Good. That's a tiny step. Now try turning away from your mirror.
Then maybe have another go at being rational.
Although to be honest, it looks like you'd be wasting the effort.
Last edited:
Hawking: God did not create Universe
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
Then maybe have another go at being rational.
Although to be honest, it looks like you'd be wasting the effort.
The description Naturalness is used in science and physics.
So you think non-naturalness, the contrary also used in science, must mean the same as unnatural.
omg!
Nowhere in physics does the scientific method ever, nor do scientists in any way legitimately consider the description unnatural or "unnatural" a means of depicting or explaining the universe.
Natural is simply a holdall for calculations whose outcome values don't go to unexplainable extremes. Non-natural for where they do.
Similarly the description fine-tuning is referred to in physics totally within naturalistic terms.
It's only outside of science that goofs like you make up all sorts of bullshit about unnatural tuners.
Non-natural values are not unnatural in physics.
Where you going next sparky? Irrational numbers mean math is absurd?
Your ignorance and purposeful misunderstanding of science and of language is epic.
Trolling cut and pastes, hoping to curve fit things you don't understand to your own ludicrous beliefs is what's embarrassing you.
look at the tweedle dum and tweedle dee giving the thumbs up to the their troll sock puppet buddy who completely misunderstood the science when he critiqued what was written in sceintific american.
no stu... all the bullshit you can spew in the world can not change the fact... you had no idea what you were talking about when it came to the fine tunings the standard model and the terms of art being used.
you critique of this quote was astonishingly ignorant...
"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-the-higgs-nobel-be-the-end-of-particle-physics/
The Standard Model is regarded as a highly “unnatural” theory. Aside from having a large number of different particles and forces, many of which seem surplus to requirement, it is also very precariously balanced. If you change any of the 20+ numbers that have to be put into the theory even a little, you rapidly find yourself living in a universe without atoms. This spooky fine-tuning worries many physicists, leaving the universe looking as though it has been set up in just the right way for life to exist."
it was not my use of the word natural or unnatural that set off our "rant of ignorance" it was the quote above.
don't even try to switch this to me... you screwed that up all by yourself.
no stu... all the bullshit you can spew in the world can not change the fact... you had no idea what you were talking about when it came to the fine tunings the standard model and the terms of art being used.
you critique of this quote was astonishingly ignorant...
"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-the-higgs-nobel-be-the-end-of-particle-physics/
The Standard Model is regarded as a highly “unnatural” theory. Aside from having a large number of different particles and forces, many of which seem surplus to requirement, it is also very precariously balanced. If you change any of the 20+ numbers that have to be put into the theory even a little, you rapidly find yourself living in a universe without atoms. This spooky fine-tuning worries many physicists, leaving the universe looking as though it has been set up in just the right way for life to exist."
it was not my use of the word natural or unnatural that set off our "rant of ignorance" it was the quote above.
don't even try to switch this to me... you screwed that up all by yourself.
The description Naturalness is used in science and physics.
So you think non-naturalness, the contrary also used in science, must mean the same as unnatural.
omg!
Nowhere in physics does the scientific method ever, nor do scientists in any way legitimately consider the description unnatural or "unnatural" a means of depicting or explaining the universe.
Natural is simply a holdall for calculations whose outcome values don't go to unexplainable extremes. Non-natural for where they do.
Similarly the description fine-tuning is referred to in physics totally within naturalistic terms.
It's only outside of science that goofs like you make up all sorts of bullshit about unnatural tuners.
Non-natural values are not unnatural in physics.
Where you going next sparky? Irrational numbers mean math is absurd?
Your ignorance and purposeful misunderstanding of science and of language is epic.
Trolling cut and pastes, hoping to curve fit things you don't understand to your own ludicrous beliefs is what's embarrassing you.
Last edited:
a comment to dbs article in breitbart...
http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...-dreaming-that-science-will-do-away-with-god/
...
But the real question becomes, why would this be a problem for believers, let alone for God? Why should Christians be afraid of the verifiable findings of science? Many on the Left still languish under the illusion that science and faith are irreconcilable adversaries, while most believers have no problem whatsoever with science and welcome its advances as testimony to the power of the human intellect and the intelligibility of creation.
As students of history know, the natural sciences grew out of Christian culture. As the sociologist Rodney Stark has so convincingly shown, science was “still-born” in the great civilizations of the ancient world, except in Christian civilization. Why is it, Stark asks, that empirical science and the scientific method did not develop in China (with its sophisticated society), in India (with its philosophical schools), in Arabia (with its advanced mathematics), in Japan (with its dedicated craftsmen and technologies), or even in ancient Greece or Rome?
Science flourished in societies where a Christian mindset understood nature to be ordered and intelligible, the work of an intelligent Creator. Far from being an obstacle to science, Christian soil was the necessary humus where science took root.
Liberal humbugs like Paul Rosenberg will continue to try to pit science against faith, hoping against hope that they will be able to put “God on the ropes.” Based on the historical record, I wouldn’t hold my breath.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...-dreaming-that-science-will-do-away-with-god/
...
But the real question becomes, why would this be a problem for believers, let alone for God? Why should Christians be afraid of the verifiable findings of science? Many on the Left still languish under the illusion that science and faith are irreconcilable adversaries, while most believers have no problem whatsoever with science and welcome its advances as testimony to the power of the human intellect and the intelligibility of creation.
As students of history know, the natural sciences grew out of Christian culture. As the sociologist Rodney Stark has so convincingly shown, science was “still-born” in the great civilizations of the ancient world, except in Christian civilization. Why is it, Stark asks, that empirical science and the scientific method did not develop in China (with its sophisticated society), in India (with its philosophical schools), in Arabia (with its advanced mathematics), in Japan (with its dedicated craftsmen and technologies), or even in ancient Greece or Rome?
Science flourished in societies where a Christian mindset understood nature to be ordered and intelligible, the work of an intelligent Creator. Far from being an obstacle to science, Christian soil was the necessary humus where science took root.
Liberal humbugs like Paul Rosenberg will continue to try to pit science against faith, hoping against hope that they will be able to put “God on the ropes.” Based on the historical record, I wouldn’t hold my breath.
i watch think of chris hitchens.all that wisdom, lost
you are such a douche.... again.
you know that today's breitbart article mirrored what I wrote yesterday.
(the part about this idea not being a problem for believers.)
you know that today's breitbart article mirrored what I wrote yesterday.
(the part about this idea not being a problem for believers.)
You are purposefully misunderstanding what is being said in that article to try and wedge your silly god ideas into it.
It's dishonest, but that's what you are.
Being ignorant of science and how it works and having no rational answer to my critique of that quote, all you can do is repeat the quote.
In science generally, extreme unexplainable values are referred to as non-natural. They cannot be unnatural. Not in science. It's why the author put the word in quote marks. If they are unnatural, it isn't anything to do with science.
Deal with it instead of brainlessly repeating the quote.
But of course your religious beliefs won't let you.
The problem for believers is that statement applies only when those so called students re-write history.
Tell it to the Dark Ages how natural sciences grew out of Christian culture.
Tell it to scientists persecuted by a Christian culture and the Christian church over centuries, from Galileo to Turing.
Tell it to all the religious dogmas in religious cultures that have been, and still are, in conflict with science.
Everybody who is being honest knows how science grew during the Renaissance, massively and world changing-ly increasing knowledge from being based on observation rather than god and religious dictate.
Then of course everybody knows how science again expanded exponentially during the Age of Enlightenment through to today, when it becomes firmly based on reason, not god, as a first source of legitimacy.
Those are the eras where science developed as never before, despite religion, not because of it.
As usual, the dishonesty of religion and especially some extreme Christians are forever trying to pretend to have title to stuff they never owned.