Why do atheist's fear God?

[jem]

so what about unseen, untested alternate universes is not speculation?
I am sorry... did CERN just confirm string theory and the multiverse or the calculations behnid the standard model when they found the higgs boson where the standard model expected it to be?

is there a universe where you represent the state of science accurately?

Coming from you, that just means your next statement is going to be inaccurate.



A state of nothing allows for borrowed energy.
And sure let's be clear. There's too much science that corresponds with the laws of physics and nature to call it 'all speculation'.

 

[Zero Sum]

A state of nothing allows for borrowed energy.
And sure let's be clear. There's too much science that corresponds with the laws of physics and nature to call it 'all speculation'.

"Borrowed" energy coming from where?

That is a question that CAN'T be answered.

Does the energy pop out of nowhere? How?

Does the energy come from another dimension? If so, then where did that dimension come from, and if that dimension popped out of NOTHING as well due to more BORROWED energy, then AGAIN where did that "more BORROWED energy" come from as well?

COMMON SENSE says that these questions can go on for INFINITE ITERATIONS (over and over again), THERE IS NO ULTIMATE (last) ANSWER.

Since when does one thing have to overpower another to have an effect on it?
Tiny alterations on tiny things by a weak force, sounds exactly like "fine-tuning".

It's not true to say gravity does not have an effect at the atomic or subatomic level. For example, the movement of a neutron bouncing away from an atom is observed to not be smooth due to the associated gravitational field.

If you look at the first graphical table titled "The four fundamental interactions of nature" in the Wikipedia article linked below...

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

...you will see the following under the "Gravitation" column:

Gravitation
Particles experiencing: ALL
Particles mediating: None, Gravitation hypothesized

So ALL particles are experiencing gravity, but NONE of them are AFFECTED by gravity.

Just take a look at the quote I made before from the "Gravitation" subheading further down in the Wikipedia article:

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

Gravitation[edit]

"Gravitation is by far the weakest of the four interactions. The weakness of gravity can easily be demonstrated by suspending a pin using a simple magnet (such as a refrigerator magnet). The magnet is able to hold the pin against the gravitational pull of the entire Earth."

The MAGNET using magnetic force is able to overpower gravitational force and hold the pin STATIONARY. So gravity is EXERTING force on the pin, but the pin does not move, the NET EFFECT is zero.

Now you might say that gravity has an effect other than causing objects to move...but where is the SCIENCE that says that?

Rather you missed the point. Those questions you asked are irrelevant, pointless questions.

The point, which you deny, is that YOU CAN'T ANSWER THEM, so you dismiss them as irrelevant.

The questions are about the NATURE of the UNIVERSE, and YOU CAN'T ANSWER THEM.

Reality presents the contrary.
Enormous amounts of knowledge about the nature of the universe, from the largest to the smallest, is always being found and questions are constantly being answered. It's called science.

And you ignore COMMON SENSE.

COMMON SENSE says that these questions can go on for INFINITE ITERATIONS (over and over again), THERE IS NO ULTIMATE (last) ANSWER.

Well, if you put all that negativity to one side and start with the Uncertainty Principle , work your way up, keeping within the laws of nature and physics, you discover it's not an impossible question to answer and something can come from nothing. Basically because, there is gravity!

AGAIN, where does the "BORROWED" force (that you mentioned earlier) come from?

If there is NOTHING (no matter and no energy), how does the "BORROWED" force exist?

The theory of gravity sounds good too but isn't proven. So you could say gravity isn't the same as being proven.
But unfortunately for your argument, there is just too much scientific evidence to confirm both big bang and gravity are as good as proven.

You understand that EVIDENCE would PROVE something to be FACTUAL and TRUE don't you?

So why is the THEORY of the "Big Bang" still NOT PROVEN?

Thankfully humanity is naturally far more curious than the can't be known God non-answer will ever satisfy.

You realize that in philosophy, there is a saying that "the more you ask, the less you know" because the questions can go on INFINITELY.

 

[stu]

so what about unseen, untested alternate universes is not speculation?
I am sorry... did CERN just confirm string theory and the multiverse or the calculations behnid the standard model when they found the higgs boson where the standard model expected it to be?

is there a universe where you represent the state of science accurately?

Your problem is, it's not 'all speculation'.

You need to understand how scientific hypothesis built on math physics and the laws of nature, in context, is not the same as speculation based on nothing but the superstition, fear and make-believe represented by the word God, Tuner or Creator whatever.

 

[stu]

If you look at the first graphical table titled "The four fundamental interactions of nature" in the Wikipedia article linked below...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction...you will see the following under the "Gravitation" column:
Gravitation
Particles experiencing: ALL
Particles mediating: None, Gravitation hypothesized
So ALL particles are experiencing gravity, but NONE of them are AFFECTED by gravity.

That's not what mediating means!
Look at the table again.
See gluons under Strong Fundamental. It means gluons transmit the strong nuclear force. Likewise W and Z bosons impart the (electro) weak nuclear force.

It's not known (yet) if gravity is due to the same kind of particle exchange. It is suspected to be that gravitons or something similar, will account for the transmission in accordance with Einstein's relativity.

The key being for this discussion, gravity is omnipresent and it has an effect on everything. Everything means particles, as in the neutron example I gave you earlier.

Also there's little point in talking about magnetism and paper clips. The fundamental particles here, come under quantum mechanics, not classical Newtonian physics.

May I suggest you don't jump to such naive conclusions based on misunderstanding the "science" you get from Wikipedia pages.

The point, which you deny, is that YOU CAN'T ANSWER THEM, so you dismiss them as irrelevant.

The questions are about the NATURE of the UNIVERSE, and YOU CAN'T ANSWER THEM.

COMMON SENSE says that these questions can go on for INFINITE ITERATIONS (over and over again), THERE IS NO ULTIMATE (last) ANSWER.

I agree. Common sense says those questions of yours are infinite regression loops and therefore pointless, so no point in answering them. They're a pointless waste of time.

AGAIN, where does the "BORROWED" force (that you mentioned earlier) come from?

If there is NOTHING (no matter and no energy), how does the "BORROWED" force exist?

Like I said. Start with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

On a philosophical note, all it would need is that a state of nothing, by its very nature, holds potential.

You understand that EVIDENCE would PROVE something to be FACTUAL and TRUE don't you?

So why is the THEORY of the "Big Bang" still NOT PROVEN?

Such a hoary old chestnut. The theory of gravity is a theory too. It is however considered under all rational terms to be proven. Same with big bang.

You realize that in philosophy, there is a saying that "the more you ask, the less you know" because the questions can go on INFINITELY.

Sure, I realize philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. But at least science is many questions do get answered.

ps there's really no need to keep SHOUTING.

 

[Zero Sum]

It's not known (yet) if gravity is due to the same kind of particle exchange. It is suspected to be that gravitons or something similar, will account for the transmission in accordance with Einstein's relativity.

The key being for this discussion, gravity is omnipresent and it has an effect on everything. Everything means particles, as in the neutron example I gave you earlier.

So, back to two of the impossible to answer questions I asked earlier:

Is gravity a function of matter and energy (meaning that matter and energy PRODUCE gravity), or does gravity exist all by itself?

If gravity exists all by itself, then where did gravity itself come from?

And a new question:

If gravity is produced (or mediated) by a particle (or particles), then how does gravity exist in a state of nothing (no matter and no energy) to be able to create something from nothing?

Also there's little point in talking about magnetism and paper clips. The fundamental particles here, come under quantum mechanics, not classical Newtonian physics.

May I suggest you don't jump to such naive conclusions based on misunderstanding the "science" you get from Wikipedia pages.

Classical Newtonian Physics break down or don't apply at the subatomic level.

That's why subatomic particles come under quantum mechanics, because Classical Newtonian Physics don't work at the subatomic level.

Like I said earlier...

The Four Fundamental Interactions are:
gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear.

Electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear have never been unified with gravitational force.

That's why the "Theory of Everything" remains unsolved.

You are naive to think that gravity can be a "fine tuner" and "creator" when gravity has never been unified with the other three Fundamental Interactions.

Gravity also always attracts and never repels, so if gravity is a "fine tuner" then in time, gravity will eventually become a "fine un-tuner" of everything.

If gravity is a "fine tuner" of everything, then the "fine tuning" process would be gradual over time. Where is the evidence of the gradual change over time?

I agree. Common sense says those questions of yours are infinite regression loops and therefore pointless, so no point in answering them. They're a pointless waste of time.

Those are impossible to answer questions about the nature of the universe...

So is trying to answer questions about the nature of the universe a pointless waste of time?

You cling to this absurd notion that gravity can be a "fine tuner" or a "creator" but you fail to answer questions about the nature of gravity's existence.

Like I said. Start with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

On a philosophical note, all it would need is that a state of nothing, by its very nature, holds potential.

The "Heisenberg uncertainty principle" applies to subatomic particles.

You need to explain further how the "uncertainty principle" helps gravity be a "fine tuner" or "creator", as gravity has never been unified with the other three Fundamental Interactions.

Such a hoary old chestnut. The theory of gravity is a theory too. It is however considered under all rational terms to be proven. Same with big bang.

The hoary old chestnut is jumping to absurd conclusions like gravity being a "fine tuner" or "creator" based on unproven science.

Sure, I realize philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. But at least science is many questions do get answered.

So you say "But at least science is many questions do get answered."

But the impossible to answer questions I asked will never be answered, but you ignore that part don't you?

 

[jem]

borrowed energy is not "from nothing".

had you said borrowed energy in the beginning I would not have argued with you.

you tried like hell to escape the fact you were not caught saying things you did not really understand.

Coming from you, that just means your next statement is going to be inaccurate.



A state of nothing allows for borrowed energy.
And sure let's be clear. There's too much science that corresponds with the laws of physics and nature to call it 'all speculation'.

 

[Spike Trader]

not caught (out)

saying things you did not really understand. ? . ?

 

[stu]

Classical Newtonian Physics break down or don't apply at the subatomic level.

That's why subatomic particles come under quantum mechanics, because Classical Newtonian Physics don't work at the subatomic level.

Yeah I know and why I pointed it out to you! It's why you were wrong mixing up paper clips with fundamental forces.

but you fail to answer questions about the nature of gravity's existence.

You pulled up a Wiki page that shows how particles mediate (transmit) fundamental forces, although you clearly misunderstood what was being said in it.
I already responded. It is quite possible but not yet sure, that gravity has a similar mediator. Remember gravitons?


However, it's more that your fundamental reasoning which seems confused.
Basically the position is simple.
Many questions about gravity are not impossible to answer but where they are, there is already lots of evidence to suggest likely answers. They may always become more fully answered from scientific discovery, as is always the case.

On the other hand, the questions you say are impossible to answer are not possible because they are pointless. Quite frankly, anyone can easily make up those kind of impossible to answer, pointless questions.

Let me ask you a question.
Do you even know why you keep referring to those same pointless questions which you have already concluded are impossible to answer? Do you assume impossible to answer pointless questions have some kind of a greater value than sensible ones? Like scientific ones?

 

[stu]

not caught (out)

saying things you did not really understand. ? . ?

Jem - the - befuddled...
"you were not caught saying things you did not really understand."

I think he has that right

 

[jem]

correct...
the first "not" was a typo.

not caught (out)

saying things you did not really understand. ? . ?