Atheism

[stu]

Perhaps because science is not in the business of proving things but is rather the accumulation of knowledge, it is capable of all those things leaving the impossible to philosophy.


One crucial difference between science and philosophy and indeed the problem with philosophy, is that it has no laboratory.

 

[jem]

this is the problem with your trolling stu. you make pronouncements as if you know what your a talking about when you are really just bullshitting your ass off most of the time.

There is no distinction made in your writing between your opinion and fact. You attempt to write persuasively on the topic of science yet manifest no proof that you have objectively analysed the science. You rarely present a link to science.


for instance you just made these sweeping statements about Kaku's work.. .yet you did not address the new information brought to the table by the post.

You have given us no evidence that you analysed what Kaku meant when he said


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...."

---

Frankly, I am surprised a scientist of his stature made such a statement. Its seems to pro Creator to be true.
I would bet we would need to see it in better context.

Instead of us have a useful conversation about the science, and you explaining what he may have really meant... you just feel back upon some useless restatement of things that don't advance our understanding.

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:

I think, most importantly both science and philosophy, and any other contemporary fields of study, are used to train up people's mind for objective, critical, independent, logical and rational thinking and understanding, systematically and comprehensively.

Historically, religious leaders and scholars were among the most talented, trained, educated, intelligent and knowledgeable people that offer helps (solving problems) and advises to others.

Many inventions and scientific findings including maths, physics and chemistry were originated by some religious leaders/scholars (from the 3 major religions)! (The laymen and secular people were much less educated!)

It would be fairly disappointing that why and how the religious institutions had become less and less involving/impacting the development of modern science!

Personally I think the religions of the future, after removing all superstitions, should be gradually modernised in order to attain (i.e. revert to) the above objectives!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

Before the eighteenth century

Robert Grosseteste (c.1175–1253): Bishop of Lincoln, he was the central character of the English intellectual movement in the first half of the 13th century and is considered the founder of scientific thought in Oxford. He had a great interest in the natural world and wrote texts on the mathematical sciences of optics, astronomy and geometry. He affirmed that experiments should be used in order to verify a theory, testing its consequences and added greatly to the development of the scientific method.[1]

Albertus Magnus (c.1193–1280): Patron saint of scientists in Catholicism who may have been the first to isolate arsenic. He wrote that: "Natural science does not consist in ratifying what others have said, but in seeking the causes of phenomena." Yet he rejected elements of Aristotelianism that conflicted with Catholicism and drew on his faith as well as Neo-Platonic ideas to "balance" "troubling" Aristotelian elements.[note 1][2]

Nicole Oresme (c.1323–1382): Theologian and bishop of Lisieux, he was one of the early founders and popularizers of modern sciences. One of his many scientific contributions is the discovery of the curvature of light through atmospheric refraction.[3]

Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464): Catholic cardinal and theologian who made contributions to the field of mathematics by developing the concepts of the infinitesimal and of relative motion. His philosophical speculations also anticipated Copernicus’ heliocentric world-view.[4]

Otto Brunfels (1488–1534): A theologian and botanist from Mainz, Germany. His Catalogi virorum illustrium is considered to be the first book on the history of evangelical sects that had broken away from the Catholic Church. In botany his Herbarum vivae icones helped earn him acclaim as one of the "fathers of botany".[5]

William Turner (c.1508–1568): He is sometimes called the "father of English botany" and was also an ornithologist. Religiously he was arrested for preaching in favor of the Reformation. He later became a Dean of Wells Cathedral, but was expelled for nonconformity.[6]

Ignazio Danti (1536–1586): As bishop of Alatri he convoked a diocesan synod to deal with abuses. He was also a mathematician who wrote on Euclid, an astronomer, and a designer of mechanical devices.[7]

Francis Bacon (1561–1626): Considered among the fathers of empiricism and is credited with establishing the inductive method of experimental science via what is called the scientific method today.[8][9]

Laurentius Gothus (1565–1646): A professor of astronomy and Archbishop of Uppsala. He wrote on astronomy and theology.[10]

Pierre Gassendi (1592–1655): Catholic priest who tried to reconcile Atomism with Christianity. He also published the first work on the Transit of Mercury and corrected the geographical coordinates of the Mediterranean Sea.[11]

Anton Maria of Rheita (1597–1660): Capuchin astronomer. He dedicated one of his astronomy books to Jesus Christ, a "theo-astronomy" work was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and he wondered if beings on other planets were "cursed by original sin like humans are."[12]

Blaise Pascal (1623–1662): Jansenist thinker;[note 2] well known for Pascal's law (physics), Pascal's theorem (math), and Pascal's Wager (theology).[13]

Nicolas Steno (1638–1686): Lutheran convert to Catholicism, his beatification in that faith occurred in 1987. As a scientist he is considered a pioneer in both anatomy and geology, but largely abandoned science after his religious conversion.[14][15]

Isaac Barrow (1630–1677): English theologian, scientist, and mathematician. He wrote Expositions of the Creed, The Lord's Prayer, Decalogue, and Sacraments and Lectiones Opticae et Geometricae.[16]

Juan Lobkowitz (1606–1682): Cistercian monk who did work on Combinatorics and published astronomy tables at age 10. He also did works of theology and sermons.[17]

Seth Ward (1617–1689): Anglican Bishop of Salisbury and Savilian Chair of Astronomy from 1649–1661. He wrote Ismaelis Bullialdi astro-nomiae philolaicae fundamenta inquisitio brevis and Astronomia geometrica. He also had a theological/philosophical dispute with Thomas Hobbes and as a bishop was severe toward nonconformists.[18]

Robert Boyle (1627–1691): Prominent scientist and theologian who argued that the study of science could improve glorification of God.[19][20] A strong Christian apologist, he is considered one of the most important figures in the history of Chemistry.

Isaac Newton (1643-1727): Prominent scientist during the Scientific Revolution. Physicist, discoverer of gravity, and an alchemist and an obsessed Christian apologist, was obsessed with trying to discern the date of the Rapture from the Bible.

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630): Prominent astronomer of the Scientific Revolution, discovered Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists

Astronomers

Sind ibn Ali (? - 864)
Ali Qushji (1403 - 1474)
Ahmad Khani (1650 - 1707)
Ibrahim al-Fazari (? - 777)
Muhammad al-Fazari (? - 796 or 806)
Al-Khwarizmi, Mathematician (c. 780 - c. 850)
Abu Ma'shar al-Balkhi (Albumasar) (787 - 886 CE)
Al-Farghani (800/805 - 870)
Banū Mūsā (Ben Mousa) (9th century)
Dīnawarī (815 - 896)
Al-Majriti (d. 1008 or 1007 CE)
Al-Battani (c. 858 - 929) (Albatenius)
Al-Farabi (c. 872 - c. 950) (Abunaser)
Abd Al-Rahman Al Sufi (903 - 986)
Abu Sa'id Gorgani (9th century)
Kushyar ibn Labban (971 - 1029)
Abū Ja'far al-Khāzin (900 - 971)
Al-Mahani (9th century)
Al-Marwazi (9th century)
Al-Nayrizi (865 - 922)
Al-Saghani (d. 990)
Al-Farghani (9th century)
Abu Nasr Mansur (970 - 1036)
Abū Sahl al-Qūhī (10th century) (Kuhi)
Abu-Mahmud al-Khujandi (940 - 1000)
Abū al-Wafā' al-Būzjānī (940 - 998)
Ibn Yunus (950 - 1009)
Ibn al-Haytham (965 - 1040) (Alhacen)
Bīrūnī (973 - 1048)
Avicenna (980 - 1037) (Ibn Sīnā)
Abū Ishāq Ibrāhīm al-Zarqālī (1029 - 1087) (Arzachel)
Omar Khayyám (1048 - 1131)
Al-Khazini (fl. 1115-1130)
Ibn Bajjah (1095 - 1138) (Avempace)
Ibn Tufail (1105 - 1185) (Abubacer)
Nur Ed-Din Al Betrugi (12th century - 1204) (Alpetragius)
Averroes (1126 - 1198)
Al-Jazari (1136 - 1206)
Sharaf al-Dīn al-Tūsī (died 1213/4)
Anvari (1126-1189)
Mo'ayyeduddin Urdi (died 1566)
Nasir al-Din Tusi (1201 - 1274)
Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi (1236 - 1311)
Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī (1250 - 1310)
Ibn al-Shatir (1304 - 1375)
Shams al-Dīn Abū Abd Allāh al-Khalīlī (1320-80)
Jamshīd al-Kāshī (1380 - 1429)
Ulugh Beg (1394 - 1449)
Taqi al-Din Muhammad ibn Ma'ruf (1526 - 1585)
Ahmad Nahavandi (8th and 9th centuries)
Haly Abenragel (10th and 11th century)
Abolfadl Harawi (10th century)
Mu'ayyad al-Din al-'Urdi (1200 - 1266)


Chemists and alchemists
Further information: Alchemy (Islam)

Khalid ibn Yazid (died 704) (Calid)
Jafar al-Sadiq (702-765)
Jābir ibn Hayyān (721-815) (Geber), father of chemistry[16][17][18]
Abbas Ibn Firnas (810-887) (Armen Firman)
Al-Kindi (801-873) (Alkindus)
Al-Majriti (fl. 1007-1008)
Ibn Miskawayh (932-1030)
Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī (973-1048)
Avicenna (980-1037)
Al-Khazini (fl. 1115-1130)
Nasir al-Din Tusi (1201-1274)
Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406)
Salimuzzaman Siddiqui (1897-1994)
Al-Khwārizmī (780-850), algebra, (mathematics)



Physicists and engineers
Further information: Islamic physics

Mimar Sinan, (1489/1588) - also known as Koca Mi'mâr Sinân Âğâ
Jafar al-Sadiq, 8th century
Banū Mūsā (Ben Mousa), 9th century
Ja'far Muhammad ibn Mūsā ibn Shākir
Ahmad ibn Mūsā ibn Shākir
Al-Hasan ibn Mūsā ibn Shākir
Abbas Ibn Firnas (Armen Firman), 9th century
Al-Saghani, (d. 990)
Abū Sahl al-Qūhī (Kuhi), 10th century
Ibn Sahl, 10th century
Ibn Yunus, 10th century
Al-Karaji, 10th century
Ibn al-Haytham (Alhacen), 11th century Iraqi scientist, father of optics,[37] and experimental physics,[38] considered the "first scientist"[39]
Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī, 11th century, pioneer of experimental mechanics[40]
Ibn Sīnā/Seena (Avicenna), 11th century
Al-Khazini, 12th century
Ibn Bajjah (Avempace), 12th century
Hibat Allah Abu'l-Barakat al-Baghdaadi (Nathanel), 12th century
Ibn Rushd/Rooshd (Averroes), 12th century Andalusian mathematician, philosopher and medical expert
Al-Jazari, 13th century civil engineer, father of robotics,[18]
Nasir al-Din Tusi, 13th century
Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi, 13th century
Kamāl al-Dīn al-Fārisī, 13th century
Ibn al-Shatir, 14th century
Taqi al-Din Muhammad ibn Ma'ruf, 16th century
Hezarfen Ahmet Celebi, 17th century
Lagari Hasan Çelebi, 17th century
Sake Dean Mahomet, 18th century

http://www.juliantrubin.com/schooldirectory/jewishscientists.html

 

[stu]

this is the problem with your trolling stu. you make pronouncements as if you know what your a talking about when you are really just bullshitting your ass off most of the time.

There is no distinction made in your writing between your opinion and fact. You attempt to write persuasively on the topic of science yet manifest no proof that you have objectively analysed the science. You rarely present a link to science.


for instance you just made these sweeping statements about Kaku's work.. .yet you did not address the new information brought to the table by the post.

You have given us no evidence that you analysed what Kaku meant when he said


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...."

---

Frankly, I am surprised a scientist of his stature made such a statement. Its seems to pro Creator to be true.
I would bet we would need to see it in better context.

Instead of us have a useful conversation about the science, and you explaining what he may have really meant... you just feel back upon some useless restatement of things that don't advance our understanding.

You obviously decided a long time ago not to understand what science is so there is no understanding for you Jem.

Why should I be verifying what looks to anyone with half a brain cell to be nonsense.
I've already mentioned there is nothing in Kaku's math or equations or in any one else's nor in any science anywhere that indicates a god or need for one.

There is no such thing as "primitive semi-radius tachyons". There is of course no mention of such things on Kaku's website and there are certainly no papers for it.
This story was supposedly started on a Spanish website a few years ago, later declared a hoax.


But sure enough, thick headed gullible god botherers such as yourself will jump on anything without checking to shout Creator at it.

Instead of us have a useful conversation about the science,

What a joke.
Constant anger, incessant insults, overbearing self-importance, stupidity and sheer deceit in your posts are reason enough to show how you couldn't have a useful conversation to save your life.

 

[jem]

you didn't check it out til I told you to do so.
I looked it up... and then added to my post.
Which you then read and found the post about the spanish website.
Which may or may no be correct. Of course you posted no science supporting any of your statements.


What a joke. Stu flipping reality on its head.

1. you started with the insults.
2. I doubt any of us are angry... this is the internet.
3. I post links to science and scientists.. you write specious stuff imagined in your own brain and act as if its science. (so who manifests overbearing self-importance, stupidity and sheer deceit.)

How many links have you posted on this thread to science or a scientist... zero. How many this year. I have seen zero or very close to it from you.
.

 

[jem]

Not sure how you could make your bullshit claims about how you know Kakus work.
Here we see him get pretty philosophical in the last minute of this video.

Here he says Strings in 11 dimensions are the mind of God.

 

[jem]

here is a top genetics scientist who basically explains about the fine tunings. I agree with this scientists too.

 

[stu]

You have given us no evidence that you analysed what Kaku meant when he said

He didn't say it.

I would bet we would need to see it in better context.

You'd need to see it in the context that he didn't say it you dope.

How many links have you posted on this thread to science or a scientist... zero.

And just what exactly is your point in posting links and videos all the time of scientists who do not say they have any science to demonstrate how there IS any fine-tuning or any need for the universe to have a god or a creator or a tuner for it to exist? eh?

I don't post links to science on the subject because there is no science on the subject. The subject is irrelevant to science. What do you find so difficult to get about that?

But You want videos and links ok well here's one. Michio Kaku endorsing the IPCC and the overwhelming evidence for man made global warming and reduction of emissions.

things that don't advance our understanding.

How does that advance your understanding away from being an AGW denier? Your "great minds of science" is telling you something that actually is relevant to science but contrary to your closed minded denial.
Of course it won't change a thing. It's Just something for you to hold another unintelligent ill-considered opinion on.

You keep trying to wedge your religious beliefs into science where much more capable people than you miserably fail, and always will, for simple reasons you clearly are incapable of understanding

 

[Good1]

Atheism is about the absence of faith and religion, not want of it.

There are only two alternatives: faith or knowledge. Atheism's "absence of faith" does not understand the difference between these, how faith functions, it's scope, and the scope of knowledge.

Science portends to accumulate knowledge, however, it is really just the exploration of what faith has wrought. Once you learn that physics is a faith-based phenomenon, it gives you a better perspective.

I'm surprised pop religions have not got this either, as one old dusty book has already suggested that all "substance" is faith-based.

For knowledge to be real, you'd have to know everything, leaving nothing to the realm of doubt, ignorance and/or faith.

The study of reliable phenomenon is not the accumulation of knowledge, as faith is quite reliable within its own domain. The phenomenon lasts as long as it is believed. What believes in physical phenomenon supersedes the life-span of man and his observations. As long as it believes it, the phenomenon will seem to man as an observation of reality and the accumulation of knowledge.

 

[jimmiebarton]

There are only two alternatives: faith or knowledge. Atheism's "absence of faith" does not understand the difference between these, how faith functions, it's scope, and the scope of knowledge.

Science portends to accumulate knowledge, however, it is really just the exploration of what faith has wrought. Once you learn that physics is a faith-based phenomenon, it gives you a better perspective.

I'm surprised pop religions have not got this either, as one old dusty book has already suggested that all "substance" is faith-based.

For knowledge to be real, you'd have to know everything, leaving nothing to the realm of doubt, ignorance and/or faith.

The study of reliable phenomenon is not the accumulation of knowledge, as faith is quite reliable within its own domain. The phenomenon lasts as long as it is believed. What believes in physical phenomenon supersedes the life-span of man and his observations. As long as it believes it, the phenomenon will seem to man as an observation of reality and the accumulation of knowledge.

did faith provide that iphone

bible in one hand and the iphone in the other?

does anyone else see the irony