Atheism

[stu]

I will go back an get the quote.

As for Linde,

LOL.
Andre Linde is suggesting the universe is all there is and all there need be.

water fills gaps too. does that make it imaginary.

so why choose something imaginary.

to those with minds big enough to think in systems... when you see the constants of our standard model be proven to be tuned to 20 or more decimal places and one constant being tuned to over 120 decimal places you understand that it is ridiculous to argue the universe was tuned this precisely by random luck of natural forces... unless you had almost infinite other universes.

The standard model is incomplete which makes constants appear to need certain values to fit observations. It only needs for those values to be natural inevitable outcomes, just like water is the natural inevitable outcome of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 of oxygen, and poof goes notions of anything being tuned.

Constants are not proven to be tuned by the standard model. When you can understand that much, never mind thinking in systems, your own mind might just get big enough to think.

 

[jem]

1. Linde speculated... Without someone observing the universe,” he says, “the universe is actually dead.”

the article stated he speculated consciousness may be a fundamental component of the universe.

do you even understand how far more complicated than random natural forces that is?
that without an observer the universe is actually dead?

let me quote this again...


As for Linde, he is especially interested in the mystery of consciousness and has speculated that consciousness may be a fundamental component of the universe, much like space and time. He wonders whether the physical universe, its laws, and conscious observers might form an integrated whole. A complete description of reality, he says, could require all three of those components, which he posits emerged simultaneously. “Without someone observing the universe,” he says, “the universe is actually dead.”

2. the rest of what you wrote is garbage. its the equivalent of saying the universe only needs a Tuner and poof now you know why the universe appears to be so Tuned.

that is the point... our universe appears tuned...
scientists are searching for the explanation... because it does not appear to be the inevitable result of "natural forces".

LOL.
Andre Linde is suggesting the universe is all there is and all there need be.



so why choose something imaginary.



The standard model is incomplete which makes constants appear to need certain values to fit observations. It only needs for those values to be natural inevitable outcomes, just like water is the natural inevitable outcome of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 of oxygen, and poof goes notions of anything being tuned.

Constants are not proven to be tuned by the standard model. When you can understand that much, never mind thinking in systems, your own mind might just get big enough to think.

 

[jimmiebarton]

the moment you started arguing...your faith ends. reason begins.

that's a good start

 

[wjk]

"String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created"

Dr. Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist at the City College of New York (CUNY) and co-founder of String Field Theory, says theoretical particles known as “primitive semi-radius tachyons” are physical evidence that the universe was created by a higher intelligence.

After analyzing the behavior of these sub-atomic particles - which can move faster than the speed of light and have the ability to “unstick” space and matter – using technology created in 2005, Kaku concluded that the universe is a “Matrix” governed by laws and principles that could only have been designed by an intelligent being.

“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore,” Kaku said, according to an article published in the Geophilosophical Association of Anthropological and Cultural Studies...."

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bar...o-founder-sub-atomic-particles-are-evidence-0

 

[jem]

I am happy to discuss my faith if you wish...
but I brought the science to the thread with the following... Stu brought his faith in to the thread with his theory about natural forces creating our universe.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator\

What About God?
....

If the multiverse is the final stage of the Copernican revolution, with our universe but a speck in an infinite megacosmos, where does humanity fit in? If the life-friendly fine-tuning of our universe is just a chance occurrence, something that inevitably arises in an endless array of universes, is there any need for a fine-tuner—for a god?

“I don’t think that the multiverse idea destroys the possibility of an intelligent, benevolent creator,” Weinberg says. “What it does is remove one of the arguments for it, just as Darwin’s theory of evolution made it unnecessary to appeal to a benevolent designer to understand how life developed with such remarkable abilities to survive and breed.”

On the other hand, if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”

As for Linde, he is especially interested in the mystery of consciousness and has speculated that consciousness may be a fundamental component of the universe, much like space and time. He wonders whether the physical universe, its laws, and conscious observers might form an integrated whole. A complete description of reality, he says, could require all three of those components, which he posits emerged simultaneously. “Without someone observing the universe,” he says, “the universe is actually dead.”

Yet for all of his boldness, Linde hesitates when I ask whether he truly believes that the multiverse idea will one day be as well established as Newton’s law of gravity and the Big Bang. “I do not want to predict the future,” he answers. “I once predicted my own future. I had a very firm prediction. I knew that I was going to die in the hospital at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow near where I worked. I would go there for all my physical examinations. Once, when I had an ulcer, I was lying there in bed, thinking I knew this was the place where I was going to die. Why? Because I knew I would always be living in Russia. Moscow was the only place in Russia where I could do physics. This was the only hospital for the Academy of Sciences, and so on. It was quite completely predictable.

the moment you started arguing...your faith ends. reason begins.

that's a good start

 

[jem]

wow... that is really interesting coming from the co founder of sting theory.

So one co founder of sting theory states that God is one of the possible explanations for the fine tunings of our universe.

The other Co founder says that sub atomic particles are evidence the universe was created...

and we have Stu arguing furiously against the best minds in science.

"String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created"

Dr. Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist at the City College of New York (CUNY) and co-founder of String Field Theory, says theoretical particles known as “primitive semi-radius tachyons” are physical evidence that the universe was created by a higher intelligence.

After analyzing the behavior of these sub-atomic particles - which can move faster than the speed of light and have the ability to “unstick” space and matter – using technology created in 2005, Kaku concluded that the universe is a “Matrix” governed by laws and principles that could only have been designed by an intelligent being.

“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore,” Kaku said, according to an article published in the Geophilosophical Association of Anthropological and Cultural Studies...."

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bar...o-founder-sub-atomic-particles-are-evidence-0

 

[stu]

And I suppose no one should argue against the "great minds of science" like Isaac Newton and his non-scientific beliefs in the occult.

Problem is, a Creator a Tuner or God are not represented in any of Michio Kaku's mathematics or scientific equations or in any scientific theories at all, yet natural laws and fundamental physics are. Essential constituents characteristic throughout everything he does in science. Not God.

Apart from wishful thinking, why should god, a creator or a tuner be anything but another word for the natural world itself. There's no scientific reason or need for it.



"God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time goes on." Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

[OddTrader]

Just 2 cents!

1. Regarding God argument: Is there anything that our sciences and scientists cannot do much validation about it?

Anything such as morality, ethics, freewill, integrity, liberty, equality, democracy, humanity, hatred, emotion, justice, etc. that could be considered and evaluated by some people more meaningful and important than science?

2. Perhaps science should not be the only or the highest authority to determine/ decide whether there is anything else that could have probably even further higher authority or rationality standards than science!

Imagine a scientist would do the best for secretly demonstrating/proving an inventive experiment, for example a deadly virus or bomb, that could destroy the whole world/universe and human race!

3. Perhaps the key issue is not whether there is God, or not.

Even the best scientists are able to elegantly logically disprove God's existence with the best rational and scientific approach, including demonstrable experiments!

The key issue perhaps practically should be, instead:

“We've all got both light and dark inside us. What matters is the part we choose to act on. That's who we really are.”

― J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

 

[stu]

Some people consider the Kardashions more meaningful or important than science. It doesn't mean they are or are not. But to inquire rationally about that or anything at all, requires the scientific method at some level .

If a claim for further higher authority or rationality standards could be argued for rationally, then the same rationality could argue for even further higher authority or rationality standards, again, and again and then aga.............
For instance it's really very easy to imagine God has a higher authority with better rationality standards.

The issue is simply one in which science has no evidence or data or implicit necessity to consider god - or any higher authority other than the natural universe itself - is in any way relevant to how the physical universe fundamentally works. That is to say, no more evidence or necessity or relevance than a unicorn has.

 

[OddTrader]

Some people consider science is merely a predictive tool for explaining and understanding things!

Perhaps there are natural limitations for science!

Perhaps science alone cannot disprove All possible things!

Perhaps science is by no means able to find the Absolute Origin/Source of All things!

Because basically it is impossible, theoretically/philosophically!

Why All things and their interrelations, supposedly created from nothing, are structured and dynamically moving so orderly and systematically!

Say, if the universe is like a human body, and the scientist is like a blood cell. No matter how a scientist designs an experiment within the body, the scientist would never fully understand the actual shape/form/mind/thinking of the whole human-body.

Perhaps the dilemma is only if scientists can one day produce certain equipment with a size bigger than the (multi)universe, and place it far far away outside the (multi)universe, then they can fully understand everything and all things!

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_04

The knowledge that is built by science is always open to question and revision. No scientific idea is ever once-and-for-all "proved." Why not? Well, science is constantly seeking new evidence, which could reveal problems with our current understandings. Ideas that we fully accept today may be rejected or modified in light of new evidence discovered tomorrow. For example, up until 1938, paleontologists accepted the idea that coelacanths (an ancient fish) went extinct at the time that they last appear in the fossil record — about 80 million years ago. But that year, a live coelacanth was discovered off the coast of South Africa, causing scientists to revise their ideas and begin to investigate how this animal survives in the deep sea.

http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html

The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.

How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena.

The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.

What is the purpose of science? Perhaps the most general description is that the purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality.

Most scientific investigations use some form of the scientific method. Find out more about the scientific method.

Science as defined above is sometimes called pure science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of research to human needs. Fields of science are commonly classified along two major lines:

* Natural sciences, the study of the natural world, and
* Social sciences, the systematic study of human behavior and society.