Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, survey says

[jem]

by the way Stu... I have looked it up.

You refuse to explain because when you do you will be quoting scientists who allow that our universe appears designed but that string theory allows that there could be infinite other universes.

Sting theory allows it.... but we only have proof of one universe.
We have proof of a universe which looks designed.
We have a theory there could be almost infinite other universe.

I will allow that for years you said there was no evidence of design or a designer. You said it so smugly in your ignorance.
I will allow you to withdraw you comment and admit there is some evidence of design.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

by the way Stu... I have looked it up.

You refuse to explain because when you do you will be quoting scientists who allow that our universe appears designed but that string theory allows that there could be infinite other universes.

Sting theory allows it.... but we only have proof of one universe.
We have proof of a universe which looks designed.
We have a theory there could be almost infinite other universe.

I will allow that for years you said there was no evidence of design or a designer. You said it so smugly in your ignorance.
I will allow you to withdraw you comment and admit there is some evidence of design.

What is there to explain that you would ever want or be prepared to hear?

The laws of physics allow a universe to begin from nothing.
The diametric opposite of absurd intelligent design arguments.
The laws of math allow 1+1 to = 2.

I notice you are not cross dressing into your res-judy schizoid alias today.

 

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

What am I talking about? What are you talking about??

Ok, the other guy is "deluded". Are you happy now?

I bet you're not.

You’re happy the other guy should be deluded? Why?
Other realization based on empirical observation could hurt some precious religious sensibilities or something?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from stu:

The laws of physics allow a universe to begin from nothing.

Those "laws" must be locked up in a vault somewhere, I sure can't find them.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

You’re happy the other guy should be deluded? Why?
Other realization based on empirical observation could hurt some precious religious sensibilities or something?

I'm neither happy or unhappy that the other guy is "deluded", if he is in fact such. This is where you can't let go, you have to continue to assert; even when you're asking another question you still feel compelled to trot out "empirical observation", by which you continue to insist, "I'm right".

Religious sensibilities? This is all religious in the widest sense. Traditional religion, secular humanism, science proper, they and all their deriviatives are edifices built by Man to shield him from the terror of his finitude and inevitable end.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from stu:

What is there to explain that you would ever want or be prepared to hear?

The laws of physics allow a universe to begin from nothing.
The diametric opposite of absurd intelligent design arguments.
The laws of math allow 1+1 to = 2.

It only allows it with the "fudge factor", which is employed in every single theory of creation. There can be no absolute certainty given the current information and methods being used to interpret that information. 1+1 will always equal 2, but you're trying to say, we know the answer is 2 so x & y must both be equal to 1. That ain't always the case.
Doesn't matter whether it's science or religion, neither can prove their theory with absolute certainty, and both incorporate their own fudge factors to make things fit. Some reference below:

There's no question about math's validity in solving purely
mathematical things. Adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing, etc. - for those cases, our current form of mathematics is fine. 2 + 2 will always equal 4.

The problem arises when we use our current form of mathematics in an attempt to model/describe/analyze the real, physical world. The system falls apart.

The main proof of mathematics being flawed in modeling physical things is constants. Planck's constant, the gravitational constant, the speed of light, the gas constant, etc. They are all fudge factors because math isn't modeling the real world properly. Each case is different, but whenever a fudge factor (constant) is used, mathematics has failed to accurately describe the scenario by a factor of X (X being the constant).

From a website describing Planck's constant:

In 1900, Max Planck was working on the problem of how the radiation an object emits is related to its temperature. He came up with a formula that agreed very closely with experimental data, but the formula only made sense if he assumed that the energy of a vibrating molecule was quantized--that is, it could only take on certain values. The energy would have to be proportional to the frequency of vibration, and it seemed to come in little "chunks" of the frequency multiplied by a certain constant. This constant came to be known as Planck's constant, or h, and it has the value 6.626E-34 J-s.

 

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:
I'm neither happy or unhappy that the other guy is "deluded", if he is in fact such. This is where you can't let go, you have to continue to assert; even when you're asking another question you still feel compelled to trot out "empirical observation", by which you continue to insist, "I'm right".

Your argument right there is ..... "any response is the wrong response ...I'm right"
Then you accuse me of always wanting to be right.
That's the same kind of dishonesty I was talking about earlier .

Quote from Ricter:
Religious sensibilities? This is all religious in the widest sense. Traditional religion, secular humanism, science proper, they and all their deriviatives are edifices built by Man to shield him from the terror of his finitude and inevitable end.

Not true. This is certainly not all religious - even in the wildest sense.
Understanding something by way of classical formal method , involving critical examination, testable experiment , associated observation, prediction and confirmation , is not religion.

Relying on an argument as being true, that everything could be something else, like an idea about supernatural concepts which have no such understanding or knowledge, is what’s in the realms of religion.

Finding mortality too scary so making up a magic juju God only suggests to me, a missed opportunity to live life for what it is.

 

[stu]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

It only allows it with the "fudge factor", which is employed in every single theory of creation. There can be no absolute certainty given the current information and methods being used to interpret that information. 1+1 will always equal 2, but you're trying to say, we know the answer is 2 so x & y must both be equal to 1. That ain't always the case.
Doesn't matter whether it's science or religion, neither can prove their theory with absolute certainty, and both incorporate their own fudge factors to make things fit. Some reference below:

There's no question about math's validity in solving purely
mathematical things. Adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing, etc. - for those cases, our current form of mathematics is fine. 2 + 2 will always equal 4.

The problem arises when we use our current form of mathematics in an attempt to model/describe/analyze the real, physical world. The system falls apart.

The main proof of mathematics being flawed in modeling physical things is constants. Planck's constant, the gravitational constant, the speed of light, the gas constant, etc. They are all fudge factors because math isn't modeling the real world properly. Each case is different, but whenever a fudge factor (constant) is used, mathematics has failed to accurately describe the scenario by a factor of X (X being the constant).

From a website describing Planck's constant:

In 1900, Max Planck was working on the problem of how the radiation an object emits is related to its temperature. He came up with a formula that agreed very closely with experimental data, but the formula only made sense if he assumed that the energy of a vibrating molecule was quantized--that is, it could only take on certain values. The energy would have to be proportional to the frequency of vibration, and it seemed to come in little "chunks" of the frequency multiplied by a certain constant. This constant came to be known as Planck's constant, or h, and it has the value 6.626E-34 J-s.

Absolute certainty is not required. Uncertainty is in itself a constituent part of confirming a universe from nothing . Which by the way did I mention, the laws of physics allow for.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from stu:

...Which by the way did I mention, the laws of physics allow for.

So many times you're looking a bit silly. Especially considering you seem to be unable to actually post said "laws".

 

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

...Understanding something by way of classical formal method , involving critical examination, testable experiment , associated observation, prediction and confirmation , is not religion.

It is religion, in the sense that it is a definition of what is "true", a definition created by Man. It may have enormous utilitarian value, I don't discount it, but it is still an arbitrary definition.