Atheists And Their Stupidity - Religion (8) - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Atheists And Their Stupidity (15857 Views)
Atheists and Traditionalists Come In. / Question For Atheists And Religious People / A Chalenge For Huxley,kay 17,ogaga4luv And Other Atheists And Satanists (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) ... (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (Reply) (Go Down)
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by davien(m): 6:11pm On Jan 07, 2015 |
benalvino2:like I said,I've labelled you a troll(you're probably even ebukasblog)...if you want to know what inflation is..go to google... |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by slyfox5555: 7:51pm On Jan 07, 2015 |
davien I don't have to believe anything about the universe....the objective evidence thus far points to an expanding universe,so that is what is known currently as the state of the universe No one is arguing this point. The question is, did the universe have a beginning or did expand infinitely i.e. did it always exist and just continue to expand? First off its not my theory(i did not postulate an expanding universe)....the postulate was first known to have been proposed by a Catholic priest of which it was justified by Edwin hubble.....only to be ridiculed by steady-state theorist fred hoyle as the "big bang" All I wanted was for you to be specific. You have confirmed that our universe had a beginning and this beginning was an inflation. That leads me to my next question, where did energy and matter come from? Did they exist before the inflation or they started to exist when the universe was inflated? You misunderstood my reply... I said the properties "seem" to be eternal....and that the "first inflation" is regarded as the beginning of the universe...try reading my posts before vehemently replying. Ah - so basically you are not sure. You are suggesting that properties such as matter and energy might have existed before the universe but you are not sure - is that your stand? If yes - any scientific reference or proof for this? Again try reading my posts before vehemently replying...I was referring to benalvino2,and asking atheists about cosmology ofcourse won't give you any "satisfactory answer"(depending on what you're looking for) because you are looking for cosmological answers among atheists as though they are astronomers... Neither am I an astronomer  . However, we have evidence about our cosmos that can be discussed. We know certain laws have to be in place or certain things to happen. |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by davien(m): 9:41pm On Jan 07, 2015 |
slyfox5555:I will re-iterate....the first inflation is referred as the beginning of the universe...before inflation the universe existed in a primordial form... I did not "confirm it having a beginning" how is this hard for you to understand... The initial inflation is termed the "beginning of the universe"...those were my words..and furthermore the as-yet unknown primordial universe still existed....that is what can't be deduced in any scale as it operated in a 0-dimensional infinite regress... #facepalm ...was it the fact that I said it seems the universe has eternal properties that hinted such? For clarity.... 1. Inflation is termed the beginning of the universe. 2. Before inflation,the primordial universe was infinitesimal....existing as everything in a 0-dimensional plane of extreme density..... 3.Everything that is,was and will be in existence is still termed "the universe."...before inflation and after. Not necessarily....there is no law that states the earth must be 93 million miles away from the sun...it is just one in an infinite number of possibilities.... |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by slyfox5555: 11:57pm On Jan 07, 2015 |
davien I will re-iterate....the first inflation is referred as the beginning of the universe...before inflation the universe existed in a primordial form... Any scientific data to support the primordial form view? I did not "confirm it having a beginning" how is this hard for you to understand...The initial inflation is termed the "beginning of the universe"...those were my words..and furthermore the as-yet unknown primordial universe still existed....that is what can't be deduced in any scale as it operated in a 0-dimensional infinite regress... Any scientific data to support the primordial form view? #facepalm ...was it the fact that I said it seems the universe has eternal properties that hinted such? Any scientific evidence to support points 1 and 2? Not necessarily....there is no law that states the earth must be 93 million miles away from the sun...it is just one in an infinite number of possibilities.... There is the simple law that NOTHING can give rise to NOTHING - that was my point. Your explanation that the universe existed in a primordial form before it inflated still doesn't explain where the primordial was. When did it start to exist in primordial form? Scientist have traced the Big Bang or creation or the universe about 14 billion years - that is the data we have so far. What about the primordial form? Did it always exist? Was it there eternally and just inflated about 14 billion years ago? Scientist such as Alan Guth - Physics professor at MIT are the ones doing deep research into cosmic inflation and that inflation is after the Big Bang and not before it. So, I am interested in your view about primordial Universe - I am sensing you are saying the universe had always existed but decided to inflate 14 billion years ago |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by simplex2: 3:17am On Jan 08, 2015 |
benalvino2: Dead on arrival, try again! We all know that your account of creation in 1:1 was further illustrated from 1:2 where the details of the events was illustrated. The cave men that compiled the bible didn't have knowledge of matter and its components. 1 Like |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by slyfox5555: 5:27am On Jan 08, 2015 |
simplex2: The "cavemen" that wrote the Bible gave you a compass on what morality is? The "cavemen" that wrote the Bible, gave you the golden rule. The Bible is not a science book Bros - it is an account of how the author narrated his revelation and historical events. Let's see how much of a "caveman" gene you have . What is energy? |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by benalvino2(m): 8:54am On Jan 08, 2015 |
simplex2: your head too small to understand anything |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by davien(m): 10:59am On Jan 08, 2015 |
slyfox5555:how's about you go and do your research.......I'd only credit you with a few sources http://www.kicc.cam.ac.uk/news/kinetic-dominance-pre-inflationary-universe http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec21.html http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ This is my point,you keep asking uneducated questions because you haven't read a shred about what you're talking about....I'm virtually wasting my time with you because you can't go do your homework...  And can you give me an example of nothing in it's classical sense...not a vacuum devoid of matter...just a classical example of nothing would suffice and then envision how another "nothing" can/cannot come from it...if you can't,then how can you make conclusions from it? If you said we have examples of something coming from something I'd agree with you 100% and we can make conclusions that things can come from things...but when you say nothing comes from nothing,do you have a standard of "nothing" to draw that conclusion from? The remainder of your questions of asking a "where" and a "time" is illogical if you did your homework about the pre-inflationary universe...I bet you even think there was an outside,lol...  And might I ask where I said inflation was before it? or did the below tautology confuse you Everything that is,was and will be in existence is still termedIf you are easily confused by the above tautology it comes as no surprise that you know next to nothing about the big bang... Here's a tip....go and do your homework...mentioning alan guth is one thing...understanding his work is another....here's a bit of help https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by slyfox5555: 4:45am On Jan 09, 2015 |
davien how's about you go and do your research.......I'd only credit you with a few sources I think I understand where you are coming from now. You hold one of the many numerous theories about what happened before the Big Bang. I was asking for scientific claims that the entire scientific community agree on but so far what you are offering is a theory - my mistake; I misunderstood. BICEP2 team observed what may be evidence of inflation in the early Universe. Like any claim of this gravity, the result is hotly debated. If the idea of inflation is correct, it is possible that our universe is part of a much larger multi-verse (Universe popping up everywhere). And the most popular form would produce a kind of eternal inflation, where universes are springing up all the time. Ours would just happen to be one of them. This reminds me of the scientific community claim that our universe existed eternally, only to swallow that claim when it was discovered that our universe is constantly expanding. This is my point,you keep asking uneducated questions because you haven't read a shred about what you're talking about....I'm virtually wasting my time with you because you can't go do your homework... When anyone doesn't conform to your way of thinking - they are labelled uneducated. Imagine the people that claimed that our universe had a beginning decades ago - they were laughed at, called uneducated and were irrational. Bros, nothing means the absence of anything and/or everything. Taking our universe as an example, it means no matter, no radiation, no energy, no spatial curvature; we can imagine existing in completely empty, void space. Whether you decide to call that something, na your wahala be that. . The concept is very simple, you can decide to confuse yourself and throw all kinds of meaning to it but the premise is simple.And might I ask where I said inflation was before it? or did the below tautology confuse you I don't make any claim to know the uncertain. What we know said our universe had a beginning. You are are the one trying to explain what nothing means If you are easily confused by the above tautology it comes as no surprise that you know next to nothing about the big bang...Here's a tip....go and do your homework...mentioning alan guth is one thing...understanding his work is another....here's a bit of help Really! - the same cocky attitude atheist have. Let me celebrate in my uncertainty; I don't claim to know everything but I know much about our universe to know that it had a beginning, it wasn't eternal. |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by benalvino2(m): 9:16am On Jan 09, 2015 |
slyfox5555: just like he can't answer the question I asked him I am stupid and uneducated blah blah blah. some theory said there was no matter and after BB it was so hot it began to cool off the matter started forming... sticking together gasses for stars... how could all these happy without gravity? so many planets and stars in billions and comets and water formed from a tiny dot that explode or inflate to the universe to? if the galaxy can't collide cause they are moving away meaning there was explosion how come matter and anti matter collide and destroy each other? |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by davien(m): 12:09pm On Jan 09, 2015 |
slyfox5555:You don't get it... What your claiming would have been true if I had an ideology that I was giving but I didn't give you an ideology so its a little too soon to throw accusations of bigotry when all I have you were scientific theories.. And its benalvino2 all over again.....can you give me a time when the universe had your definition of nothing that the scientific community agrees on.... Go grab a book was a good advice for you but you still swim in your self perceived "intelligence."... Here lies the epitome of your own folly.....you have a view that everyone uses the same definition to characterize a phenomenon....when Stephen hawkin or Laurence krauss is talking about the universe emerging from nothing....they aren't using the term the same way common folk like you and me understand it to be.....if you did your research that wouldn't be a problem for you....atall.. #facepalm... I guess comprehension skills have dropped in nigeria..... my "cocky attitude" was for correcting you and thus has nothing to do with my atheism.....nice straw man though. |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by benalvino2(m): 3:16pm On Jan 09, 2015 |
you still dodging my questions? if at a point the Universe was born from a tiny dot... where did all the matter that made the earth come from not to talk about other planets... all the gas all the water... how can all this things that are trillionth of times bigger than the point before the so-called inflation come from that tiny dot? where did the gravity comes from that bond them together? it is easy to call someone troll when they disagree with you but it doesn't make them a troll. I am being called a troll because I asked you and you friend if a sphere round or not... your answer and his answer are MIA. |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by cloudstar: 4:55pm On Jan 09, 2015 |
davien You don't get it... No Bros - I do! What your claiming would have been true if I had an ideology that I was giving but I didn't give you an ideology so its a little too soon to throw accusations of bigotry when all I have you were scientific theories..And its benalvino2 all over again.....can you give me a time when the universe had your definition of nothing that the scientific community agrees on.... It was science that claimed our universe was eternal decades ago, wasn't it; was that theory true even though it was the view held by science? My point is it's exactly what it is - a theory. It's when we have hard empirical evidence that we can test and verify that things begin to make sense. The theory you have is just another theory like the multi-universe. Go grab a book was a god advice for you but you still swim in your self perceived "intelligence."... Did you or did you not ask for the definition of nothing. I don't understand how the same definition that applies to physics or mathematics as nothing all of a sudden becomes irrelevant when we are discussing the cosmos . That is the length "intellectuals" will go to prove stupidit.yHere lies the epitome of your own folly.....you have a view that everyone uses the same definition to characterize a phenomenon....when Stephen hawkin or Laurence krauss is talking about the universe emerging from nothing....they aren't using the term the same way common folk like you and me understand it to be.....if you did your research that wouldn't be a problem for you....atall.. That is your problem. You have given your life over to "experts" without any kind of hard evidence. If Hawkins or Krauss came out tomorrow and said, oops - we were uncertain about our hypothesis regarding the beginning of the Big Bang or what state the universe was in before the Big Bang - what then? Your view will automatically change? Didn't Einstein hold the same view that our universe was eternal until Hubble disproved his theory by providing factual evidence that could be observed? Scientist will tell you that the theory makes sense and tell you why it makes sense but no one has observed any other universe apart from ours. Here is what Princeton University theoretical physicist Paul Steinhardt had to say: "The multiverse functions here as an all-purpose excuse for not being able to explain anything about particle physics" Mathematician Peter Woit at Columbia University wrote in a blog post responding to BICEP2 reactions. "I consider such a view to be ‘giving up’ on finding a true scientific explanation," Go and read research on the same issue about with re-own professors like John Lennox and ask them why they don't hold the same view as Hawkins or Krauss facepalm... I guess comprehension skills have dropped in nigeria..... my "cocky attitude" was for correcting you and thus has nothing to do with my atheism.....nice straw man though. The same thing I am talking about. Bros - don't jump on the band wagon until factual proof has been given. You and I are seeing the same evidence but arriving at different conclusions. You need to be objective - let all the facts come out before you conclude what happened. Don't let your atheism stand in the way. Good luck |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by cloudstar: 5:10pm On Jan 09, 2015 |
benalvino2: He is expressing the multi-verse view. It's a view that has the scientific community is divided on. The view doesn't provide any factual and observable evidence - it's a theory that is why he can't give you a straight answer. He is basically relaying what his "experts" express. |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by davien(m): 7:24pm On Jan 09, 2015 |
cloudstar:No, you still don't... Yes it was was that theory true even though it was the view held by science?Nothing in science....is taken as "true",all we have is an approximation of knowledge based on what facts lead to.... The universe was considered eternal based on the acquired knowledge until more knowledge led to a different view My point is it's exactly what it is - a theory. It's when we have hard empirical evidence that we can test and verify that things begin to make sense. The theory you have is just another theory like the multi-universe.No it is not..if you had read all the few sources I pointed out instead of concluding on what I was saying you might have understood me.... in fact the video I linked up is of a short explanation of what inflation corrected in the big bang theory inwhich alan guth was interviewed and he explained how the primordial universe was before the big bang and what his postulates led to.. And before-inflation is still referred to as "primordial universe" it's inter-changeable but sadly you thought I was referring to the "multiverse theory" I guess religion does reta.rds minds Some terminology differs especially when given to lay men like yourself...."proof" for example is commonly understood differently to common folk when compared to how it is regarded in science as a deductive argument for a statement mathematically speaking... At no point in time was it established that a common understanding of "nothing" was the state of everything...and when physicists say lawrence Krauss and stephen hawkin relay the universe emerging from "nothing" they define it differently...i will provide a video of lawrence krauss explaining this personally below... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EilZ4VY5Vs How many people do I have to explain this to over and over again....i don't have to believe anything for it to be true nor have to support any theory for it to be legitimate....scientific theories are passed through the scientific method and are set as the single consistent model of understanding when it meets it's predictions to a substantial amount and to which no other theory best accounts for.... Take for example the the theory of gravity, did it make predictions-yes, did it account for everything-no, it couldn't account for mercury's orbit...but until that discovery it had made sufficient predictions to be relevant...and that flaw was discovered as always through the scientific method and a new theory(relativity) accounted for it... If Hawkins or Krauss came out tomorrow and said, oops - we were uncertain about our hypothesis regarding the beginning of the Big Bang or what state the universe was in before the Big Bang - what then? Your view will automatically change? Didn't Einstein hold the same view that our universe was eternal until Hubble disproved his theory by providing factual evidence that could be observed?I don't hold any views on a scientific consensus, how are you failing to get that....science is the best method as far as we can tell for understanding the world we live in...that is demonstrable by its advent. If the big bang will ever be shown false it would have to be at the methids used to deduce it...not misused elementary notions you and your elk keep posing.. Nice straw man....it would be expected of you when to simply understand simple tautology is a problem... Again your jargon above would have made sense if I was referring to the "multiverse theory" #facepalm it is either you're really a huge dimwit or a troll....when did I tell you that I accept the "multiverse theory"? Intellectual dishonesty is what I can't stand....and you are simply full of it... |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by davien(m): 7:26pm On Jan 09, 2015 |
cloudstar:Another dimwit confused by simple tautology,at what point did I remotely address the "multi-verse theory"... If you don't get something,ask before giving out your straw man... |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by cloudstar: 11:31pm On Jan 09, 2015 |
davien No, you still don't... Have it your way - I won't argue with you anymore Yes it was Good - so basically the science that led to confirming the universe was eternal is the same science suggesting that the universe popped out of nothing? In your case - nothing means something Nothing in science....is taken as "true",all we have is an approximation of knowledge based on what facts lead to.... The universe was considered eternal based on the acquired knowledge until more knowledge led to a different view It is at this point that I realize you just want to talk because you have a mouth. You have basically said that a bunch of "intellectuals" can claim any nonsense as scientific and put the burden on others to disprove it. For your information, there are absolute proven in science, in other words, there are truths in science. So, for you to suggest otherwise, I am inclined to question your sanity. Examples for absolutes or true science 1. The moon rotates around the earth and the earth around the sun - perhaps you can try and falsify that 2. The gross anatomy of humans is well-established and beyond dispute. Normal humans have two hands, two feet, two eyes, two ears, and one nose. They also have brains, lungs, kidneys, livers, and stomachs. 3. Whereas certain diseases are caused by viruses, some others are caused by bacteria. 4. Under standard conditions water freezes at 0 Celsius and evaporates at 100 Celsius I can go on an on but will leave you to falsify the above since they are not taken as true in science No it is not..if you had read all the few sources I pointed out instead of concluding on what I was saying you might have understood me....in fact the video I linked up is of a short explanation of what inflation corrected in the big bang theory inwhich alan guth was interviewed and he explained how the primordial universe was before the big bang and what his postulates led to.. My mistake, the primordial ripples in spacetime is also used to support the multi-verse view. Some terminology differs especially when given to lay men like yourself...."proof" for example is commonly understood differently to common folk when compared to how it is regarded in science as a deductive argument for a statement mathematically speaking... I understand there can be different proofs. I am not referring to proof such as "beyond reasonable doubt". I am referring to scientific proof. An observable, repeatable processes, that can be tested an replicated. At no point in time was it established that a common understanding of "nothing" was the state of everything...and when physicists say lawrence Krauss and stephen hawkin relay the universe emerging from "nothing" they define it differently...i will provide a video of lawrence krauss explaining this personally below... Why should nothing as used in Lawrence Krauss physics when explaining the universe be different from the nothing used in normal science? Does Krauss get to change the meaning of nothing to support his argument? For example, the null set is empty - it contains nothing - no bdy argues that empty means there is something in the set only that we are not seeing it? The laws of physics are the same whether it's here on earth or whether it's the same in the cosmos. The variables may be different but they are the same. Scientist have different meaning of what "nothing" means to them . You want to have fun laughing, here you go:http://www.livescience.com/28132-what-is-nothing-physicists-debate.html How many people do I have to explain this to over and over again....i don't have to believe anything for it to be true nor have to support any theory for it to be legitimate....scientific theories are passed through the scientific method and are set as the single consistent model of understanding when it meets it's predictions to a substantial amount and to which no other theory best accounts for.... Did you consider BICEP2’s results in that they predict that the Universe would have received large jolts during the cosmic inflation phase, which would have pushed it into the other valley of the Higgs field within a fraction of a second. And that would have collapsed the entire nascent Universe in a Big Crunch. It’s possible that BICEP2’s findings were actually caused by similar polarisation effects that can be generated by nearby dust in our own galaxy, a point that the researchers conceded was possible in their study. You ignored that and you are waiting for another Theory abi? I don't hold any views on a scientific consensus, how are you failing to get that....science is the best method as far as we can tell for understanding the world we live in...that is demonstrable by its advent. If the big bang will ever be shown false it would have to be at the methids used to deduce it...not misused elementary notions you and your elk keep posing.. Stop playing this scientific subjectivity crap. You are giving yourself an escape clause. I gave you examples above where we have scientific absolutes i.e. truths. Whether you decide to hold it or not is irrelevant. Nice straw man....it would be expected of you when to simply understand simple tautology is a problem... Again your jargon above would have made sense if I was referring to the "multiverse theory" I didn't deny that I made a mistake in categorizing what you were referring to as the Multiverse Theory. 1 Like |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by davien(m): 12:35am On Jan 10, 2015 |
cloudstar:Never argued with you...you just misunderstand everything... science is a self-correcting process and the "nothing" I refer to is explicable to whom defines it and what it's used for... A mouth to stop willful ignorance... You have basically said that a bunch of "intellectuals" can claim any nonsense as scientific and put the burden on others to disprove it. For your information, there are absolute proven in science, in other words, there are truths in science. So, for you to suggest otherwise, I am inclined to question your sanity. Examples for absolutes or true sciencewow!....just wow! lol! So you actually thought science gives "truths".....science is based on areas of philosophy like empiricism,realism,cartesian philosophy etcetera and under those axioms we can never know for certain if the observation you gave of #1 was/is always true...for all you know it began to occur that way when it was first viewed...the same goes for all your examples... This is the reason why no scientist will say "science has all the answers" nor that "it's proven beyond reasonable doubt" otherwise it becomes a dogmatic religion...because of the fact that we can't really know anything to be true .. So if you're wondering why we use science if we can't really know anything for certain it's because it's pragmatic and that is what I personally love about science..we don't have all the answers nor claim to,like religion...  Note,"primordial ripples" is not the same thing as "primordial universe"...the former is of ancient gravitational waves propagated by the big bang and the latter is the universe at pre-big bang.. of what exactly?..because I'm yet to see you grasp or even discuss in an educated manner.. Wrong again! First there is no dichotomy between lawrence Krauss' term of "nothing" and it's use... Science works with terms that can be defined or numerically given for precision and to avoid ambiguity...."nothing" as commonly understood cannot be quantified let alone demonstrated to have been the state of the universe Does Krauss get to change the meaning of nothing to support his argument? For example, the null set is empty - it contains nothing - no bdy argues that empty means there is something in the set only that we are not seeing it? The laws of physics are the same whether it's here on earth or whether it's the same in the cosmos. The variables may be different but they are the same.Read the above. I have the video of the debate...it was really intriguing for some of the greatest minds to be discussing such a topic,anyway if you had read you're own article...you'd have noted this comment by neil degrasse tyson " Ultimately, the definition of nothing may just be an ever-moving target, shifting with every scientific revolution as new insights show us what we thought was nothing is really something." "Nothing" (as commonly understood) has not been established as the actual fate of anything... Dimwit you are still referring to your straw man (multi-verse theory) haven't you read any of my comments? I mean if simple tautology confuses you from the beginning,then you get confused by terminology (thinking primordial ripples equate to a primordial universe) and then not understanding the axioms of science, then I really don't think you have any business discussing any of this...you'll just end up being called out on your "knowledge"... Science is objective if you fail to grasp this there's nothing I can do.. Then why are you still using the straw man if you don't want to be called a troll?  1 Like 1 Share |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by cloudstar: 7:24am On Jan 11, 2015 |
davien science is a self-correcting process and the "nothing" I refer to is explicable to whom defines it and what it's used for... Science is a general subject my friend and not everything is self-correcting. Scientists live in the uncertain and it's that uncertainty that encourages scientist to explore. A mouth to stop willful ignorance... It's good you can spell ignorance - you seem to be familiar with it wow!....just wow! Cha- why do you insist on displaying your ignorance. These were your words: Nothing in science....is taken as "true". Instead of you to admit you over-spoke; you are here trying to play semantics with your words. If the 1st example I gave is not true, can you please falsify it. Perhaps you are the only human that doesn't have a brain since that might not be a truth statement according to your science. You are pitiful man This is the reason why no scientist will say "science has all the answers" nor that "it's proven beyond reasonable doubt" otherwise it becomes a dogmatic religion...because of the fact that we can't really know anything to be true .. Do you know the difference between making a truth statement and been uncertain? I am aware that science claims uncertainty but your statement that nothing is science is true is incorrect. I don't understand why you insist on playing pretend So if you're wondering why we use science if we can't really know anything for certain it's because it's pragmatic and that is what I personally love about science..we don't have all the answers nor claim to,like religion... I can't speak of all religions. Christianity doesn't claim to know all the answers. It bothers on theology and in case you don't know, theology is the queen of the sciences. It provides "beyond reasonable doubt" proof to me. So, please cross-check your references and information again. Note,"primordial ripples" is not the same thing as "primordial universe"...the former is of ancient gravitational waves propagated by the big bang and the latter is the universe at pre-big bang.. Thanks of what exactly?..because I'm yet to see you grasp or even discuss in an educated manner.. Coming from someone who thinks humans having brains is not true in science Wrong again! First there is no dichotomy between lawrence Krauss' term of "nothing" and it's use... Science use of nothing in other areas is quite clear as compared to Lawrence Krauss term of "nothing" when he refers to the cosmos. You seem insisting on Krauss definition of what nothing means. What doesn't nothing mean in mathematics? I have the video of the debate...it was really intriguing for some of the greatest minds to be discussing such a topic,anyway if you had read you're own article...you'd have noted this comment by neil degrasse tyson " Ultimately, the definition of nothing may just be an ever-moving target, So, Neil Degrasse Tyson definition of nothing exceeds or replaces Krauss definition of nothing in the same video abi or any of the other scientists? Dude, do you see how stupid that statement sounds! It's what I have been saying from jump-start. Nothing means something to these folks - they can't prove it but somehow it does. For example, it's like asking what is darkness? It's the same thing you are doing here - you are trying to define nothing as something. It's similar as saying, I don't know what it is but it could be something Dimwit you are still referring to your straw man (multi-verse theory) haven't you read any of my comments? If you took time to read what I posted, you will see that I wasn't referring to the multi-verse. But you assumed I am referring to the multi-verse. I take God beg you, read it again and tell me how you came to the conclusion I was talking about the multi-verse? Science is objective if you fail to grasp this there's nothing I can do.. Who said it wasn't. You are the one claiming a position of not been objective |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by Anas09: 10:16am On Jan 11, 2015 |
Hmmmmmm, I ve been reading and expecting to hear something I have not heard before. My question has always been, if humans evovled from apes, how long does it take for an ape to change to human? And why r there still Apes and humans living side by side? And since we r still evolving, why hasn't any man evovled to something else yet? Or is man the finale stage of evolution? Again, we are asked to prove that there's god, how can u prove there's no god? |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by davien(m): 10:31am On Jan 11, 2015 |
cloudstar:Despite the elementary definition you have of science you still don't get it.... It's sad you don't get simple tautology, what science is and the difference between a "primordial ripple" and a "primordial universe"....your lack of coherent phrasing is also a deep concern lol! Typical butturt theist.....You don't even know the difference between saying something is "not true" compared to "not known if it is/was always true"....we use those axioms of science to presuppose natural laws for past and future events....under that guideline we do not know and we cannot know if the reality we experience is real....that is why every theory is subject to revision and the fact that a theory works does not make it true.....we look for predictive power in scientific theories and how well they can account for existing data..Science works by building a different set of models to account for a phenomena and passes them through the scientific method....those that fail are either modified or discarded,depending on the data collected.. #facepalm I'm always blown away by your stupidity.....if you aren't certain,can you say definitively if it is true?..or say it's likely true? lol...theology queen of sciences?! perhaps you don't know that it's own view of reality is much less capable of predicting anything about the natural world..in hindu mythology the earth is a flat disk perched on a turtles back.. Atleast you admitted your folly here... Coming from someone who doesn't realise that the philosophy of science says nothing about you(nor any of your parts) really existing due to a starting point(realism)... Lets use epistemology for instance....we may use epistemology to infer a deductive argument to prove something and as inductive reasoning is stating something being likely or not given certain assumptions and since science is a way to formulate your assumptions, observe, and infer from your assumptions what is likely,if you assume there is a reality and it is knowable through observation that is at least partly reliable, you can actually infer quite a lot of things. A lot of these findings are well documented and easy to verify. I cannot think that there are better ways to reason, especially if you want to understand what we call reality as good as possible,than science and epistemology... Nothing can prove something definitely (including this statement)... so accept it and go with the amount of certainty that can be given (through the methods of your choice, but I recommend the rational scientific way). Science and mathematic require terminolgy to be defined or quantified(if possible both)so as to represent data....in mathematic's "nothing" can be defined as "0" You can see that "nothing" in mathematics is definitive and not ambiguous..and from that definitive term alone we can express many things with "nothin" I.e 10,100,1000 etc And I am not insisting on krauss definition' as much as citing it as to why we say the universe "emerged from nothing" in respect to what "nothing" has been demonstrated to always be something You're definitely butturt That statement is stup.id because you made it....you seem to misunderstand citations too.. I cited him because of that statement...the closer we get to the definition of "nothing" the more we realise its actually something..For example, it's like asking what is darkness? It's the same thing you are doing here - you are trying to define nothing as something. It's similar as saying, I don't know what it is but it could be somethingDarkness can be expressed in many ways I.e a lack of information cast by a 3D object(in the case of shadows) in realtime or a lack of perceivable light from a light source  Here's a simplified version of why you were still talking about the mutiverse that even you should understand...Bicep2 is evidence of primordial ripples....primordial ripples are gravitational waves....gravitational waves are evidence of neighboring universes.... So what exactly do you expect me to think when you kept talking about the "multverse theory" when you've mistaken "primordial ripples" for "primordial universes" lol! typical theist,when you back them to a corner they begin to pretend and accuse you of what they're doing... How am i not objective as compared to this your comment below that screams subjectivity. theology is the queen of the sciences. |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by davien(m): 10:40am On Jan 11, 2015 |
Anas09:Good question....humans did not evolve from the apes we see today...evidence from genetics...paleontology,biochemistry and many more suggests humans and current apes share a common ancestor 6 million years ago of which homo sapiens were derived....infact before this waa known....carl linnaeus(father of taxonomy) placed humans under the homonoideae family and prompted people to further research why man was morphologically and anatomically similar to other primates....as taxonomy grew on more knowledge and genetics was formulated it was revealed that humans share a large percentage of dna among chimps and less with all life on earth...if you want to understand this further I can cite you to educative papers and video tutorials... Note: Carl linnaeus lived before evolution was proposed and was the christian whom first placed humans alongside other primates...evidence vindicated his findings... and people today feel offended at the mere mention of being related to any other animal,some even citing it to slavery as though it meant that when it doesn't |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by Nobody: 10:48am On Jan 11, 2015 |
The Big Bang Theory is wrong, so is the Bible's 'story' of Adam and Eve. |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by herald9: 10:59am On Jan 11, 2015 |
SMH...argmentum ad ignorancia |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by benalvino2(m): 11:54am On Jan 11, 2015 |
davien: evolution started with bacteria and crocodiles are said to have lived in the times of the dinosaurs... so when will crocodile evolve to something else? everything has been stabled so far why? why aren't a bird changing to something else? why since humans came we haven't had any evolution again? |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by davien(m): 12:49pm On Jan 11, 2015 |
benalvino2:No,not bacteria...because we call them "simple" organisms doesn't mean they were the first...fossil evidence that has been gathered over the years of "micro-fossils" indicate that by the time the kingdom of "bacteria-like" organisms evolved,other kingdoms did too...evolution started when pioneer "life-like" chemistry began inheriting genetic information in a form of horizontal gene transfer(i have to go back and read more on this though) and crocodiles are said to have lived in the times of the dinosaurs... so when will crocodile evolve to something else?I'd like you to just wiki sarcosuchus and find the change evident in both genetics and the fossil record(made into a phylogenetic tree) that crocodilians have undergone....you'd thank the heavens it has evolved into what we see today.. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcosuchus what should birds exactly change to?... Each form today was already an established clade or transitional form...the only " new" forms are merely re-arranged established structures...for example the same protein that is a key part in finger nails(like keratin) in humans,also make scales in pangolins... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangolin Are you a perfect copy of your parents? |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by slyfox5555: 3:13pm On Jan 11, 2015 |
davien Despite the elementary definition you have of science you still don't get it.... I was not defining science; Cha! It's sad you don't get simple tautology, what science is and the difference between a "primordial ripple" and a "primordial universe"....your lack of coherent phrasing is also a deep concern I made a mistake and used a wrong reference, I never denied it. Get over it Bros lol! I forgot I was speaking with an atheist. So the reality we are in now can't be known if it's real or not abi? Take a gun, put a bullet in the chamber, point it to your head and press the trigger. If you are still in this reality, come back and tell me what you observed. Bros, the examples I gave you are not theories - they are absolutes. The moon revolves around the earth is not a theory. Humans have two hands, two legs and a brain is not a theory. You can twist it however you want but there are absolutes in science - I have given you several examples but you insist on playing stupi.d. I find it hard to engage you moving forward we look for predictive power in scientific theories and how well they can account for existing data..Science works by building a different set of models to account for a phenomena and passes them through the scientific method....those that fail are either modified or discarded,depending on the data collected.. No one is denying that. However, to say there are no absolutes in science is to be dis-honest and this is exactly what you are doing. #facepalm I'm always blown away by your stupidity.....if you aren't certain,can you say definitively if it is true?..or say it's likely true? Do you know what a truth statement is? I will give you an elementary example. You are a biological product between a male and female human being. Now, that statement is either scientifically 100% true or it isn't. If you can falsify it; then you can say it isn't. That is an example of the law of bio-genesis and in science there are very few exceptions to laws. So, this is one area where I can say I am 100% certain. lol...theology queen of sciences?! I was careful to mentioned the type of theology I was referring to. I spoke precisely of the Christian faith. You ignored that and navigated to Hinduism. At least you admitted your folly here... Irrelevant - honest people admit when they make mistakes. Something you should learn from Coming from someone who doesn't realise that the philosophy of science says nothing about you(nor any of your parts) really existing due to a starting point(realism)...Lets use epistemology for instance....we may use epistemology to infer a deductive argument to prove something and as inductive reasoning is stating something being likely or not given certain assumptions and since science is a way to formulate your assumptions, observe, and infer from your assumptions what is likely,if you assume there is a reality and it is knowable through observation that is at least partly reliable, you can actually infer quite a lot of things. A lot of these findings are well documented and easy to verify. I cannot think that there are better ways to reason, especially if you want to understand what we call reality as good as possible,than science and epistemology..Nothing can prove something definitely (including this statement)... so accept it and go with the amount of certainty that can be given (through the methods of your choice, but I recommend the rational scientific way). All this to prove whether you have a brain as a human-being is real or not? Bros, it's either humans have a brain or they don't. If we have brains (which all humans do) - we can confirm with 100% certainty that we do. If we don't we can also confirm that. Again, if the statement that humans have a brain is incorrect; you should be able to use scientific methods to falsify it. All you have done is talk crap. Science and mathematic require terminolgy to be defined or quantified(if possible both)so as to represent data....in mathematic's "nothing" can be defined as "0" Nope - zero is not nothing in math and it isn't defined as such. Zero is a value and the only real integer that can be positive or negative. In math, "nothing" is usually represented as null. You can see that "nothing" in mathematics is definitive and not ambiguous..and from that definitive term alone we can express many things with "nothin" I.e 10,100,1000 etc I don't know where you did your math - you should try and re-visit it. The concept of nothing is not arbitrarily defined in math. And one of the reasons I love math is that it's specific and not arbitrary like the other sciences where they have to guess in certain situations. For example, 0 is a value in math. -10,000 is a value and they are not "nothing". The concept of "nothing" in math is captured as NULL. In latin, it means none. It is also commonly referred to as the NULL set where the set it defined by either elements you can assign values or no elements at all. And I am not insisting on krauss definition' as much as citing it as to why we say the universe "emerged from nothing" in respect to what "nothing" has been demonstrated to always be something You and I differ on what "nothing" means and we can debate it until the rocks grow legs and walk. You're definitely butturt Another stupid statement . The definition of nothing is not arbitrary Bros whether it's made by Kruass, Einstein or whosoever. In science we have standards oh.Darkness can be expressed in many ways I.e a lack of information cast by a 3D object(in the case of shadows) in realtime or a lack of perceivable light from a light source All you have done is measured light - that is what we do in science; we measure things, test things, experiment with things. We can't measure darkness so it doesn't exist! Here's a simplified version of why you were still talking about the mutiverse that even you should understand...Bicep2 is evidence of primordial ripples....primordial ripples are gravitational waves....gravitational waves are evidence of neighboring universes.... Cha - so you want to keep using the multi-verse old news mantra over and over again even after I made it clear that I made an error. If you were patient enough you would have read that I was referring to Cosmic microwave background as it related to inflation you so consistently talked about. Please read what I was referring to: http://www.forbes.com/sites/bridaineparnell/2014/06/24/higgs-boson-seems-to-prove-that-the-universe-doesnt-exist/ lol! typical theist,when you back them to a corner they begin to pretend and accuse you of what they're doing... Theology is a science is subjective? Are you high? You are the same person that arbitrarily decides to believe what "nothing" is when it comes to the cosmos as when it compares to general science and you are here telling me I am subjective! Bros - go look in the mirror. When we think of "science," we usually think of the study of the natural world and that which can be quantitatively measured—subjects such as biology and physics. Historically, though, of the “natural” sciences, only geometry and astronomy were part of the standard university curriculum. So what was a science? Augustine defined it as anything to do with knowledge of the temporal world. Thomas Aquinas considered theology a science because it encounters special and general revelation. The tradition of Wissenschaft provides a bridge to our modern understanding of science. Wissenschaft was the ideology of learning in German universities during the 1800s. Within this system, a science is “a legitimate area of study oriented to a particular object, and possessing appropriate methods of investigation.” This is similar to the concept of “science” in the Medieval era, yet has endured into the 21st century. According to this definition, theology is a science with an object of study (God and His actions on earth) and a means for study (the Bible and general revelation). |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by benalvino2(m): 12:56am On Jan 12, 2015 |
davien: the wiki link you gave me did not say crocodile under any kind of change... it says "Sarcosuchus (/ˌsɑrkɵˈsuːkəs/; meaning "flesh crocodile" , is an extinct genus of crocodyliform and distant relative of the crocodile that lived 112 million years ago" it says they were [size=18pt]extinct[/size] not [size=18pt]evolved[/size]it said distant family of crock... which means it is like a Dog and wolf relationship... a lion and a pussycat relationship... and they are Extinct just like the dodo bird... the dodo bed and eagle are distant family too... you couldn't answer the question... you should have just said you don't know instead of to try and fool people. |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by davien(m): 1:12am On Jan 12, 2015 |
benalvino2:wow! you really are a troll... so what does the first statement in the wiki mean biologically speaking " is an extinct genus of crocodyliform and distant relative of the crocodile that lived 112 million years ago. " And if you accept dogs and wolves are from the same distant family...is that not by definition evolution by shared common ancestor? You sir are a troll,and a dishonest one at that,it was even a folly to have entertained your question...if you're going to be willfully ignorant then so be it......knowledge scares the willfully ignorant. |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by benalvino2(m): 1:48am On Jan 12, 2015 |
davien: Really? So the dog evolved to the wolf? Or did the wolf evolved to the dog? Distant family or relative doesn't mean evolution. If that's the case they wouldn't have said distant relative... They would have used the right word which is evolution. |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by davien(m): 3:17am On Jan 12, 2015 |
slyfox5555:Whether you truly did isn't even the issue, it's your lack of understanding... Well I'm not exactly impressed by your knowledge nor feel as though I'm having an educated argument.. This is a fallacious view...the fact that people die tells us nothing about the reality we experience. For all you know,you could be the only thing that exists and I may just be a computer program...can that be falsified? theories aren't absolutes...we even have evidence that indicates the moon wasn't always there to begin with....so does it count as true when we can deduce it not always been there? so can your statement be true taking time into account? or can you only speak of the time you deduced the moon being there Humans have two hands, two legs and a brain is not a theory.Can you prove they aren't a simulation? You can twist it however you want but there are absolutes in science - I have given you several examples but you insist on playing stupi.d. I find it hard to engage you moving forwardlol actually with or without science absolutes are only terms we know to be true because they are defined...for example"All bachelors are unmarried" is an absolute because the terms are defined,I don't have to go and look for all bachelors to know they are unmarried...but in your example above I'd I find a human that doesn't have two hands, two legs, and a brain wouldn't that fly in the face of claiming it as absolute? And again you misunderstand simple concepts, absolutes of reality based on scientific theories are not known to always be true....this goes against uniformitarianism(a fundamental axiom if science) " Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism Really?could you negate the possibility of me being a computer program? And are you certain that humans will forever be and was always a product of a male and female without the core assumption of uniformitarianism? I cited Hinduism... Admittance to mistakes is not a problem for me....it's just so amusing that you think science can prove what we experience is reality when it can't...I've been using solipsism all the while watch you try to combat the incomprehensible...
All humans have brains right? Try to wiki anencephaly " Anencephaly is the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp that occurs during embryonic development." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly Now knowing not all humans are born with a brain and some only a brain stem would that statement be absolutely true?
"In mathematics, the word null (from German null , "zero", which is from Latin nullus, "none" [1] means of or related to having zeromembers in a set or a value of zero . Sometimes the symbol ∅ is used to distinguish "null" from 0." And that symbol is used to to express elements with 0 defintive data..
look above and belowCommon notations for the empty set include "{}", "∅", and " ". The latter two symbols were introduced by the Bourbaki group (specifically André Weil ) in 1939, inspired by the letter Ø in the Norwegian and Danish alphabets (and not related in any way to the Greek letter Φ ).Other notations for the empty set include "Λ" and "0". http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set it seems you don't love math enough to know what it is I bet you even believe that numbers can be used to determine the likelihood of specific post events and give you the "likely answer", care to test me on that? True on "nothing"don't know about rocks growing legs and walking And those standards(which you are unaware of) prompt "nothing"to be quantified.. It's true darkness doesn't exist,but because it can't be measured isn't the reason why it doesn't exist...would you say because we can't measure a single photon therefore photons don't exist? note: photons make up light... I did,again what's your point? You can go back and reread the comment I addressed... You said theology is the queen of the sciences. So how is theology greater than science? (note: you claimed it was)...and has theology proven "god" exists or presuppose it does? |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by Nobody: 10:24am On Jan 12, 2015 |
Phuck! |
(1) (2) (3) ... (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (Reply)
A Christian Sister Pregnant Before The Wedding: Is It Right? / IPOB/UGM/ ESN Killings: Chosen Church Moves Popular Crusade From Imo To Lagos / Why My Target Is No Longer To Make Heaven
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 253 |