Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

Whats your point ? I don't understand the relation .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The subject is the differences between Theism and Atheism

According to Theism "in the beginning was the word". According to Atheism "in the beginning was the Big Bang"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not sure how that answers the question. Its not clear how our ability to fabricate something somehow automatically establishes a precedent that is "out of bounds" for blind, unaided forces of the universe. We make things by putting things together and so does the macro and micro universe. If, so the thinking goes, the universe is doing this on a scale, both grand and minute, with the option of literally an innumerable number of false starts, its not apparent why a solar system is a clear candidate for a designerless origin while the crude model, which is remarkably less sophisticated in scale and interaction, isn't.

This doesn't even begin to make sense. Your ideas about growth and assembly are simply calibrated to your understandings of what humans can and cannot fabricate. All you are presenting is an argument that we did not create the solar system (a point which no one challenges) or the argument that we can make crude models (again, a point no one challenges).

I purposely left life out of it so we could focus on the problem of engineering. You are bringing in a different analogy since we don't effectively "manufacture" any sort of life beyond the constraints of the reproductive systems in question.

It not clear on what authority you are establishing the daisy as more complex than the solar system. Empirically speaking, they both exist outside the macro and micro extremes of what we have available. It seems you are doing a lot of gesturing in the shadows.

An assortment of small sized balls is not complex. Bounce them around in a few million ways and you can get a model. Its not clear why we have recourse to making things that "the universe" doesn't. Remember we are just talking about a model here ... no intricate forces fine tuned over eons to form orbits etc for a fully functioning solar system need enter the equation.

You are talking about the general principle of attributing objects to cultures or communities. Its not clear how you could possibly extend this meagre field of knowledge to something like the solar system.
It seems to be a double standard to say the vast resources of time and space can give us a designerless solar system yet such resources fall short if we are talking about tiny crude models of such things.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What was it, if it wasn't sound?

What? According to Genesis?

Why the need to lie?
I don't even comprehend God, in those terms.
Stick to what I say, not what you want need me to say?

Jan.

 

A loud noise. So what?
To utter a word, one must make a noise.

I guess it is a word that is able to makes shapes and form, out of chaos. What is the word that shatters glass?

Very interesting, I'm sure. But moving on.

Nonsense.

"Bang" merely describes the loudness of the sound.
God would know exactly how loud the word would need to be, in order to create the desired order.

Atheism denies, and reject God. The popularist atheist have no problem entertaini g the idea that a bang could be produced out a designer nothing, and create the universe.
But not God.

Jan.

 

Which are waves.

Yes, the frequency of the waves determine the harmonic vibrations (physical response).
Depends on the frequency that creates a harmonic vibration in the glass, or a suspension bridge

No, we're at the heart of the matter.

They are both metaphors. Tell me what language was the "Word?

No it describes the intensity of the wave.

No, it is the frequency which determines its harmonic results and the BB created all frequencies except the lowest, but as the universe expands in size the lowest frequencies are flattening to produce lower frequencies.

No you keep insisting that there has to be a motivated intelligence which is the original cause. By Occam's razor, the more plausible scenario is a naturally occurring probabilistic event, given the near infinite dynamic (ringing) space and time scale which eventually and inevitably leads to a mathematically deterministic physical event.
Is our universe ringing like a crystal glass?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://earthsky.org/space/is-our-universe-ringing-like-a-crystal-glass

What you see above is what you call God. There is nothing outside it that can possibly be called intelligent or motivated and obviously the universe itself is not an intelligent artifact.

However, the universe itself is clearly dynamic...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

god - BOO

But because he had not created anything there was nothing to carry his vocalisations

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This may be of interest;

https://www.sciencealert.com/sound-can-travel-through-space-after-all-but-we-can-t-hear-it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...e-thanks-to-gravitational-waves/#37c9f0e34049

Which might indicate that a black hole either has an astoundingly large surface area, or that its gravity affects the frequency of a sound wave.

 

You do realize that the "big bang" is only a metaphor, and there was no sound, right?

 

Soundwaves.

Obviously, it's the frequencies that create form, hence the video.
God would know the exact frequency that it would make manifest the material world.

No. You're insisting that there isn't, because you're in denial of God. To the point where you will acknowledge potential, and mathematics as the origin. That's how I know, you subconsciously know God Is.

So you think the universe bringing itself into being, doesn't violate Occams Razor?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You're in denial matey.

Nope. It's what you call God, so that you don't have to accept God.
Denial, and rejection, matey!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Jan.

 

Sorry! I forgot that you were there.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Jan.

 

No it doesn't. Self-organization is an established fact in science.

But if you want to propose another additional and extremely complicated prior intelligent and motivated causality, you'll have to provide some evidential proof of how such a being could exist outside the universe, before it formed.

My logic is based on a purely non-sentient metaphysical pseudo-intelligent mathematical function of self-organization and subsequent probabilistic evolutionary processes.
An self-ordering chronology of physical expression in spacetime.

You even provided proof of that yourself in your post #895, where you demonstrated that specific wave frequencies (vibrations) produce specific harmonic responses in physical matter.

We know that cosmic inflation produced the wave function (Bohm's Pilot wave with the mathematical guiding equation) which was causal to harmonic physical expressions.

 

No, the micro and macro universe does not put things together as we do.

We don't see a designer in the universe "doing this" at all, anywhere, except in the limited contexts of living beings acting in their own limited interests.

And we see far greater complexity and sophistication in the universe than would be indicated by construction according to a design.
Instead, we see the kind of complexity we observe - observe, right in front of us - to be a consequence of growth and evolutionary development.

Sometimes, it is. Especially if it has grown and developed over time.

Dandelion. Are you claiming otherwise? If not, we can move on.

Meanwhile, you are attempting to argue that the kind of complexity we routinely observe to be a consequence of growth and development, and never observe to be a consequence of design and construction, was in this case obtained by design and construction rather than growth and development. You need a good argument, and plenty of evidence, for such a claim. It's counterintuitive, and there seems to be no reason to put it forward.

Not my problem. It wasn't sound, is all I'm saying.

 

Thanks for the link. Very interesting

Will keep my ears open and if I hear any gravity will let you know

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

///
You are the useless noisemaker, full of sound & fury signifying nothing.
A church is not essentially a building except in your delirious dreamworld.
We cannot want to worship what we do not know exists & neither can you.

<>

 

Try an experiment. Turn the sound down, on the video I posted, then see if those particles look as though they're organising themselves.
After a while start to turn up the sound, while watching, and realise there is a reason why it looks as though those particles are self-organising.

With regard to the article, the atheist knows the reason, but denies it. While you are an atheist, because you proclaim it, you are not without knowledge (con-science) of the reason, which is the truth. Hence you are essentially not, what you proclaim.

You're the one who is denying God, then objecting when someone does the natural/normal, human thing, and acknowledge God. It's like objecting to the acknowledgement of the painter, or composer.

What is the source of knowledge, and intelligence? Why is it more difficult for you to attribute God, as the source, instead of nothing?

Turn the sound up, and you will realise there is a mover behind the expressions.

jan.

 

They don't. Of course that may be because I have some familiarity with vibrating and shaking surfaces, and resonance nodes are as visible to me as dust bunnies (another phenomenon produced by that kind of thing).

Or look closely at what's happening, and write good descriptions, and cobble together working models, and so forth - as with magnetism and electricity and light and gravity and the nuclear forces and so forth, the invisible will take shape.

The OP proclaims a falsehood - it bears false witness against the scientists whose research is described, and misrepresents their discoveries.

That is a relatively unpersuasive approach to describing the intellectual flaws of other people. One wonders at its common and characteristic employment by the theistically inclined.

 

In space they do.

C'mon, are you for real? I just explained why the particles organized in that specific pattern and here you are asking me about self-organization as if I proposed that salt will self-organize all by itself? Actually they do in a weightless environment, such as space.


In your example the vibration of the smooth surface caused by the specific frequency of the sound waves caused the particles to form that specific pattern. Change the frequency and they will form a different specific pattern.
I have several examples in my library.




Are you now going to tell me God is a musician or a mathematician who is creating these harmonics today? Or are you going to tell me that God experimented with wave fuctions in order to create the wave-harmonic functions in the universe?

https://plus.maths.org/content/magical-mathematics-music

Apparently you missed my link to the NOVA presentation of " The Great Math Mystery".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/great-math-mystery.html

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That's fine. Theism isn't about accept others claims, it is about accepting God.
Atheism is either disbelief, a lack of belief, or a combination of both, in God. Not claims about God.

If you come to the point, where your acceptance is based on being convinced by the claims of another. You disbelieve.
You ignore the natural connection that human beings can make, to God. You deny, and reject it, then pretend that theists must prove God exists, in order for you to accept.

Now you know you can string this out, as long as you want, giving the impression that you have no idea of God, because no one has proven it.

Jan.