If science cant explain everything.. Scientific Materialism

[Tart]

I personally think we are all born with a wonder in our consciousness. Something that tells us that our reality might not be as what it seems, that there may be something mysterious and unexplained in our consciousness.. Something beyond our reasoning...

And we see this manifesting in peoples thoughts all the time... There are sooo many claims (even scientific claims) that go beyond our reasoning.. Like mind over matter, or infinite parallel universes, multiverses, aliens, ghosts, the afterlife, telekinesis, out of body experiences, past lives, the "matrix", mysticism, sorcery, magic, etc... We see people, who honestly wonder about the possibilities of many of these things, perhaps all of us have had these kinds of thoughts amusing the unexplained...

I mean even science, and scientist, and even atheist scientist have amused some of these possibilities, like the multiverse.. The multiverse (something that there is no evidence of) is a theory that came up in a rebuttal against God creating THIS universe... (Ill put a scientific video below that suggest "mind over matter" is a real thing)

But then when we come to the idea of God, all of these wonders turn away and people are certain that God cant exist, that miracle cant happen, that there is no after life, there is no soul, etc.... As soon as God gets into the picture, all these wonders that we are born with contemplating, are trashed as a means of mocking and discrediting anything out of the inexplicable, and everything boils down to cold hard science... This is Scientific Materialism.... This is why David Berlinski (atheist philosopher) says in his book "The Devils Delusion" that "scientific atheism is a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt"... It is this notion that nothing inexplicable exist, that everything is explained, and anything beyond explanation (like God) is mocked...

Its a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt...

To me, this seems like a complete indoctrination of atheism... And is there any proof that there is nothing beyond these cold hard explanations? No... But it is assumed....

So if you play around with any of these thoughts, how come you discredit God automatically? If something like "mind over matter" is true, how can you say the divine is false? (example: video below)...

(Personally i think Christianity explains in perfectly.. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-11)

[youtube][/youtube]

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 99 by Tired of the Nonsense]

As an atheist I don't HAVE beliefs as such. Belief is defined as:

Wikipedia
Belief
Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.
posting.php?sid=b939ac2565c9eb2c97c8aa093...

For example, I don't "believe" in the big bang theory. I accept the big bang theory as the most likely of the current explanations concerning the origin of the universe based on observation. I don't have any special emotional attachment to the big bang theory and would/will happily abandon it without regret if a better explanation were proposed.

Believers, on the other hand, tend to be very emotionally involved with the things they have imagined to be true, rather than observed to be true. NOT COINCIDENTALLY, the things which believers imagine to be true tend to come packed with imagined perks that sweeten the imaginary deal. Nothing about the big bang theory serves to move me to great displays of emotional fervor. The BBT simply appears to offer the best explanation for what is observed to be true. So I don't have beliefs. I accept certain explanations over others based on the current state of observable evidence.

That's good to hear! the Big Bang was coined as a pejorative term for the Primeval Atom by atheist Fred Hoyle- he considered it 'religious pseudoscience' for the theistic implications of such a specific creation event. So I think we agree that it's not a good idea to let preferences determine conclusions..

But considering that the BB is not an event we can directly/empirically observe, repeat, measure in a lab experiment - the wiki definition of belief seems to be applicable - it's a semantic argument really?

But likewise, if you consider atheism to be the best explanation for you currently, and are open to abandoning it, that's fine also. Many atheists stubbornly avoid the positive assertion altogether

There are solid reasons for supporting the big bang. The observation that the matter of the universe is expanding leads to the obvious conclusion that at some point all of the matter of the universe was all in much closer proximity to itself. Physicists call it the initial singularity. But you are right... no such thing can be observed, and the very existence of such a condition confounds modern concepts of physics to explain it. On the other hand, it was predicted that echoes of the BB should still be detectable, and detect them we have. So the BBT remains very viable as an explanation for the origin of the universe.

As far as theistic implications are concerned, there are no particular theistic implications to be found in E=MC², which tells us that matter is simply a form of energy, and quantum mechanics, which explains how and why matter/energy continuously interacts with itself causing ongoing change. And this leaves open the recognition that the BB was simply a natural result of quantum mechanics, rather than religious pseudoscience.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 101 by Tired of the Nonsense]

There are solid reasons for supporting the big bang. The observation that the matter of the universe is expanding leads to the obvious conclusion that at some point all of the matter of the universe was all in much closer proximity to itself. Physicists call it the initial singularity. But you are right... no such thing can be observed, and the very existence of such a condition confounds modern concepts of physics to explain it. On the other hand, it was predicted that echoes of the BB should still be detectable, and detect them we have. So the BBT remains very viable as an explanation for the origin of the universe.

I think we pretty much agree on the BB then, but what fun is that!

As far as theistic implications are concerned, there are no particular theistic implications to be found in E=MC², which tells us that matter is simply a form of energy, and quantum mechanics, which explains how and why matter/energy continuously interacts with itself causing ongoing change. And this leaves open the recognition that the BB was simply a natural result of quantum mechanics, rather than religious pseudoscience.

Well there I beg to differ! I see no particular atheist implications in E=MC² nor any of the large array of universal constants required to be so precisely engineered for the mere existence of space/time matter/energy , far less a universe which could ultimately, literally contemplate it's own existence..

And atheists like Hoyle at the time recognized this problem, but if it all simply 'always existed' as in steady state, then this at least removed the role for a 'creator'


what implications are to be found in:

var rmw_max_width = 500?
or
calendar_scheduler.php?d=1536638400?

from the source code running this web page?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 101 by Tired of the Nonsense]

There are solid reasons for supporting the big bang. The observation that the matter of the universe is expanding leads to the obvious conclusion that at some point all of the matter of the universe was all in much closer proximity to itself. Physicists call it the initial singularity. But you are right... no such thing can be observed, and the very existence of such a condition confounds modern concepts of physics to explain it. On the other hand, it was predicted that echoes of the BB should still be detectable, and detect them we have. So the BBT remains very viable as an explanation for the origin of the universe.

I think we pretty much agree on the BB then, but what fun is that!

As far as theistic implications are concerned, there are no particular theistic implications to be found in E=MC², which tells us that matter is simply a form of energy, and quantum mechanics, which explains how and why matter/energy continuously interacts with itself causing ongoing change. And this leaves open the recognition that the BB was simply a natural result of quantum mechanics, rather than religious pseudoscience.

Well there I beg to differ! I see no particular atheist implications in E=MC² nor any of the large array of universal constants required to be so precisely engineered for the mere existence of space/time matter/energy , far less a universe which could ultimately, literally contemplate it's own existence..

And atheists like Hoyle at the time recognized this problem, but if it all simply 'always existed' as in steady state, then this at least removed the role for a 'creator'


what implications are to be found in:

var rmw_max_width = 500?
or
calendar_scheduler.php?d=1536638400?

from the source code running this web page?

Combine E=MC² with the law of conservation of energy, and things become more clear.

Wikipedia
Conservation of Energy
This law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

Matter is one of the forms energy takes according to E=MC² (the people of Hiroshima would testify to the accuracy of this equation, except that most were vaporized by the event that proved E=MC² to be unmistakably true), matter/energy interacts with itself (quantum mechanics in action), and energy can neither be created or destroyed, which indicates that energy is eternal, endlessly reforming itself through the principles of quantum mechanics. Is the law of conservation of energy immutable? Well, it's observed to be a LAW. We are stuck with it, even if not necessarily emotionally attached to it.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 103 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Okay, so we found that matter and energy are interchangeable, as part of a very elegant and finely engineered information system-

where is the atheist implication here? We only know of one verified source of information systems of any kind, and it's not blind luck..

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 103 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Okay, so we found that matter and energy are interchangeable, as part of a very elegant and finely engineered information system-

where is the atheist implication here? We only know of one verified source of information systems of any kind, and it's not blind luck..

Read through post 103 again. When you get to the Wikipedia description of the law of conservation of energy pay attention to to the following quote in bold letters: "energy can neither be created nor destroyed." If energy can neither be created or destroyed, it is ETERNAL. It forms and reforms itself eternally through the process of quantum mechanics. One of the forms energy takes is matter. Huge amounts of energy are locked up in the form of matter. If you could convince even a few pound of matter to release its energy all at once, you could reduce large cities to smoldering ruins.

When a believer declares that God exists, and has existed eternally, THAT is theism. When an atheist claims that matter is one of the forms that energy takes, and that the universe, including humans, are composed matter/energy, THAT is scientific observation. Notice the difference between the old "make it up and declare it to be true" method employed by theists, and empirical observation employed by science (and many atheists). If that isn't clear enough, try using your cell phone to inquire whether or not Jesus has returned from the dead yet (working technology based on empirical scientific observations, versus make it up and declare it to be true). Notice that the phone, at least, works as promised.

Of course one does not have to be an atheist to observe and comprehend the implications of E=MC² -- the law of conservation of energy-- quantum mechanics. But scientific observation and atheism have demonstrated an overwhelming tendency to go hand in hand. The 2,000 year old empty claims of theists demonstrate an overwhelming tendency to be the result of blind faith and abject unwavering gullibility.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 105 by Tired of the Nonsense]

When a believer declares that God exists, and has existed eternally, THAT is theism. When an atheist claims that matter is one of the forms that energy takes, and that the universe, including humans, are composed matter/energy, THAT is scientific observation. Notice the difference between the old "make it up and declare it to be true" method employed by theists, and empirical observation employed by science (and many atheists). If that isn't clear enough, try using your cell phone to inquire whether or not Jesus has returned from the dead yet (working technology based on empirical scientific observations, versus make it up and declare it to be true). Notice that the phone, at least, works as promised.

Of course one does not have to be an atheist to observe and comprehend the implications of E=MC² -- the law of conservation of energy-- quantum mechanics. But scientific observation and atheism have demonstrated an overwhelming tendency to go hand in hand. The 2,000 year old empty claims of theists demonstrate an overwhelming tendency to be the result of blind faith and abject unwavering gullibility.

When a believer declares that the universe was created by a spontaneous/naturalistic mechanism, which has existed eternally, THAT is atheism. When an theist claims that matter is one of the forms that energy takes, and that the universe, including humans, are composed matter/energy, THAT is scientific observation. Notice the difference between the old "make it up and declare it to be true" method employed by atheists, and empirical observation employed by science (and many theists). If that isn't clear enough, try using your cell phone to inquire whether or not the multiverse exists (working technology based on empirical scientific observations, versus make it up and declare it to be true). Notice that the phone, at least, works as promised.

Of course one does not have to be an theist to observe and comprehend the implications of E=MC² -- the law of conservation of energy-- quantum mechanics. But scientific observation and theism have demonstrated an overwhelming tendency to go hand in hand. The 10,000 year old empty assumptions of naturalists demonstrate an overwhelming tendency to be the result of blind faith and abject unwavering gullibility.

see, works as well both ways doesn't it? although I would not chose to include all the derogatory ad hominem parts. I think atheists are perfectly intelligent & capable of critical thought, I certainly like to think I was as an atheist for many decades.

The actual substance of this point is that the universe is balanced on a vast array of very finely tuned mathematical constants and algorithms, not a handful of simple 'immutable' laws+ lots of time and space to randomly bump around in as once believed. And that all space/time matter/energy as we can possibly know it, had a specific beginning that presents a very interesting question, not 'eternal - so don't even ask how it was created'

Whether this was an accidental creation of the flying spaghetti multiverse, or simply designed that way is a good question, that's why we are all here- no insults required- that only concedes the emotional component behind either position

[Bust Nak]

see, works as well both ways doesn't it?

Well, no, since atheists do not generally employ the "make it up and declare it to be true" method; nor do we appeal to faith or expect gullibility.

The actual substance of this point is that the universe is balanced on a vast array of very finely tuned mathematical constants and algorithms... Whether this was an accidental creation of the flying spaghetti multiverse, or simply designed that way is a good question, that's why we are all here- no insults required- that only concedes the emotional component behind either position

So why not do away with the emotional component completely and stick to what science says?

[Guy Threepwood]

see, works as well both ways doesn't it?

Well, no, since atheists do not generally employ the "make it up and declare it to be true" method; nor do we appeal to faith or expect gullibility.

static/ eternal models? steady state? Big Crunch? Multiverses, M Theory, String theory.. Not to mention countless false assumptions of Darwinian evolution

We all believe in something, we don't all acknowledge our beliefs, faith as such.

'Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself'

[Bust Nak]

static/ eternal models? steady state? Big Crunch? Multiverses, M Theory, String theory.. Not to mention countless false assumptions of Darwinian evolution...

Non of these are the result of "make it up and declare it to be true," nor are they taken on faith.

We all believe in something, we don't all acknowledge our beliefs, faith as such.

'Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself'

What exactly did you have in mind?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 107 by Bust Nak]

So why not do away with the emotional component completely and stick to what science says?

that would be my point, yes