Are you an atheist?

[Galaxiom]

Have we proven there is dark matter yet or is it just a theory conjured up by someones brain on overtime.

Astronomers have gathered masses of data and found patterns in in the Universe that need to be explained. Galaxies should fly apart because they don't have enough gravity to keep them together.

Dark matter is the name given to whatever it is that makes stars around it behave as though there is invisible matter in well defined locations around it.

Any theory of the origins of the Universe must account for this effect. It is not a small challenge. The goal is to develop a theoretical framework that explains what it is and suggests ways the Universe can be tested to see it behaves in otherwise unexpected ways.

You tell me there are universe(s), but yet where is the proof.

One of the big conundrums currently in cosmology is the origin of a Universe wide axial arrangement of galaxies. It might suggest the Universe was rotating when it formed which is a pretty interesting concept. Many scientist are working right trying to explain it. We only have hypotheses.

There is also an area that behaves like something massive is beyond the observable edge. Once again all hypotheses are most welcome.

We don't know 10 sec. worth of knowledge about our universe

We we do actually know a lot. Ir has been observed back to a few hundred thousand years ago and it has throughout that 99.99... whatever percent history been entirely consistent with the theory we use today.

 

[Galaxiom]

yet we are so sure that we can predict all these events and happenings throughout the universe and beyond all based on mathematical probabilities or physics constants and theories that may or may not apply out there!

Experiments have been conducted to measure the physical constants throughout space and time for as long as anyone could image how to test them. They are shown to hold universally to tiny possibilities of error and the search continues. every day.

And we call them the laws of the universe. How, arrogant we are.

What I call arrogant is the belittling of scientific knowledge on the unsubstantiated insistence that such knowledge cannot be known while others point out the observable facts.

Thus, I have a hard time dealing with these probabilities some of you all speak of.

Yes. Einstein did too.

If you were trying to get across a deep gorge and someone told you there was a very good probability there was a bridge across the gorge in front of you, even though you could not see it,

Not a bad example. Would you like one from the real world? Quantum Tunnelling is the ability of a particle to cross a gap that it does not have the energy to cross if the gap is very small.

Read about its practical application, a microscope that can see atomic lattices here.

 

[Old Man Devin]

Logically, the failure to find a circumstance in which a theory is untrue should not elevate the theory to a law.

Premise: No one has ever found a zoo without elephants.
Conclusion: Every zoo that has ever existed, and every zoo that ever will exist, will have elephants (except of course in an alternate universe).

There is a slight difference. Before you come to the conclusion you would need to test it by experiment. So you would go to a zoo, take out the elephants, and see if the universe suddenly imploded. Finding that it doesn't, you discover your hypothesis isn't correct, and no law is declared!

In the case of cosmology, usually the experiments involve taking your theory, working out that values certain observable things would have if it were true (e.g. the cosmological constant, age of the universe, density of dark matter), then then trying to find out what the real values are.

This combines with a mathematical approach: your rivals will try to show that your theory in some way breaks mathematical logic. A theory that cannot be broken like this regardless of the circumstances, is theoretically true throughout reality. Evidence from observation that can't possibly be caused by any other theory takes it from being a 'possible law' to a 'confirmed law'. This is the sort of process I was talking about.

 

[Old Man Devin]

It is nice to dream there are multiple universes but to base its existence on mathematical equations is just part of forming a Hypothesis (a dream) on steroids.

Theories are at least based on some science knowledge that are provable.

Here we have the dead sea scrolls, the bible and the teachings of Jesus that tell us there is a God. I believe there is quite a collection of data out there enough to make the God thing at least a theory? Don't you think????

Yet some of you (atheist) in this thread proclaim there is NO God but there are many universes???????????????????
.

Well I contest the point that a theory based on mathematics is purely a dream. All the established theories are based on mathematics. Take a theory like quantum mechanics. Originally that was a purely mathematical theory that made a number of shocking predictions (e.g. things exists in more than one place at once). It took a while, but eventually it was found to be correct, leading to the computer revolution.

These days our mathematical theories are actually rooted in evidence. The sorts of theories I've been mentioning all have to satisfy everything we know about the universe to even be considered. So we create models to explain what we see today, confirm they are accurate at making predictions, and then find the predictions and implications they have on a grand scale are again shocking.

These ideas have a strong basis to be believed, even without indisputable proof, because the mathematics they rely on has been never lied.

However, when it comes to historical religious evidence this cannot be said: it is data created by human intuition, a source that lies more frequently than not. The writer's opinion, the translators opinion and your opinion as you read it all feed in to create a final conclusion, and even then, there is no way to know the accuracy of the original writer.

All of this leads to shakey final conclusions that atheists dismiss because the weak foundation for the claims combines with a lack of experimental proof i.e. the contradictory implications of various religious theories are either impossible to verify (so the truth cannot be found), or simply conflict with scientific knowledge (other truths are denied).

So to conclude, ideas of Gods are more of a hypothesis. Any person can create such a hypothesis, and no particular knowledge base is required (Scientology is an example). However to create a reputable mathematical theory requires extreme knowledge, decades of dedication and rigorous testing, constantly finding ways to prove your ideas are real so conclusively that the most skeptical people struggle not to be convinced. A mathematical theory must have ZERO weaknesses, contradictions or situations in which it cannot be used to predict the future with extreme precision. A religious theory can have any number of these defects and still be regarded in high standing because the standard of proof is far lower.

Bit of a rant there, sorry tldr: science theories use a lot more evidence than you probably realise.

 

[Rabbie]

Did not know I was suppose to respond to Rabbie's post!

It is hard not to hurt (for lack of another word) another person when you are talking about their beliefs. In most all cases they are one and the same. They are going to take it personally and the closer you get to the core the larger the offense becomes.

This thread is about "Are you an Atheist". This is a very personal belief and any attempt to chip away at that believe will most certainly be extremely personal. Even more so when the chipping comes from someone who believes in the exact opposite.

Example: Lets say there is a poster out there named Sassy: Now I tell this Sassy the his/her idea of atheism is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Now if I tell Sassy that they are dumb for entertaining such an idea about atheism

Are not both these questions the same and will not both of these questions be extremely personal and produce hard feelings against the one who ask the question?

Have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

There was no need to respond to my post but it would be nice if we could raise the level of debate from "Your idea is the dumbest I've heard" to "I disagree with you because ....".

There are enough sensible points to be made on both sides of this discussion without resorting to abuse.

So please lets be a little grown up about this.

 

[scott-atkinson]

Logically, the failure to find a circumstance in which a theory is untrue should not elevate the theory to a law.

Premise: No one has ever found a zoo without elephants.
Conclusion: Every zoo that has ever existed, and every zoo that ever will exist, will have elephants (except of course in an alternate universe).

There are lots of Zoo's that do not have elephants, I have personally visited at least 3...

 

[Libre]

To find a theory to be correct and thus call it a law is not arrogant; laws of physics are actually unbreakable. It's not that we're saying "we'll call this a law because we think our theories are the best" (arrogance), it's "we'll call this a law because no one has ever found a circumstance in which it is not true" (confidence).

A question then, for the scientists among us (caution, paradoxes abound):
Are the “laws of physics” truly unbreakable? If so, are the laws of physics that govern our universe the same laws of physics that govern all the alternate universes? In an alternate universe, can F <> MA? Can E <> mc^2? If the laws of physics (and the two I sited are among the most universally accepted and undisputed ones) are truly unbreakable, then how can it be said that “anything is possible”? Then, only things that don’t violate the laws of physics are possible, and a whole lot of things (most things, in fact) are impossible.
Isn’t the term “laws of physics” a lofty title, and aren’t they really human hypotheses that have graduated to be called laws (because no counter-example has ever been found, despite significant effort to do so), but are not really laws at all? Because otherwise, if they are really “laws” then they are akin to the 10 Commandments, which, according to the Old Testament, were given to Moses by God Himself on the top of Mount Sinai (where I myself have stood but that’s another thread), and are not dependent on human experience or experimentation.
What happens if it turns out that a law of physics DOES have exceptions? Does it get demoted back to an hypothesis – and a discredited one at that? How can we say that the current laws are impervious to such treatment?
I submit that the current “laws of physics” as they are now understood are fully susceptible to not only being broken, but are vulnerable to future discreditation and demotion.

There are lots of Zoo's that do not have elephants, I have personally visited at least 3...

Oops! There goes another law of physics!

 

[Mihail]

@Libre
Until Old Man Davin will answer. (IF he will answer):
Do a try. Test if this "laws" work in other Universes.

First you should prove that alternate Universes exist.
Then you should find ALL of the alternate Universes.
Then you should try this "laws" in ALL of this alternate Universes.
IF F = ma is true for each Universe, then the F = ma formula become a "low for any Universe".
Until this, F = ma IS a low for THIS Universe.

I submit that the current “laws of physics” as they are now understood are fully susceptible to not only being broken, but are vulnerable to future discreditation and demotion.

Indeed.
Will you stop to believe in the physics "lows" if this will happen ?

 

[Bladerunner]

Old Man Devin: In defense of scientists here: not knowing one 'thing' isn't going to stop us knowing a different 'thing'. We don't know everything there is to know about dark matter, no. So what? In what way does that invalidate everything that we do know?

laws of physics are actually unbreakable.

Also in defense of science: I have always said that science will in the end prove the atheist are Wrong! There is a God!

However, in the mean time, yes I think it is arrogant that we make theories as facts and facts as theories. As far as the knowledge of Dark matter, I think it is still a theory and not yet proven to exist( I may be wrong). "the laws of physics are unbreakable" 'as we know it'. Our laws of Physics may not work out there yet we are so **** sure that they will. Thus Carl Sagan's famous saying and I quote: “The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.” This very close to transcendentalism where we are gods within ourselves and know all.

Have nice day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[Bladerunner]

There are lots of Zoo's that do not have elephants, I have personally visited at least 3...

LOL. As a young kid the circus would visit our town and the main attraction was the Elephants. So, as they (circuses) kept coming back year after year, the elephants became an icon for a young child to look forward to seeing.

As to Zoos without elephants, I realize that since the word 'Zoo' is a community word it can be used to describe just about any group of objects.

I still contend: What is a zoo without an elephant? lol

Have a good day!

Bladerunner

 

[Mihail]

@Bladerruner

Also in defense of science: I have always said that science will in the end prove the atheist are Wrong! There is a God!

... and I say: there is no God.

Why should someone believe you instead to believe me ?

Please ! Provide any other argument than the Bible.

 

[Bladerunner]

I hope you know I was responding to another post in my quote. I like to read both you and Libre. You both have taken a lot of hits. I was basically saying decorum is against our nature, we enjoy a good fight. I know you want to keep the subject linear but the competing egos will not allow that to happen. I include myself.

I have and will not take anything said here personal. Why, because of my belief in a higher power. The' hits' as you call it are for the most part against him either with the premise that 'there is No God' or against him personally and not me. All I can do is put forth an alternative debate or information but in the end, it is up to the person to believe one way or the other.

Have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[Bladerunner]

It is a matter of how hard one looks. Hypotheses graduate to become Laws only after every avenue of investigation to demonstrate that the Theory explaining the fundamental operation predicts the outcome in ever imaginable case. Every now and then a test opportunity avails itself and every time the theory has prevailed.

Higgs boson was predicted to be observable in a machine as big as the LHC entirely through theoretical means. If it hadn't been seen by now the fundamental understanding would be brought into question. That is how science works.

General Relativity and the Laws of Quantum Mechanics have withstood a century of doubters to become practically unquestionable fact because they define the fundamental principles that govern the way matter and energy interact in our Universe. Everything about nuclear and chemical reactions, radiation, the way matter behaves in every arrangement is explained by them.

The machine you are typing on now is a monument to the scientific understanding of these laws. The world is now full of Quantum devices that never would have been imaginable in classical mechanics. Exotic materials have been found by manipulating substances into the shapes predicted by the theory.

The proposal that modern science aught to be compared with the ignorance of ancients is quite preposterous.

Science acknowledges the potential for there being "more to this than meets the eye". Cosmology is the king of speculation precisely because it is so hard to "see outside". Anyone can put forward a hypothesis. The world abounds with unsubstantiated claims in any field.

The difference between science and the rest is science sorts the hypotheses out by measuring the Universe in every possible way and seeing which ones match. If none match we say so. That is why science has taken us so far.

I am sure everything you have said is true, not being a physics person or such. Yes, science has taken us far and will continue to do so in the future. However, applying and measuring a very small part the universe (that we can see and test) does not mean that some equation will or will not work 'Out there' . This however can be qualified by four simple words. 'As we know it'

Have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[Bladerunner]

What I call arrogant is the belittling of scientific knowledge on the unsubstantiated insistence that such knowledge cannot be known while others point out the observable facts.

I do not belittle any scientific knowledge, in fact I soak up as much of it as I can. just qualify it with 'As we know it'

Not a bad example. Would you like one from the real world? Quantum Tunnelling is the ability of a particle to cross a gap that it does not have the energy to cross if the gap is very small.

Have read about that one before but do not know enough to debate it so I take it as it is written until. There is one thing I see abound. There are numerous anomalies that will astound scientist throughout mankinds future. In my redneck language 'Ain't it wonderful'

Thanks (honestly -thank you) for the lessons but I have a question for you. Staying with the theme, I have seen nothing stated in this entire thread that has enabled me to positively figure out: 'Why are you an Atheist?'

Have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[Rabbie]

Despite the views of some, the scientific method has worked well in developing our understanding of the world/universe and lead to technological advances over the last few centuries.

Simply by developing a theory that fits the observed facts and then using that theory to predict what should happen in a yet unobserved case we can test the accuracy of the theorem. For example a difference in the time when one of Jupiter's moons was eclipsed it made it possible to calculate the speed of light in space. Previously it was thought that light travelled infinitely fast. Now we know different.

 

[Rabbie]

Thanks (honestly -thank you) for the lessons but I have a question for you. Staying with the theme, I have seen nothing stated in this entire thread that has enabled me to positively figure out: 'Why are you an Atheist?'

Have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

Why am I an atheist? A fair question which I will attempt to answer.

I would like to believe in the Christian God. It would give me great comfort if I could believe it were true. It would make a fantastic comfort blanket. I genuinely envy those that have a faith. Unfortunately I do not see any evidence to support that hypothesis. The Bible has many internal contradictions - the main one being the vast difference between the OT God and the NT God but there are many others.

I do agree with many of the teachings of Christianity in how we should live and deal with one another. The stumbling block for me is the unexplained existence of a supernatural figure that is somehow responsible for everything

Have a nice day

 

[Bladerunner]

For example a difference in the time when one of Jupiter's moons was eclipsed it made it possible to calculate the speed of light in space. Previously it was thought that light travelled infinitely fast. Now we know different.

Can you expand on that? Someone thought that light could go faster than 186,000?. The would blow Einstein's theory all to pieces.

 

[Bladerunner]

Why am I an atheist? A fair question which I will attempt to answer.

I would like to believe in the Christian God. It would give me great comfort if I could believe it were true. It would make a fantastic comfort blanket. I genuinely envy those that have a faith. Unfortunately I do not see any evidence to support that hypothesis. The Bible has many internal contradictions - the main one being the vast difference between the OT God and the NT God but there are many others.

I do agree with many of the teachings of Christianity in how we should live and deal with one another. The stumbling block for me is the unexplained existence of a supernatural figure that is somehow responsible for everything

Have a nice day

Auh, now we down to the gravy and thank you. I do have a question---what do you mean by OT God and NT God?

Have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[Old Man Devin]

A question then, for the scientists among us (caution, paradoxes abound):
Are the “laws of physics” truly unbreakable? If so, are the laws of physics that govern our universe the same laws of physics that govern all the alternate universes? In an alternate universe, can F <> MA? Can E <> mc^2? If the laws of physics (and the two I sited are among the most universally accepted and undisputed ones) are truly unbreakable, then how can it be said that “anything is possible”? Then, only things that don’t violate the laws of physics are possible, and a whole lot of things (most things, in fact) are impossible.
Isn’t the term “laws of physics” a lofty title, and aren’t they really human hypotheses that have graduated to be called laws (because no counter-example has ever been found, despite significant effort to do so), but are not really laws at all? Because otherwise, if they are really “laws” then they are akin to the 10 Commandments, which, according to the Old Testament, were given to Moses by God Himself on the top of Mount Sinai (where I myself have stood but that’s another thread), and are not dependent on human experience or experimentation.
What happens if it turns out that a law of physics DOES have exceptions? Does it get demoted back to an hypothesis – and a discredited one at that? How can we say that the current laws are impervious to such treatment?
I submit that the current “laws of physics” as they are now understood are fully susceptible to not only being broken, but are vulnerable to future discreditation and demotion.

Laws of physics are unbreakable, because we have not found a way to break them. The phrase 'Law of Physics' is a human term to refer to these rules that are seemingly embedded into the way the universe works.

I can't remember for sure, but I don't think laws that hold in our universe are required to hold in other universes because a set of variables called the 'physical constants' can be different. At the very least, the laws are still true but will create different effects.

The phrase "anything is possible" when used with regard to infinite universes / mulitple universes is taken mean anything with a non-zero probability. So not absolutely anything. E.g. An event in which E<>mc^2 (e.g. two particles collide, 4 particles worth of energy is created) has a 0% chance of occurring, so would not come under the term 'anything' in this case.

So yes, many events cannot happen. But everything discussed in this thread, like the origin of the universe, emergence of lifeforms, the structure of our world: all of it is physically possible, so the arguments still hold in this case.

Yes, Laws are just theories (not hypotheses as you say though, check the definitions!) that we have decided to call Laws. It is extremely likely that some of them are not actually Laws (but they will be almost laws i.e. nearly always right). Most of them we are pretty damn sure about though, so really there isn't any reason to doubt the whole scientific world because of this. Predictions the current laws of science make are nearly always true. Predictions made using religious theories are nearly always false, in contrast.

Physical Laws are not akin to commandments at all. A Law is something you cannot break under any circumstances because it is impossible to do so. I can break the commandments if I wish to, therefore they are only rules. Reality itself does not stop me from stealing things. It does stop me running through walls. One is a rule, the other is a physical law.

So yes, a couple of physical laws will be shown to have problems in the future, and in fact many of them have been already. But they are not wrong. They are incomplete. You are very confident that these theories will be overturned in the future and thus can be ignored now. But what will happen is that the theories will just be redone with a new name and a few extra features to correct past mistakes, because for the most part they are already correct.

That is to say: all the original stuff that we already know is true, will remain in future theories. There isn't a 'right and wrong', just an extent to which everything is explained. So far we haven't explained everything, so our body of theoretical knowledge will expand. But most of what we have already is solid (theory of the gravity isn't going away any time soon, but the theory of quantum gravity which includes the old theory gravity will probably replace it. This is an example of what I mean in this and the previous paragraph).

I hope this answers all your questions!

 

[Old Man Devin]

@Libre
Do a try. Test if this "laws" work in other Universes.

First you should prove that alternate Universes exist.
Then you should find ALL of the alternate Universes.
Then you should try this "laws" in ALL of this alternate Universes.
IF F = ma is true for each Universe, then the F = ma formula become a "low for any Universe".
Until this, F = ma IS a low for THIS Universe.

Will you stop to believe in the physics "lows" if this will happen ?

We cannot prove that they exist (yet!). We can prove that they are ALLOWED to exist, which is a step in the right direction. But yes for now F=ma is only a confirmed law for our Universe. I'm not sure what your argument is, but hopefully this clarification helps in some way.

I might add that people don't 'believe' in physical laws. They are a part of reality. To not believe is like not believing in water. Instead you acknowledge its existence. I acknowledge and trust that F=ma. I don't 'believe' it. I 'know' it. Belief implies a faith element; that you think something is true for some personal reason, but it cannot actually be shown to be objectively true. This is not the case with physical laws. It is the case with religious beliefs, usually because they are simply impossible to prove or disprove (I cannot prove that the Flying Spaghetti monster created the universe. Nor can I explicitly disprove if I make enough claims so as to give the monster qualities not well understood by science (e.g. it exists outside of time). Thus I must make an arbitrary decision as to whether it exists if the issue is really important to me (theist/atheist) or I can just conclude that if it is so unprovable either way, it probably doesn't have any effect on our lives or really matter as a question (agnostic)).