Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, survey says

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

I do have to agree, or at least not disagree, with Stu regarding the "universe from nothing" possibility indicated by physics. I'm fairly sure that it is mathematics which arrives at that conclusion, and I'm similarly sure that physics is pretty much only mathematics at that level. Experimentation on these hypotheses takes years to catch up, ordinarily.

I have no problem with the "something from nothing" concept, maybe because quantum physics, entanglement, and relativity are so mind-blowing already. (Or maybe it was the LSD...)

At any rate, I still maintain that at some future time the very concepts of cause, effect, and "objects" will be redefined or subsumed into a greater understanding.

Nice to see some honesty dude.
Right. So it's only mathematics then.

 

[stu]

Quote from Lucrum:

What is it then?


Here's a theory:

Energy in the curve of space/time spontaneously erupted into an omnipotent god. This god got bored with all the nothingness and decided to create a universe from nothing. But he was lazy so rather than create the end product he merely created space dust. He watched this dust float around for billions of years until one day in the universe's game of dust billiards. The dust finally became arranged in such a way that a cell of life was born. Then over billions more years this cell through both pure chance and natural selection evolved into both plants and animals.

This covers god, a universe from nothing and evolution. Should make just about everyone happy.

Energy, space/time is not nothing. Add an omnipotent dio di tutti dii and you started with 2 somethings and an imaginary friend.

....however, the laws of physics don't allow for that.
Yet the laws of physics do allow for a universe to begin without any of it.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

Nice to see some honesty dude.
Right. So it's only mathematics then.

Mathematics are of course symbolic representations of something "outside" ourselves.

 

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

Mathematics are of course symbolic representations of something "outside" ourselves.

Being a science dealing with the logic of quantity, shape and arrangement, they are much more than that!

 

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

Being a science dealing with the logic of quantity, shape and arrangement, they are much more than that!

I thought you might come back along that line, and I was tempted to edit my reply! Anyway, I did not mean to imply that mathematics does not also represent process. I think that's all it represents actually, since "objects" are an abstraction of process.

 

[Trader666]

You've shown that you know less about physics than some children in elementary school do, so why don't you get an education and quit making an ass of yourself by spewing nonsense on ET?

Quote from STUpid:

....however, the laws of physics don't allow for that.
Yet the laws of physics do allow for a universe to begin without any of it.

 

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

I thought you might come back along that line, and I was tempted to edit my reply! Anyway, I did not mean to imply that mathematics does not also represent process. I think that's all it represents actually, since "objects" are an abstraction of process.

Yes, but as my point with Lucrum, attaching phrases like " that's all it represents" and "it's only a theory" , are unmistakably not true representations of science.
Whether it's the science which is mathematics, or the science which is physics, they are obviously much more than that suggests.

So why do it?
Simply to piggy back in the Deity with science, so God can be a "theory" too, either directly or by inference seems to be the only reason.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from stu:

Yes, but as my point with Lucrum, attaching phrases like " that's all it represents" and "it's only a theory" , are unmistakably not true representations of science.

You saying that there are no theories in science, evrything is known proven fact? Even when science/scientists label it as a theory?

So why do it?
Simply to piggy back in the Deity with science, so God can be a "theory" too, either directly or by inference seems to be the only reason.

For some maybe, NOT me.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

Yes, but as my point with Lucrum, attaching phrases like " that's all it represents" and "it's only a theory" , are unmistakably not true representations of science.
Whether it's the science which is mathematics, or the science which is physics, they are obviously much more than that suggests.

So why do it?
Simply to piggy back in the Deity with science, so God can be a "theory" too, either directly or by inference seems to be the only reason.

The word "theory" is used in the layman's sense around here, to denigrate, it's true.

Edit: I stand by my statement "that's all it represents", as I do believe "objects" are abstractions, snapshots if you will, of process, which is a truer reality. But, here we go into metaphysics, lol.

"At home with the Heisenbergs

She: I can't find my car keys!
He: You probably know too much about their momentum."

 

[Trader666]

Scientists currently believe that about 95% of the universe consists of dark matter and dark energy, which are only hypothetical concepts created in an attempt to reconcile discrepancies between observations and theory. Which means, scientists have a very poor understanding of the structure of the universe and the "universe from nothing" SPECULATION that you mindlessly parrot is nothing more than that.

But because you know so little about science, you confuse scientific speculation with established knowledge. In other words, scientists know what they know and what they don't know but you know neither. And you prove it every day.

Quote from STUpid:

blah, blah, blah