest mouth usually wins the debate; and whoever has the biggest mouth usually has the most money, but they don't represent true science (in all cases). Global warming is an excellent example! The same applies to religion.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Digi... not so fast! Symmetric Chaos has a point.

Although your respect/outlook of the scientific method may be strong, many others do not share your honesty and compassion; they merely believe what they want to believe. Pure emotion, and scientists are not immune! They are people too. They twist, contort and ignore information for a pat-on-the-back from peers, self gratification and/or funding. The same nonsense applies to persons within the religious community! Your latter point is correct, but it is not always followed. Whoever has the biggest mouth usually wins the debate; and whoever has the biggest mouth usually has the most money, but they don't represent true science (in all cases). Global warming is an excellent example! The same applies to religion.

Things are not as bad as you think. That is true for both science and religion.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Digi... not so fast! Symmetric Chaos has a point.

Although your respect/outlook of the scientific method may be strong, many others do not share your honesty and compassion; they merely believe what they want to believe. Pure emotion, and scientists are not immune! They are people too. They twist, contort and ignore information for a pat-on-the-back from peers, self gratification and/or funding. The same nonsense applies to persons within the religious community! Your latter point is correct, but it is not always followed. Whoever has the biggest mouth usually wins the debate; and whoever has the biggest mouth usually has the most money, but they don't represent true science (in all cases). Global warming is an excellent example! The same applies to religion.

Even if a particular scientist contorts the truth to suit his/her purposes, scientists often advance their careers by pointing out the mistakes of others. In fact, this is how most of our progress is made. People are fallible, yes. But the system itself strives for veracity, and is self-correcting in this fashion. So you're missing the forest for the trees. Science is not dogmatic and rigid, and therein lies its strength. My faith in science is not blind because I understand and trust the process. If I were merely placing my trust in an individual person, then you would have a point.

Also, you're using global warming for your own purposes. For every person trying to further an agenda (and they do exist, I'll grant that) there are ten more on either side who just legitimately believe in opposite sides of the story. That is a case where the scientific community is torn, and the appropriate response from lay people is "we don't know," not to assume our own version of the truth. In such cases I wholeheartedly agree with Sym that we shouldn't just take one side or the other, or purport to know the truth. But where no controversy exists, that the world is round for example, we can safely place our trust in it until there is credible evidence to suggest otherwise.

It should also be noted, since I am discussing this with you, that in a case where we can't know something for sure, or where a scientific consensus does not exist, we shouldn't just insert a theistic answer to the question and take that as an answer. That's simply substituting a theory with some evidence for a theory with none.

The larger the conspiracy (which in this case include thousands, if not millions of minds across the world) the less likely it is to survive.

this is how you explain what nothingness is. its nothing, not a vacume of space but nothing at all not even reality not even a infinit empty space or energy, not even existance, its nothing. (beyond our minds to concieve).

Originally posted by leonheartmm
so this is a video of astrophysicist lawrence kraus explaining in a very lucid and scientific way how our universe came from nothing. explaining where were headed and commenting on the role of relegion{or lack thereof}. its just over an hour long at an event where christopher hitchens/dan dennet etc spoke too. hosted partly by richard dawkins. i must say its a WONDERFUL hour and every1 shud check it out and not be daunted by the time period.

enjoy.

7ImvlS8PLIo

Title is a little misleading leonheart

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
this is how you explain what nothingness is. its nothing, not a vacume of space but nothing at all not even reality not even a infinit empty space or energy, not even existance, its nothing. (beyond our minds to concieve).
Cool, but in current scientific understanding there's no such thing as the "nothing" you describe. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Cool, but in current scientific understanding there's no such thing as the "nothing" you describe. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. so? we hardly understand the universe. it could take thousands of years before we even truly understand the universe. better yet we have to evolve 1 millions years before we can even concieve those things
.

in a comic a celestial noted that man kind would have to evolve billions of years to even concieve most of the stuff of the universe
also by your definition, matter always existed
how can something always existed?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
so? we hardly understand the universe. it could take thousands of years before we even truly understand the universe. better yet we have to evolve 1 millions years before we can even concieve those things
.

in a comic a celestial noted that man kind would have to evolve billions of years to even concieve most of the stuff of the universe
also by your definition, matter always existed
how can something always existed?
What do you mean "how can something always existed"?

If it can't be created or destroyed, then it would HAVE to be that way. It seems obvious to me.

Second law of thermodynamics. All roads lead to failure and entropy, even the ones designed by 1000's of "scientists" (what the **** kinda carreer choice is that anyway?)

Such as the email leak earlier that exposed alot of the global warming scandal.

You don't know what their hiding. You don't know if anyone is telling the truth. Are your ears hardened to the specs of truth by dogmatic "fact" pushed down your throat by all forms of authority in power today? A good example is the fact that they can recreate fossil fuels, for cheap, as well. They have been able to do it since the 90s. How much have you heard about that?

Another good example is the KMC response to the exposure of the global warming scandal, as it was quickly covered up so that no-one else would question.

The scientist could be giving you a whole other reality to base your lives on while they keep the true one hidden.

Might I present to you: galileo's captors, the catholic church. Now, i know you're going to laugh and say religion censored g's findings on astrology, but consider today's government.

Do you know how we got out of the great depression, for instance? Do you know that you are a piece of property belonging to the banks that bought america out and that your birth cirtificate is proof of purchase?

Originally posted by King Kandy
What do you mean "how can something always existed"?

If it can't be created or destroyed, then it would HAVE to be that way. It seems obvious to me. wtf?
that statement contradicts another science one that "nothing can be of infinit age" also i watched a dvd in my astronomy class were the stricly said matter had to come to existence at some point in time

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
wtf?
that statement contradicts another science one that "nothing can be of infinit age" also i watched a dvd in my astronomy class were the stricly said matter had to come to existence at some point in time

Did the DVD happen to mention how or why?

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Did the DVD happen to mention how or why? yes, but its to complicated for me to remeber better yet explain, but it has something to do with the universe not having infinit matter or infinit energy and nothing can be of infinit age.
you know one of those dvds of a old boring scientist explaining things....

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
yes, but its to complicated for me to remeber better yet explain, but it has something to do with the universe not having infinit matter or infinit energy and nothing can be of infinit age.
you know one of those dvds of a old boring scientist explaining things.... Confusion can result from lack of consistent definitions. Basically: the Hubble volume - the observable universe of space, matter and energy - is apparently of finite age. But there are unification theories which postulate a "multiverse", ie, a far vaster context in which our Hubble volume occurs. This could well be the infinite Something Which Always Was. Or, far more sublime, the infinite SWAW could be "Consciousness As Such" or "God" (whatever these may mean). Or it could just be "energy" in the most basic sense, which always was. The important thing, IMO, is that SWAW is a simpler proposition than Something which has a beginning. And science tends to prefer the more simple to the less simple, at least as a starting point.

Originally posted by Mindship
Confusion can result from lack of consistent definitions. Basically: the Hubble volume - the observable universe of space, matter and energy - is apparently of finite age. But there are unification theories which postulate a "multiverse", ie, a far vaster context in which our Hubble volume occurs. This could well be the infinite Something Which Always Was. Or, far more sublime, the infinite SWAW could be "Consciousness As Such" or "God" (whatever these may mean). Or it could just be "energy" in the most basic sense, which always was. The important thing, IMO, is that SWAW is a simpler proposition than Something which has a beginning. And science tends to prefer the more simple to the less simple, at least as a starting point.

But we know pretty much for certain that the matter around us isn't infinitely old, protons and neutron decay after a finite amount of time.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But we know pretty much for certain that the matter around us isn't infinitely old, protons and neutron decay after a finite amount of time.

Originally posted by Mindship
...the Hubble volume - the observable universe of space, matter and energy - is apparently of finite age...

Don't make me double-guess my own pontification, dagnabit.

Oops.

It does, however, mean that there was manner of "creation" event at some point in our past even if the universe is infinitely old. Either energy had to become matter or the laws of nature had to change to make matter impermanent.

Of course, neither is "ex niholo" or necessarily created by a god.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Oops.

It does, however, mean that there was manner of "creation" event at some point in our past even if the universe is infinitely old. Either energy had to become matter or the laws of nature had to change to make matter impermanent.

Of course, neither is "ex niholo" or necessarily created by a god.

There does not have to be a point of creation. From the point of the multiverse, the big bang could have been just an event.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There does not have to be a point of creation. From the point of the multiverse, the big bang could have been just an event.

And event that... created, our universe.

Alternately our universe always existed but we know matter can't be infinitely old because its components decay thus it had to be... created, at some point.

You're looking for the connotation of this being a special or mystical event. That's irrelevant. Based on our understanding of reality there must be a point when reality as we know it (or at least matter as we know it) was created, formed, begun, whatever.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And event that... created, our universe.

Alternately our universe always existed but we know matter can't be infinitely old because its components decay thus it had to be... created, at some point.

You're looking for the connotation of this being a special or mystical event. That's irrelevant. Based on our understanding of reality there must be a point when reality as we know it (or at least matter as we know it) was created, formed, begun, whatever.

I see, you are using the word "created" in the common meaning. Like a vase being created from clay. However, in a religious forum, the word "creation" has a different meaning, in most cases. Also, when scientists say the universe was created from nothing, they simply confuse the issue even more.

The video explained this: there is 0 energy in the universe and so the second law was not violated by the big bang. Entropy in a system increases- regional decreases are totally legit. (Hence: LIFE)






Not many people would say that at all. You see, most people ignore nonsense like astrology.

Your argument is weak even if we give you the benefit of the doubt and edit that to astronomy. You suggest that we "consider today's government" but fail to point out what should be taken into account as relevant data. Do we need to analyze the DMV? The EPA? Memorize the reams of data from the various statistical workups? And anyway, which government? Saudi Arabia? China?


Relevance? Implications? Proof?

It is really easy to be nebulous and anti-establishment. It takes more work (I'm just looking for any thought at all right now) to prove your allegations or (gasp!) offer an alternative.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

Relevance? Implications? Proof?

It is really easy to be nebulous and anti-establishment. It takes more work (I'm just looking for any thought at all right now) to prove your allegations or (gasp!) offer an alternative. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&ei=mzhOS-_8Ko70qAO6pIXxAw&q=freedom+to+facism+full+movie&hl=en&view=3#

Originally posted by One Free Man
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&ei=mzhOS-_8Ko70qAO6pIXxAw&q=freedom+to+facism+full+movie&hl=en&view=3#

Some of us don't have two hours to listen to drivel. Summarize the process.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Some of us don't have two hours to listen to drivel. Summarize the process. he decides to try and find the law where we have to pay income tax and can't. none of the government will talk to him at all, so he continues on "super-size me" style to show that we are owned by the government and our freedom is an illusion, that we are just here to generate resources for the banks, not for ourselves.

But is a serf really a serf if he doesn't know he's a serf? that's why its genius.

Originally posted by One Free Man
he decides to try and find the law where we have to pay income tax and can't.

Revenue Act of 1861 and the 16th Amendment.

Well that didn't take me very long at all.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Revenue Act of 1861 and the 16th Amendment.

Well that didn't take me very long at all.
But that's because you are not a conspiracist.

Originally posted by Mindship
Confusion can result from lack of consistent definitions. Basically: the Hubble volume - the observable universe of space, matter and energy - is apparently of finite age. But there are unification theories which postulate a "multiverse", ie, a far vaster context in which our Hubble volume occurs. This could well be the infinite Something Which Always Was. Or, far more sublime, the infinite SWAW could be "Consciousness As Such" or "God" (whatever these may mean). Or it could just be "energy" in the most basic sense, which always was. The important thing, IMO, is that SWAW is a simpler proposition than Something which has a beginning. And science tends to prefer the more simple to the less simple, at least as a starting point.
God IMO.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
God IMO.

Which one?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Which one? god can have any name some one calls him. all the gods people worship "should" all be the same being really they just know him by different names.
but i doubt people like "odin" or "zeus" can even exist (better yet be the god) since there not omnipotent. the basis of "GOD" is a being which created the universe. dont forget god is not a physical being like us. the guy can be pure energy which the universe came from.(like in comics the pheonix force created the universe but its not even physical being its just a force). people think god is a "magical being" thats not even the case

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
god can have any name some one calls him. all the gods people worship "should" all be the same being really they just know him by different names.
but i doubt people like "odin" or "zeus" can even exist (better yet be the god) since there not omnipotent. the basis of "GOD" is a being which created the universe.

Ra, then?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ra, then? no, ra isnt omnipotent he is a physical being(also dont exist). did you even read my post?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
no, ra isnt omnipotent he is a physical being(also dont exist). did you even read my post?

Ya, and it did not answer my question.

So, if the god is physical, then that disqualifies him/her? Then Christianity's god is eliminated.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya, and it did not answer my question.

So, if the god is physical, then that disqualifies him/her? Then Christianity's god is eliminated. how does a physical being have omnipotence? thats impossible. the cristian god is not truely a physical being. he created that physical body to appear to "man" or else we wouldnt even concieve what he is. also christian people dont have there own god, its just a group of people from a different region who called there group christians, while others called themselves catholic or whatever. its the same god they follow

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
how does a physical being have omnipotence? thats impossible. the cristian god is not truely a physical being. he created that physical body to appear to "man" or else we wouldnt even concieve what he is.

Well, if you were talking about the Christian god, then why didn't you say so?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
the guy can be pure energy which the universe came from.(like in comics the pheonix force created the universe but its not even physical being its just a force)

There's no such thing as "pure energy" outside of comics, movies and such.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, if you were talking about the Christian god, then why didn't you say so? because not only christians belive in him, christians is what a group of people call themselves like catholics or jews. they all follow the same "god" really

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's no such thing as "pure energy" outside of comics, movies and such. how do you have any proof of this like what your saying is 100% fact? it can be beyond energy..like a "force" where the univer came from.....

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
because not only christians belive in him, christians is what a group of people call themselves like catholics or jews. they all follow the same "god" really

First off, the Christian god is not omnipotent. Second, Catholics are Christians. And lastly, Christianity is an off shoot from Judaism, so of course they worship the same god.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
First off, the Christian god is not omnipotent. Second, Catholics are Christians. And lastly, Christianity is an off shoot from Judaism, so of course they worship the same god. the christian god is omnipotent....

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
how do you have any proof of this like what your saying is 100% fact?

Energy is a concept, specifically "the capacity to do work". You can't have "pure energy" and more than you can have "pure heavy".

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
the christian god is omnipotent....

If a god is omnipotent, then that god can do anything.

Can the Christian god do evil?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If a god is omnipotent, then that god can do anything.

Can the Christian god do evil? he doesnt. but he creating a being that will do "Evil". also i dont know christianiy 100% so dont yell at me if im wrong....

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Energy is a concept, specifically "the capacity to do work". You can't have "pure energy" and more than you can have "pure heavy".

bottom of the page

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
he doesnt. but he creating a being that will do "Evil". also i dont know christianiy 100% so dont yell at me if im wrong....

I will never yell at you. I don't like writing in all caps.

The point I am getting to is that the concept of a god is man made to fill in a gap of knowledge that we don't have. For example, before we understood how gravity works, you could say that it was god who keeps us from falling off the Earth. Therefore, when you say "it was god", all you are really saying is that you do not know.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I will never yell at you. I don't like writing in all caps.

The point I am getting to is that the concept of a god is man made to fill in a gap of knowledge that we don't have. For example, before we understood how gravity works, you could say that it was god who keeps us from falling off the Earth. Therefore, when you say "it was god", all you are really saying is that you do not know. not really, before we knew what gravity was people still believed in "God" and its only because of "signs" and he "appeared before them"that all these people in past belived in god he wasnt made up the way you think he was. if i invented a guy called myxy would half of the population of the world believe 1 person? no.
also the fact that in those times no one even had access to a population to that much people...

A lot more people believe in Buddhism than believe in Christianity. Does that mean that they can't be mistaken either? If the two are mutually exclusive, then won't they win the contest, since you've made it one of popularity?


Also: A force is something that causes acceleration.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
wtf?
that statement contradicts another science one that "nothing can be of infinit age" also i watched a dvd in my astronomy class were the stricly said matter had to come to existence at some point in time
You need to take some remedial physics then. The first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created or destroyed... this has been confirmed 100% by experiment.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
bottom of the page
It's potential energy.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It's potential energy.

Potential energy isn't any more "pure" than kinetic energy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Potential energy isn't any more "pure" than kinetic energy.
None the less, it probably describes what 99% of people mean when they say "pure" energy.

I think that 99% of people who say "pure" energy have no idea what energy in the formal sense really means and that it is silly to impose that definition upon them (allowing, of course, for the indisputable fact that they have as little idea about what they are talking about as you do).

Originally posted by King Kandy
None the less, it probably describes what 99% of people mean when they say "pure" energy.

I doubt it. "Pure energy" is usually a tangible thing that looks like plasma or in slightly more savvy people "pure energy" is a type of radiation that could be fired from a ray gun.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I doubt it. "Pure energy" is usually a tangible thing that looks like plasma or in slightly more savvy people "pure energy" is a type of radiation that could be fired from a ray gun.
When I think of pure energy, I think of some kind of energy field, which is a sort of potential energy, or maybe photons.

Originally posted by King Kandy
When I think of pure energy, I think of some kind of energy field, which is a sort of potential energy, or maybe photons. That's how I tend to think of "pure energy," eg, electromagnetic radiation as opposed to cosmic rays or beta rays. Pure energy is conveyed by particles with zero (rest) mass (photons), as opposed to cosmic rays, which involve particles with (rest) mass but are just traveling at high speed.

Basically, energy with no rest mass is "pure" as opposed to energy "contaminated" with rest mass.

Still, this involves thinking of energy as some kind of substance, whereas below may be closer to the mark...
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You can't have "pure energy" and more than you can have "pure heavy".

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
not really, before we knew what gravity was people still believed in "God" and its only because of "signs" and he "appeared before them"that all these people in past belived in god he wasnt made up the way you think he was. if i invented a guy called myxy would half of the population of the world believe 1 person? no.
also the fact that in those times no one even had access to a population to that much people...

You seem to suggest that the Christian god is real because of the number of people who believed in the past, but then you stay that people of the past didn't have access to large populations. Is this god created by popularity?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
not really, before we knew what gravity was people still believed in "God" and its only because of "signs" and he "appeared before them"that all these people in past belived in god he wasnt made up the way you think he was. if i invented a guy called myxy would half of the population of the world believe 1 person? no.
also the fact that in those times no one even had access to a population to that much people...

actually they may well beleive. seeing as hundreds of thousands beleive that l ron hubbard was god and yet more beleive that joseph smith was divine. in the past this was because they DIDNT know about gravity and thought up of explanations which they cud relate to at a human level to explain them. its called superstition. and if he wasnt invented than how do you account for the thousands of different types{mutually exclusive} of gods in history that were popular?

the christian god is not omnipotent, nor omniscient, nor omnibenevolant. if any1 has read the gospels, this shud be obvious. its a sadistic, needy, abusive, jealous, lying, sinister and definately MALE{and patriarchal} entity. same with the muslim god and the jewish god. doesnt matter how many times its contradicted by claims of divinity and trancendence and abstraction and beauty. its the wishful thinking of the worst types of humans in history who projected THEIR darkest desires{which they cudnt openly do in the world} on a father like entity in the sky.

if anything, its a freudian god.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
how do you have any proof of this like what your saying is 100% fact? it can be beyond energy..like a "force" where the univer came from.....

presumably because hes studied some high school physics. force is not BEYOND energy, force is a push or pull, a vector. the universe came from sub quantum interactions in another universe in the multiverse.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
presumably because hes studied some high school physics. force is not BEYOND energy, force is a push or pull, a vector. the universe came from sub quantum interactions in another universe in the multiverse. why do you waste your time with these post? these people that believe in god always will and you will never convince them otherwise. I dont even think they would read your post.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
why do you waste your time with these post? these people that believe in god always will and you will never convince them otherwise. I dont even think they would read your post.

so what your saying is that relegious people are stuborn enough to not listen to others{or evidence}
and probably not literate enough to even read my posts?

did i get that right?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
so what your saying is that relegious people are stuborn enough to not listen to others{or evidence}
and probably not literate enough to even read my posts?

did i get that right? so your insulting people now for beliefs ? would you like if someone insulted you for your beliefs?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
so your insulting people now for beliefs ? would you like if someone insulted you for your beliefs?

no, i am merely stating the implications of what YOU said.






{why r u so easily offended?}

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
would you like if someone insulted you for your beliefs?

Someone like you perhaps? As you already have?

http://msnowe.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/troll-bank-all.jpg

Originally posted by leonheartmm
universe came from sub quantum interactions in another universe in the multiverse.

I'm impressed you can say that as though you think he'll have any idea what it means.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm impressed you can say that as though you think he'll have any idea what it means. i study these things every day in class.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
i study these things every day in class.

You frequently study subquantum fluctuations in the zero point energy of other realities?

Guys, I'm relatively certain he's just trolling for the sake of it. Let's not feed him.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You frequently study subquantum fluctuations in the zero point energy of other realities? yes i have to read books on those, this is only my first year though

Originally posted by Digi
Guys, I'm relatively certain he's just trolling for the sake of it. Let's not feed him. No one here is trolling we was having a debate were some good convincing evidence and arguments were being brought up on there side ,this is why i stopped. this post you just typed is trolling

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
this post you just typed is trolling

Then you don't know the definition of the term.

srug

Didn't anyone ever see this on the tele (the hell with reading books n stuff)? Brane collisions, part of M theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcsWJ8NywSk&feature=related

(sorry, lads, but I dinna ken how to post videos right inna thread)

One theological argument against definitive proof is that a definitive proof would violate free will by forcing people to believe. This approach has a number of flaws. For one thing, it makes pretty specific assumptions about the existence and nature of God. Using this approach, you can only claim the existence of God is unprovable if you already believe in God. Then too, the history of pseudoscience shows unmistakably that even the most convincing evidence will not persuade people. Even if God came down from the sky and walked across the English Channel on global television, many people would rationalize the event away (it wasn't my god, therefore it must be fake; it was a computer-generated hoax, etc.). Thus, there is good reason to doubt that even the most overwhelming demonstration would violate free will. Regardless how convincing the event was at the time, it would soon be dismissed as legend, hallucination, or hoax. Finally, it has not always been agreed among religious believers that free will even exists; many Protestants, particularly Calvinists, have doubted the existence of free will.

Then there are psychological issues. Militant atheists accuse believers of immature wish fulfillment. Militant believers accuse atheists of petulant defiance of authority. People who subscribe to either view are not likely to be persuaded by anything the other side says. And to the extent that the accusations are true, people whose attitudes are armor plated won't be open to any argument that challenges their deeply held beliefs. So apart from the honestly held and debated evidence concerning the existence of God, we have to navigate a thicket of intellectual dishonesty. Some of the ideas advanced by people with ideological axes to grind have merit, others are merely specious. Then there's the whole issue of competence. Some arguments on the existence of God are the result of deep and informed reflection, others are embarrassingly juvenile and ill-informed.

But apart from the matter of domains of applicability, theological assumptions, and psychological factors, there are other reasons to doubt that science will ever be able to say anything about the existence of God. These reasons are grounded in the nature of scientific proof as applied to complex reality. The more complex a question becomes, the more likely it is that there will be numerous interpretations that fit the data equally well, the harder it is to isolate relevant evidence, and the more complex and indirect the proof must be. The more complex the evidence and the logic, the greater the likelihood that fallacies of reasoning and faulty data might contaminate the results.

One final note: I'm not talking here about moral or esthetic arguments for or against the existence of God. This is entirely about the use of empirical data and scientific methodology.
The Nature of Complex Reality

Let's consider a question that can be addressed using scientific methods. Why did the United States have high crime rates in the 1970's and 1980's, then experience a precipitous drop in crime rates in the 1990's? Among the answers proposed to this question have been:

1. Tougher sentencing, more police and longer prison sentences have had a deterrent effect, as well as removing criminals from circulation.
2. The legalization of abortion in 1973 meant that a lot of babies who would otherwise have been raised in dysfunctional environments were not born, meaning that twenty years later there are fewer angry young adult males to commit crimes.
3. The outlawing of leaded gasoline at about the same time eliminated an environmental trigger of violent and aberrant behavior.
4. The end of the Baby Boom meant fewer babies born beginning in the 1970's, so there were fewer young adult males (who dominate the crime statistics) beginning in the 1990's.

There is no problem about gathering data on this question by scientific means. The data are abundant and in forms suitable for standard statistical analysis. It's deciding which data are relevant and what the data mean that gets sticky.
Testing

In science, it's fairly easy to establish facts if you can control the circumstances. The classic way to do this is the controlled experiment. If you think two atomic particles interact in a certain way, two chemicals undergo a specific reaction, or a certain drug cures a given illness, you set up an experiment to see what happens. Especially if you can predict in advance what you hope to see, and it actually happens, then you can be highly confident of your ideas. This method works because the experiments can be repeated at will, and the system can be reduced to simple terms so that the phenomenon being tested can be studied in isolation with extraneous factors eliminated. If we suspect any error, fakery, or overlooked factors, we can run another experiment to check. Also, repeatability safeguards against drawing the wrong conclusions merely because some experiment turns out a certain way just by chance.

If you can't control the circumstances but you can observe a lot of instances of a certain phenomenon, that's also a good way to establish facts. No two hurricanes, eclipses, comets, volcanic eruptions, or mountain ranges are exactly alike but they are repeatable in the sense that they all have features in common, and if you observe enough instances, you can start to draw conclusions about how these phenomena work. We can conclude that all hurricanes have eyes, all eclipses of the sun occur at new moon, all volcanic eruptions are powered by gas pressure, and all mountain belts have thrust faults. Furthermore, you can make predictions about what you expect to see the next time you observe that particular phenomenon. For example, when a supernova erupted in a nearby neighbor galaxy in 1987, astronomers were delighted to see pretty much everything their theories predicted happen on schedule.

At least in principle, all the hypotheses for the drop in crime rates could be tested in controlled ways. We just back off on judicial rigor, prohibit abortion, have another 70 million babies in a 20 year period, and reintroduce leaded gasoline. We'd have to test each of those variables in isolation, and since three of them link a change to events twenty years later, it would take two decades at least to run one test. To be really sure of our conclusions, we'd want to see the same results in several runs. It would take centuries. And the costs would be unacceptable. Would we really want to trigger an increase in crime deliberately? Alternating twenty years of legal abortion with twenty years of prohibition would alternately be intolerable to anti- and pro-abortionists. And we added lead to gasoline because it seemed to offer better performance without adverse effects. Now that we know leaded gas is harmful, it would be morally out of the question to run an experiment to see if leaded gasoline leads to a rise in crime. And who in their right minds wants another Baby Boom? Even if we were insane enough to try to repeat any of these experiments, so many other variables would have changed in the meantime that we'd be hard put to be sure we had really successfully duplicated the results. So in practice, there is no way to do a conclusive experiment to settle the matter.

reasons may be utterly sincere, but they're not reliable evidence.

It's when you can neither control the circumstances nor observe a large number of similar phenomena that things get dicey. In the case of the drop in crime rates, we have a unique event and the only way we can establish why it happened is to examine all the possible causes and evaluate the evidence for each. How do you establish cause and effect for a one-time event? Well, if you've got a good theoretical understanding, it's pretty easy to establish cause and effect. We know hurricanes create storm surges, so even though Hurricane Katrina was unique in flooding the only major American city that lies extensively below sea level, we don't need to look for exotic causes. Everything we know about hurricanes and storm surges tells us that Katrina was entirely sufficient to do the observed damage. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami was by far the worst tsunami disaster ever, but it originated the way all other tsunamis did and behaved just like all other tsunamis. It was just unusually big and hit unusually populated areas.

But what if we have a one-time event but we don't have a good theoretical understanding? In many cases, we can establish that an event happened even if we have no explanation why. For example, we know that the English left a colony on Roanoke Island in 1587 and it wasn't there a few years later. We still don't know why it vanished, but that it vanished is beyond doubt. Sometimes the event can be broken down into components that can be successfully analyzed. We only have one moon, and for a long time none of the available theories of lunar formation stood up to scrutiny. All of them had fatal flaws. In the last twenty years, studies of planetary formation, lunar chemistry, and impact mechanics have persuaded a large number of planetary scientists that an oblique impact between a Mars'sized protoplanet and the proto-earth can account successfully for the moon's formation. In the case of the crime question, it's clear that crime rates fell even if there's no clear consensus why they fell.

It seems very difficult to imagine any general theory in the physical sciences that can't eventually be tested conclusively. It may take huge amounts of resources and a very long time, but since we have physical theories for many phenomena and know how to go about developing more, it seems likely that any theory we can propose can eventually be settled. The fact that we can keep revisiting a question until we get a workable explanation makes all the difference. Historical sciences like geology pose the problem that they deal with events that were not witnessed, and so we have to attack problems by examining physical evidence. If there is no physical evidence, it may be impossible to answer some questions. For the most part, we will probably never know where ancient rivers ran or why some given species became extinct or what exactly the earth's plates looked like two billion years ago. We will probably never identify any of the stars that formed in the same cluster as our solar system, or know what the constellations looked like in the days of the dinosaurs.

Yet all of those problems are, in principle, solvable given the right information. The question why U.S. crime rates fell in the 1990's is of a different order of complexity. There's no question of the availability of data, but there are no theories to guide us in interpreting the data. Even the most basic questions about the functioning of society are contentious. There's disagreement about whether tough penalties deter crime or not, whether social spending reduces poverty or creates dependence, whether a strong or weak military is more likely to promote peace. When we get to history and the social sciences we often deal with unique events where there is neither consensus nor any prospect of testing hypotheses.

For example, did the cooling event called the Little Ice Age contribute to the spread of bubonic plague in the mid-14th century? There's a plausible causal chain: cooling would result in poor harvests, reduced resistance among the population, and possibly ecological changes that would bring rats, which carry the plague, into more direct contact with humans. The last major plague pandemic happened in the 1660's, and the cessation of plague has been attributed to the host species of rat being displaced by another species. There's no way of testing these hypotheses conclusively. They seem plausible or at least possible, and they have the virtue of being rather harmless. Our view of the Middle Ages won't topple if they're proven wrong. (And to forestall comments, there's a school of thought that a virus akin to Ebola, not bacteria, was the agent that caused the plagues of the Middle Ages.) On the other hand, the question why crime rates dropped in the 1990's is not harmless; it has serious implications for social policy.

One way to try to get a handle on problems like this is to use statistics. If you break an event down into separate subevents, or look at the event as it played out in different places, that's sort of like making multiple observations. So, to return to our crime question, we could compare the drop in crime rates in different states or counties with differing criminal penalties, abortion rates, birth rates or use of leaded gasoline. The researchers who suggested the leaded gas link were impressed with the fact that they found correlations in countries with differing dates of abolition of leaded gasoline and different judicial systems. Statistics can strengthen our confidence in a theory, but social scientists are fond of pointing out that "correlation is not causation." We can equally validly point out that discrediting statistics is not necessarily disproof of a theory. It merely means we can't be as confident of that particular line of argument. Also, it's commonly overlooked in science that while statistical methods are completely objective, the criteria used for deciding whether the results mean anything are not. The decision to use one or two standard deviations, or 99% confidence, as the criterion for deciding whether something is statistically significant is quite subjective, and dependent on the problem. A 70% correlation coefficient may be stupendous in the social sciences but hopelessly sloppy in physics.

Historians are fond of saying "history has no predictive value," a statement that is about 80 per cent true. If history had no predictive value, there'd be no point in studying it. After all, apart from a few delusional compulsive gamblers, nobody studies old winning lottery numbers because they have absolutely no predictive value even if they may have won millions for the lucky ticket holders. We do study history because we can glean some predictions out of it. The U.S. got involved in the former Yugoslavia very reluctantly because history shows clearly that occupying Yugoslavia may be easy, but subduing it may be another matter altogether.
Multiple Factors

To return to the crime question, it is distinctly possible that all the proposed causes for the drop in crime are correct. It may well be that deterrence and removing criminals from circulation, legalization of abortion, outlawing of leaded gasoline and the end of the Baby Boom all acted jointly to lower crime rates. An additional complication when multiple factors are involved is synergy - two agents acting together have a stronger effect than the sum of their individual effects. So it's entirely possible that statistical tests of any of the proposed causes in isolation might be inconclusive, but all four acting together could have a powerful effect.
Motives For Advancing Hypotheses

Some of the hypotheses for the drop in crime rates were not advanced with the purest of motives. Although the motives of someone for holding an idea never - repeat, never - constitute evidence, they can raise red flags. Motives can alert you to the potential for hidden fallacies, selective use of data, maybe even outright fakery. You are never justified in rejecting an idea solely because of the motives of the person presenting it, but you are entitled to give intense scrutiny to the evidence and logic.

The baby boom hypothesis is probably the most innocent. Since young adult males dominate the crime statistics, a natural approach is to ask what happened when they were children. In a quick scan of history twenty years before the crime rates bagan to fall, the end of the Baby Boom leaps out. So it's a simple and sensible hypothesis. One way to evaluate it would be to see if crime rates track population growth with a time lage of about 20 years. But major population dips and rises are rare, and there are many other factors that could affect the results. On the other hand, this explanation might supply a ready rationalization to someone who is ideologically predisposed to reject any of the other hypotheses.

The legalization of abortion would also leap out at anyone looking for significant societal events from the early 1970's. But this hypothesis has a powerful appeal to anyone looking for an argument in favor of abortion.

The hypothesis that tougher sentencing has had a deterrent effect makes sense, but also has a powerful ideological appeal to social conservatives.

The leaded gas hypothesis is also fairly innocent. The researchers noted that leaded gas was phased out in the 1970's, were intrigued enough to look at crime statistics from other countries, and found a widespread correlation. But this hypothesis might appeal to people who want an alternative to some other proposed cause. Opponents of tough criminal laws might latch onto this explanation to argue that it's a viable alternative to the deterrent hypothesis, and opponents of abortion might seize on it to discredit the abortion hypothesis. And it's a wonderful argument for environmentalists.

So, apart from genuine conviction, people can embrace hypotheses either because they support what they want to believe, or offer an alternative to something they don't want to believe. Thus we have the complication that people can believe the right things for the wrong reasons.
Motives For Rejecting Hypotheses

Most of the debate over the drop in crime rates seems to have had less to do with advancing an explanation than finding reasons not to accept some proposed explanation. People who otherwise aren't concerned with why crime rates fell become very concerned when the drop is credited to some cause they reject. The motives for rejecting hypotheses, apart from genuine conviction, mirror those for acceptance: people either don't want to believe the hypothesis or want to believe some alternative.

In science, the motivation issue tends to be settled by the bystanders who don't have a deep emotional investment, but who do have a vested interest in their own disciplines. I don't care one way or the other how astronomers sort out the Big Bang, dark energy, and the like. I would start to care if they came up with something that radically revised the age of the earth. They in turn don't care how far back we can trace plate tectonics, but they'd get very interested indeed if we recalculated the age of the earth and doubled it. That would play havoc with their models of stellar evolution. So regardless how vehemently an outsider like H.C. Arp argues that galaxy red shifts don't always correlate with distance, I will trust the astronomers to sort it out, as long as their conclusions are useful, or at least harmless, to my own field.

An important group of bystanders are scientists in the pipeline as undergraduates, graduates, and junior scientists. They may be intrigued by and dabble in some of the off-brand theories, but they don't have the emotional attachment that the originators of those theories, or defenders of the status quo, have. So when conflicting evidence comes along, they take it with a lot more equanimity. They tend to gravitate to the position best supported by the evidence, so the alternatives either linger on as marginal theories or eventually die out.
Conclusion

It may never be possible to resolve exactly why crime rates in the United States dropped in the early 1990's. Even if there is really only one correct explanation, there may be no way to establish its correctness using any known methods. There may be many equally valid ways to interpret the evidence. "Valid" here doesn't mean as seen by some hypothetical omniscient observer. "Valid" means that using the best available evidence and the best available reasoning and analysis, there may still be mutually incompatible explanations that fit the data equally well. It's like watching replays of a controversial football play. Some angles suggest that a receiver had control of the football when he hit the ground, others don't, and two equally skilled referees might differ on the call they make. And even though, on the whole, football referees make remarkably good decisions, even the best available evidence and training doesn't guarantee there won't be occasional errors.
The Nature of Gods (or Other Beings)

Note that the word "god" (capitalized or not) has not been mentioned since the introductory section. Everything since then has been about the problems of proof when evidence is ambiguous, theoretical frameworks are lacking, and there may be several interpretations that explain the data equally well.

The only question about a god that is meaningful or interesting is whether or not there is a god who interacts with the universe. Pantheism, the idea that the sum total of everything that exists is a god, is trivial. Deism, the idea that a god created the universe but does not interact with it, is of no imaginable interest or relevance.

In practical terms, deciding the existence of a god amounts to testing for the existence of some rational and extremely powerful supra-human being or beings. Whether it's a single infinitely powerful deity, a number of finite but still powerful supernatural beings, or a powerful natural alien civilization, the practical problems of evidence are the same. Whether or not a god exists may not be testable by scientific methods, but there are very similar questions that science certainly can address. Suppose, instead of asking whether there exists an infinite, omnipotent deity acting by supernatural means, we ask if there is some very powerful intelligent Entity interacting with our planet. The Entity need not be infinite or omnipotent, merely far more powerful than we are. The Entity need not act supernaturally, but merely by means of natural laws we have not yet discovered, or technology we have not yet developed. To free ourselves from any distractions imposed by the supernatural, let's consider the hypothesis of a purely natural, but extremely powerful and knowledgeable Entity.

What's the Entity's agenda? It could be malevolent or sadistic, seeking to harm us or cause prolonged suffering rather than destroying us outright. That might be a plausible explanation for war, famine, and disease. Or it could be dispassionate, watching to see how long we can avoid destroying ourselves. But let's consider only the possibilities that the Entity is benign and actively trying to help us. Furthermore, it is knowledgeable enough about human psychology and the workings of our planet that clumsiness or ignorance are not an issue. If it had tried to prevent World War II, for example, it would not have inadvertently triggered some worse alternative history. It would not, say, have gotten Hitler into art school only to have Stalin conquer Europe. And remember, this Entity is not a deity; it is merely a very intelligent and very powerful, but 100 per cent natural, being.

Why wouldn't the Entity reveal itself? We can easily think of a host of reasons why an intelligent super-being might conceal its existence or make it non-obvious. It might, of course, have ulterior or selfish motives, and the epistemological issues get really interesting if we allow that there might be multiple entities with conflicting agendas. But let's restrict ourselves to the case of an Entity without ulterior motives (or at least ulterior motives harmful to us). There will be some reasons that make sense to us. Then we have the possibility that the Entity has reasons that make no sense to us or that we cannot comprehend. But let's stick with the answers that we can comprehend, since those are the only ones we can discuss profitably.

1. If the Entity openly reveals itself, then what? Will it continue to respond openly to every request for information or guidance? Will it respond to requests to endorse one nation's agenda over another's, or one political party or social class over another? Will it respond to requests to use its advanced powers to eliminate disease or aging, stop environmental degradation or eliminate poverty? Will it respond to requests for information about itself, or explain why it does or does not act in certain ways?
2. If the entity does keep responding after initial revelation, would it soon end up micromanaging the world or destroying human initiative? Would so many humans become helpless dependents or lapse into nihilism that even those who retained their initiative found it impossible to get anything done? It may be logically impossible for the Entity to reveal itself openly without scrambling the world beyond repair. Open revelation might perturb human society in ways that conflict with the Entity's aims.
3. If the Entity revealed itself openly but thereafter remained silent, might we not after a few centuries dismiss the event as a fabrication or a myth? And if that's the case, how can we be sure events we now ascribe to myth weren't in fact real?
4. The Entity may be communicating all the time, but since we are constantly immersed in the signals, we simply perceive them as natural background noise. Fish don't know that they're wet.
5. The Entity may be deliberately selecting for those individuals who can detect its communications and who choose to interpret its faint signals as communications.
6. The Entity may communicate only with specific individuals on specific occasions, for its own specific purposes.
7. Whether it's secular philosophies like Marxism, Naziism, radical environmentalism or militant atheism, or religious movements like the Inquisition, radical Islam, or Christian fundamentalism, people who believe they have an objective basis for dictating the behavior of others are the most spiteful, vindictive, and downright evil people on the planet. Just imagine what would happen if certain people had real objective evidence for their beliefs. Maybe the Entity wants to protect us from such people.

If the Entity doesn't communicate unambiguously, can we still somehow test for its existence somehow? It seems pretty clear that a controlled experiment is out of the question:

1. The Entity is not likely to submit to human control. It will not respond to demands that it perform replicable actions merely to meet our standards for verification. The Entity knows it exists. Why should it care whether it meets our criteria? "Wow, I don't meet your criteria for proof? I'll slink back to the mother ship, curl up into the fetal position, and suck my thumb for a while."
2. To use terms that seem crass from a human perspective, the Entity may find it demeaning to be expected to perform on demand in an experiment, or to submit to human criteria for proof, or justify its decisions.
3. The Entity will certainly not reveal itself in ways that allow that knowledge to be used against it, say to overpower it or block its actions. Even the idea that there is a benevolent Entity might inspire humans to be complacent about pressing problems, secure in the belief that the Entity will rescue them. People might use the existence of the Entity to rationalize their own selfish actions by claiming to do them in the interests of the Entity, or rationalize their desire to dominate others.
4. What about people willing to cooperate with the Entity? The Entity may communicate freely with them, only to have their claims dismissed by others as delusional or mistaken. The Entity may choose not to communicate with them, or communicate only sparingly, because open communication might influence their behavior adversely. They might, for example, come to consider themselves elite or privileged. Or the Entity may not be able to communicate openly with them because doing so would furnish information to people with ulterior motives.
5. Since there are a host of sound reasons why the Entity might not reveal itself openly or participate in an experiment, that leaves us with observing nature and trying to tell whether or not there is some pattern in nature that we can detect. From the Entity's perspective, it may be manifesting itself in ways so obvious that only a very rudimentary intelligence could miss it.
6. Humans are extremely ingenious about ferreting out even faint patterns. If the Entity is concerned about ways that knowledge of its existence might be misused, it might manifest itself subtly enough to defeat even sophisticated statistical tests. Or it might use the inherent ambiguity of complex reality to camouflage its actions. Maybe its version of an intelligence test is to see whether some people choose to see evidence of its existence or not.
7. Is it superfluous to add that irrational actions people commit because of their belief or non-belief in the Entity have nothing at all to do with whether or not the Entity actually exists?

And those are the problems facing us in trying to determine the existence of a completely natural Entity. Maybe someday it will slip up, nod off at the wheel, and some interplanetary probe will sneak up on its base undetected, and then we'll know. Or maybe it will decide the time has come to communicate overtly. Or maybe not.
The Nature of People

Let's imagine two scientists, both highly competent, working on the intelligent entity question. On the one hand, data set after data set has been number crunched and nothing conclusive has emerged. Some runs come out in favor of an entity, others against, and the grand average is statistically indistinguishable from zero. On the other hand, there are nagging subtle things that just hint at patterns. There are events that could have turned out disastrously except that a whole concatenation of unlikely things got in the way, or coincidences so intricate that appealing to the laws of chance is unsatisfying.

Looking at the statistics, there's no conclusive evidence, and those nagging subtle things could be nothing more than our pernicious tendency to find spurious patterns. On the other hand, important scientific discoveries frequently start out on the very borderline of detectability. So there are good reasons to reject the existence of the entity but also good reasons to think there might be one as well. As some researchers have said about ambiguous research topics: "There's too much there to be nothing, and not enough there to be something."

But one scientist desperately wants to believe there's something out there because it's comforting to think there might be a guardian preventing us from destroying ourselves. And the other one just as desperately wants not to believe because he's still rebelling against his strict parents after all these years. So we can have perfectly sound rival interpretations of the evidence, but unsound reasons for picking one interpretation over the other. Just as with the crime question, people can be right for the wrong reasons.

To see how rationalization and wishful thinking can distort any attempt to investigate the God question scientifically, consider Francis Galton's 1872 paper Statistical Inquiries Into The Efficacy Of Prayer, in which he argued that, since royalty tended to die at a younger age than other affluent classes of society, despite all the prayers offered for their health, that prayer was ineffective. As Galton noted:

The prayer has therefore no efficacy, unless the very questionable hypothesis be raised, that the conditions of royal life may naturally be yet more fatal, and that their influence is partly, though incompletely, neutralised by the effects of public prayers.

In other words, if we attempt to explain the difference by some other factor (say inbreeding or hemophilia, both of which plagued the royal houses of Europe), that's an ad hoc explanation. One wonders what Galton would have said if the results had turned out the other way. Well, actually, we don't need to wonder, because Galton also wrote:

We are justified in considering the clergy to be a far more prayerful class than . ...We do not, however, find that the clergy are in any way more long lived in consequence. It is true that the clergy, as a whole show a life-value of 69.49, as against 68.11 for the lawyers, and 67.31 for the medical men; but the easy country life and family repose of so many of the clergy are obvious sanatory conditions in their favour.

So when royalty turn out to have shorter longevities than everyone else, it's not permissible invoke some additional ad hoc factor to explain it, but when clergy turn out to have longer lifespans, it is. We can be equally certain that a believer would point triumphantly to the longer lifespans of clergy as evidence for the efficacy of prayer, and invent reasons for disregarding the shorter lifespan of royalty.

We can derive one useful conclusion: You have no business claiming objective evidence for your beliefs unless you would be willing to reverse your position in the face of equally good contrary data. This is simply a restatement of the criterion listed above in my Note to Visitors.
Science And The Existence of God
The Nature of Complex Reality

When we are dealing with one of a kind events that are very complex, for example the drop in U.S. crime rates in the 1990's, there may be so many interacting factors to consider that a definitive answer becomes impossible. It is entirely possible that radically different, possibly even mutually exclusive hypotheses, may be equally supported by data. It is also entirely possible that no hypothesis successfully explains all the data, or that every hypothesis is contradicted by some data. But in a world full of interacting forces, occasional contradictions don't disprove an idea. The fact that lightning hits a valley and misses a hilltop doesn't disprove the idea that lightning tends to hit high points. It merely proves it doesn't hit high points all the time.

The question "what does it all mean, and is Anybody in charge?" is the ultimate one of a kind, complex event. We have no consensus about what would constitute a proof, no possibility of repeating events exactly and no theoretical basis to guide us in designing a strategy for investigation.
The Nature of God (or Powerful Aliens)

If there is anything even remotely like the god of Western monotheism, it will not allow itself to be known in any way that allows the knowledge to be used to thwart its actions or subvert its designs.

The amount of actual information about God in the Bible or the Koran is miniscule. We are told there is a Deity, it makes moral demands on humans, there are consequences for obeying or disobeying those demands, and that's about it. Also there are accounts of God acting in history from which we might be able to draw conclusions about its intentions. All the rest of the stuff in those yards and yards of books in the typical religious bookstore is mostly fluff, with a few per cent or less being useful insight.

And even the scanty information we have is subject to gross abuse. The mere belief in the existence of God leads many people to fatalism or to a belief that God will protect them from even the most irresponsible behavior. If God forgives misdeeds, many people take that as license to behave immorally and then perform some superficial act of atonement. If God makes moral demands, we have those who interpret that as a license to impose those demands on others. And everywhere we see "the will of God" being used as a cover for "my will."

So we can be virtually certain that God will not permit itself to be experimented on or statistically analyzed. If it acts, it will be in a way that defies statistical discovery. The signal will be buried in the noise, and if it's discoverable at all, it will be by methods so elaborate that their very complexity raises doubt about their validity.
The Nature of People

One possible resolution of the God question that explains all the facts is that God exists; the arguments deducing his existence are correct; and the arguments against his existence are all fallacious. Since many of the people who deny the existence of God are highly intelligent and strive for intellectual honesty, the reason for their acceptance of fallacious arguments must be some combination of faulty logic, delusion, and wishful thinking.

Another possible resolution of the God question that explains all the facts is that God does not exist; the arguments deducing his existence are incorrect; and the arguments for his existence are all fallacious. Since many of the people who believe in the existence of God are highly intelligent and strive for intellectual honesty, the reason for their acceptance of fallacious arguments must be some combination of faulty logic, delusion, and wishful thinking.

In other words, two diametrically opposite and mutually exclusive conclusions explain the empirical data equally well. So, whichever outcome is true, we have to conclude that a large fraction of the most intelligent and rational people on the planet nevertheless fell prey to faulty logic, delusion, and wishful thinking. And these are the most intelligent and rational people. The intellectual landscape below that level is bleak and scary indeed.

One approach to sorting out this mess is to focus on people who have particular claims to rationality, though how you'd judge a head to head contest between David Hume and Thomas Aquinas is hardly clear. Actually I suspect Hume and Aquinas would find themselves closer to each other than either would be to the rank and file in the God debate.

Nice plagiarism.

That which can never be false, can also never be true in any meaningful sense.

Nice spam C

Originally posted by Ordo
Nice spam C did you even read it? its in every way related to this section..

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
did you even read it? its in every way related to this section..

When you post something from another site that you did not write, you have to give the sourse. Otherswise, it looks like you are trying to take creatit for something you did not write.

Also, people can check the sourse.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
did you even read it? its in every way related to this section.. Have you read it, or just copied it because you saw some key words? If you have read it, and understand it, kindly put it in your own (brief) words. Otherwise, I see this thread dying due to spam overload.

Remember...

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."
-- Albert Einstein

No one's grandmother would live long enough to get through all that.

Originally posted by Mindship
Have you read it, or just copied it because you saw some key words? If you have read it, and understand it, kindly put it in your own (brief) words. Otherwise, I see this thread dying due to spam overload.

Remember...

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."
-- Albert Einstein

No one's grandmother would live long enough to get through all that. yes ive read the whole thing. it explains the possibility of god and very good reason why he cannot reveal himself and why theres no evidence. it also explains that we definitly cannot disprove it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
When you post something from another site that you did not write, you have to give the sourse. Otherswise, it looks like you are trying to take creatit for something you did not write.

Also, people can check the sourse. i know but when you give links people rarely click on them.

Originally posted by Mindship
Have you read it, or just copied it because you saw some key words? If you have read it, and understand it, kindly put it in your own (brief) words. Otherwise, I see this thread dying due to spam overload.

Remember...

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."
-- Albert Einstein

No one's grandmother would live long enough to get through all that. just read it. people read 500page science books this is nothing. Lazyness is one of the problems that humans have

if your not going to read all just make sure you read the 6th post of it

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
i know but when you give links people rarely click on them.

The same is true of walls of text. Anyone can do a google search to find something to back their opinion, right or wrong. You'd be better off taking some key ideas and putting them into your own words.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
yes ive read the whole thing. it explains the... very good reason... why theres no evidence

You've provided your own rebuttal.

Originally posted by Digi
The same is true of walls of text. Anyone can do a google search to find something to back their opinion, right or wrong. You'd be better off taking some key ideas and putting them into your own words. not really the text has many scientific things to back there statements. my statements would only be insulted by other post

Originally posted by Digi
You've provided your own rebuttal. if you read the article you would understand

and by evidence i mean physical evidence like a finger print or something

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
yes ive read the whole thing. it explains the possibility of god and very good reason why he cannot reveal himself and why theres no evidence. it also explains that we definitly cannot disprove it. Reminds me of this...
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=400142

Originally posted by Mindship
Reminds me of this...
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=400142 than the post will answer your question trust me.
also there were some very good arguments on the first page.

I've had more satisfying arguments than have occoured on this page with my dog.

Originally posted by Ordo
I've had more satisfying arguments than have occoured on this page with my dog. you clearly didnt read it "Dog" it has scientific things to back it up. while other post can be considered as someones opinion

1. reading something does not garuntee that:
a. The article is valid
b. I will reach the same conclusions as you
c. it was properly credited (see 1a)

2. Wtf is a "scientific thing." Big words, name drops, and proper sentance structures do not count.

3. If you cant summerize an argument, you dont understand it.

In response specifically to 1a,

"So we can be virtually certain that God will not permit itself to be experimented on or statistically analyzed. If it acts, it will be in a way that defies statistical discovery. The signal will be buried in the noise, and if it's discoverable at all, it will be by methods so elaborate that their very complexity raises doubt about their validity."

This in itself is an assumption, based on a few people perception of what god is. One person's perceptions of god is not fact for the very reason that god itself is not a fact. They assume that god is complex, that god is not physical, and god is neither concrete noo undefinable. Thats a long karking list of assumptions, many of which people would disagree with. Why? Because there is no evidence that god is anything but a individual (group or otherwise) conception of reality. And if god is just a conception, there is no point in entering into physcial debates about a decidedly non-physical entity.

Thus, the article is a load of crock from apologists trying to keep their deity amorphous so they are not mocked endlessly for believing in teapots orbiting Saturn.

Espeically from an article that frames the misconception of gods existance as "Militant atheists accuse believers of immature wish fulfillment. Militant believers accuse atheists of petulant defiance of authority."...

I would no more believe a man telling me tomorrows winning lotter numbers after proclaiming that the sky is indeed orange.

Originally posted by Ordo
1. reading something does not garuntee that:
a. The article is valid
b. I will reach the same conclusions as you
c. it was properly credited (see 1a)

2. Wtf is a "scientific thing." Big words, name drops, and proper sentance structures do not count.

3. If you cant summerize an argument, you dont understand it.

In response specifically to 1a,

"So we can be virtually certain that God will not permit itself to be experimented on or statistically analyzed. If it acts, it will be in a way that defies statistical discovery. The signal will be buried in the noise, and if it's discoverable at all, it will be by methods so elaborate that their very complexity raises doubt about their validity."

This in itself is an assumption, based on a few people perception of what god is. One person's perceptions of god is not fact for the very reason that god itself is not a fact. They assume that god is complex, that god is not physical, and god is neither concrete noo undefinable. Thats a long karking list of assumptions, many of which people would disagree with. Why? Because there is no evidence that god is anything but a individual (group or otherwise) conception of reality. And if god is just a conception, there is no point in entering into physcial debates about a decidedly non-physical entity.

Thus, the article is a load of crock from apologists trying to keep their deity amorphous so they are not mocked endlessly for believing in teapots orbiting Saturn.

Espeically from an article that frames the misconception of gods existance as "Militant atheists accuse believers of immature wish fulfillment. Militant believers accuse atheists of petulant defiance of authority."...

I would no more believe a man telling me tomorrows winning lotter numbers after proclaiming that the sky is indeed orange. im not reading this. for the same reason your not reading mines

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
i know but when you give links people rarely click on them.

It is always better to do the right thing.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is always better to do the right thing.

Sounds like you are laboring under a delution.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sounds like you are laboring under a delution.

You assume that I meant it was good for it's own sake.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
im not reading this. for the same reason your not reading mines

Actually he did read yours and responded to it. That's exactly what his post was.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
and by evidence i mean physical evidence

So do I. There is none. On that much, we agree.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
im not reading this. for the same reason your not reading mines

yeah, because When I read your spam, cited it, and analyzed it....I clearly didn't read it....

Ignorance is bliss though.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is always better to do the right thing.

Did you convert back to Chrsitianity?....

Originally posted by Digi

Originally posted by Ordo
Did you convert back to Chrsitianity?....

I bought one of shakya's CD's recently, and have been listening to it. If he converted to Christianity, he's hiding it well. Dude's still a hopeless hippy.

313

I know fear

Combining the two would be like the A-bomb of....

Lets not even go there...

Originally posted by Ordo
Did you convert back to Chrsitianity?....

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You assume that I meant it was good for it's own sake.

It's called, not letting everyone beat on you.

Originally posted by Digi
I bought one of shakya's CD's recently, and have been listening to it. If he converted to Christianity, he's hiding it well. Dude's still a hopeless hippy.

313



I should have charged you more.

Buddhist capitalist....interesting pimp