Are you an atheist?

[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)).

 

[Vassago]

There has been plenty of criticism on Einstein's theory, from proving it wrong to expanding or restructuring it. It is a theory, so of course it can be proven wrong.

Not long ago, we believe it was impossible to travel at the speed of light and especially faster. Now we have theories and have actually tested theories on warp speeds, bending the universe, and particle displacement, effectively teleporting. The future is coming and I believe it won't be long before we really are exploring more of the universe. Not just our solar system and galaxy, but others as well.

 

[Old Man Devin]

There has been plenty of criticism on Einstein's theory, from proving it wrong to expanding or restructuring it. It is a theory, so of course it can be proven wrong.

Not long ago, we believe it was impossible to travel at the speed of light and especially faster. Now we have theories and have actually tested theories on warp speeds, bending the universe, and particle displacement, effectively teleporting. The future is coming and I believe it won't be long before we really are exploring more of the universe. Not just our solar system and galaxy, but others as well.

Just to clarify though, the theory was that you can't travel faster than light 'through space'. The warp technology just changes the distances in space, so although you personally don't travel faster than light, you only travel a small distance and still end up at the distant location. Hence the reduced amount of time required compared to non-warp travel simply makes it 'as if' you travelled faster than light.

Just standing up for Einstein

 

[Rabbie]

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

If it had been correct Einstein would not have developed his theories. The speed of light could not be accurately measured until reliable accurate timepieces had been developed and also a reliable way of measuring very long distances. Once you know the time and the distance then you can calculate speed.

It was once Newtons Laws of Planetary Motion were developed that predictions could be made of when an eclipse of Jupiters moons would occur. There was however a discrepancy between the prediction and the reality. This was explained by initially assuming the speed of light was approx 186,000. This assumption was shown to be correct by observing similar eclipses at different points on Jupiter's orbit when the corrected formula produced predicted results which matched what actually happened.

 

[Rabbie]

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

OT God is the God as described in the Old Testament. NT God is the much more kindly one as described in the New Testament

 

[Libre]

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 hope this answers all your questions!

Thank you, Old Man. My questions will never all be answered - but your explanations are logically sound and not overreaching, and pretty much how I already tend to think about it.

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 think it's important in this discussion to differentiate between the concept of a religious or biblical god (whether you call him Ashem, Allah, God, or any of a thousand other names that are written in books) and the concept of a higher intelligence - which could be an alien civilization. Of course the question of what created THEM remains, and will always remain when you talk of a creator. But the question doesn't go away if you go with the BIG BANG either. You're still left with, what was before the BB, and what is outside the universe - even if it is a sphere, etc etc.
But the point I'm making - and made earlier with my post that got us back on this topic and off the Japanese Emperor - is that, there is no necessity to accept the IN THE BEGINNING stuff or anything else in any bible or religion to have a belief in a creator. It is not necessary to assume that he (she, it, etc) looks like us, cares about us, IS actually a single conciousness with motivated behavior - it is only necessary to say that God is SOMETHING of some higher power or intelligence, outside of what science can describe and predict.

 

[Bladerunner]

There has been plenty of criticism on Einstein's theory, from proving it wrong to expanding or restructuring it. It is a theory, so of course it can be proven wrong.

Not long ago, we believe it was impossible to travel at the speed of light and especially faster. Now we have theories and have actually tested theories on warp speeds, bending the universe, and particle displacement, effectively teleporting. The future is coming and I believe it won't be long before we really are exploring more of the universe. Not just our solar system and galaxy, but others as well.

Exciting is it not? But when we get there we will find that God has already been there!


Have a Nice Day:>)

Bladerunner

 

[Bladerunner]

Just to clarify though, the theory was that you can't travel faster than light 'through space'. The warp technology just changes the distances in space, so although you personally don't travel faster than light, you only travel a small distance and still end up at the distant location. Hence the reduced amount of time required compared to non-warp travel simply makes it 'as if' you travelled faster than light.

Just standing up for Einstein

Would not a worm-hole accomplish the same thing?

Have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[Vassago]

The other theory is on instant communication, also something needing to travel, is that electrons in atoms effectively can send information faster than the speed of light. Unfortunately, the information is "useless" information, so not really tangible. We can't send meaningful communication in this manner.

 

[Mihail]

Thank you, Old Man. My questions will never all be answered - but your explanations are logically sound and not overreaching, and pretty much how I already tend to think about it.

I think it's important in this discussion to differentiate between the concept of a religious or biblical god (whether you call him Ashem, Allah, God, or any of a thousand other names that are written in books) and the concept of a higher intelligence - which could be an alien civilization. Of course the question of what created THEM remains, and will always remain when you talk of a creator. But the question doesn't go away if you go with the BIG BANG either. You're still left with, what was before the BB, and what is outside the universe - even if it is a sphere, etc etc.
But the point I'm making - and made earlier with my post that got us back on this topic and off the Japanese Emperor - is that, there is no necessity to accept the IN THE BEGINNING stuff or anything else in any bible or religion to have a belief in a creator. It is not necessary to assume that he (she, it, etc) looks like us, cares about us, IS actually a single conciousness with motivated behavior - it is only necessary to say that God is SOMETHING of some higher power or intelligence, outside of what science can describe and predict.

Returning to the probabilities, this is not impossible. p>0 (my opinion)
So this can be the truth. Just now this is a theory.

Let's say that this theory will be verified.
Will make me a theist ?
No or... yes.
NO until I have the proof that that "being" created all things from nothing.
YES after that AND after I'll have one more answer: Who created the Creator.
As usually, this end up with a loop.

Are we, the humans, gods because we can manipulate the DNA in order to create a clone ? I don't think so.
Will become gods if we'll travel to other planet and we'll carry a virus with us just because that virus we'll be, after millions years, the start point for intelligent species ? Again, I don't think so.

An atheist is, in my opinion, a person that think that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of stories with no meaning.
A person that don't believe that a super intelligence created so poorly book
A person that can't understand WHY this super power, super inteligence, super, super, super..., named God, need songs every Sunday, "give his child in order to be killed in order to absolve us" in order to... what is next ?

This is, in my understanding, an Atheist.

I have no reason to argue against this:

God is SOMETHING of some higher power or intelligence, outside of what science can describe and predict.

While the God, in your opinion, is the sum of all we don't know, I can argue that MY God is a lot bigger and powerful than yours, than Galaxiom's god or than the Old Man Devil's god.

 

[Galaxiom]

There has been plenty of criticism on Einstein's theory, from proving it wrong to expanding or restructuring it. It is a theory, so of course it can be proven wrong.

Plenty of criticism for sure but none has succeeded in even scratching it let alone breaking it.

Not long ago, we believe it was impossible to travel at the speed of light and especially faster. Now we have theories and have actually tested theories on warp speeds, bending the universe, and particle displacement, effectively teleporting.

You want to link some evidence for this? We know that gravity bends the universe. Einstein said it would in General Relativity. Warp speed is from Star Trek.

Quantum teleportation does not involve anything moving faster than light. What is teleported is the quantum state of entangled Quantum objects that have been separated.

Before anyone suggests it, science does not have any problem with time travel. It just needs the energy released in a supernova applied several times a second.

The future is coming and I believe it won't be long before we really are exploring more of the universe. Not just our solar system and galaxy, but others as well.

It would already be possible with the right spacecraft. It would require fuels that were far more energetic per unit mass. By travelling fast enough the traveler would age so slowly that other stars could be reached. However there is no going home because by the time you got back the Sun (which continued to age at the usual rate) would be long gone.

 

[Libre]

Plenty of criticism for sure but none has succeeded in even scratching it let alone breaking it.

The old guy with the tangle of hair really was something now, wasn't he?
Somewhere, in an alternate universe, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein are all in a room together, having a conversation. If we could only listen in.

Before anyone suggests it, science does not have any problem with time travel. It just needs the energy released in a supernova applied several times a second.

Is that time travel in either direction - i.e. the past or the future? Or just the past. It's hard for me to wrap my mind around traveling to the future - because it hasn't happend yet. Traveling to the past is a little easier to conceive - just travel faster than light (I hate when people say "travel faster than the speed of light" because speed is a rate and does not in itself travel at all) and you overtake the newer light, and reach the older light - so to speak - and travel back in time. Right Galaxiom? (If I'm being an idiot here, please go easy on me)
Of course, one of Einstein's fundamentals is that nothing could exceed light speed. So there's that problem.

It would already be possible with the right spacecraft. It would require fuels that were far more energetic per unit mass. By travelling fast enough the traveler would age so slowly that other stars could be reached. However there is no going home because by the time you got back the Sun (which continued to age at the usual rate) would be long gone.

What about a low energy propulsion system but one that was so efficient and robust that it could keep accelerating - let's say at .5G, continuously for a year or a decade? No need to burst out of the gate like a thoroughbread is there? Slow and steady acceleration and eventually you are traveling faster than light - if that isn't impossible as I commented above.

 

[Rabbie]

What about a low energy propulsion system but one that was so efficient and robust that it could keep accelerating - let's say at .5G, continuously for a year or a decade? No need to burst out of the gate like a thoroughbread is there? Slow and steady acceleration and eventually you are traveling faster than light - if that isn't impossible as I commented above.

A nice thought but if you knew your Einstein you would know that your mass increases as you approach the speed of light so your rate of acceleration slows down so you never actually reach the speed of light

 

[Libre]

A nice thought but if you knew your Einstein you would know that your mass increases as you approach the speed of light so your rate of acceleration slows down so you never actually reach the speed of light

Well, .90c would be pretty fast enough to get around the block, anyway.