Atheists are no better than religious nuts

Post Reply New Topic

Inappropriate and misleading question. Nothing in physics constitutes evidence that one does exist, nor is physics currently capable of answering the "god" question. All we have are conjecture and hypothesis, based on the little knowledge we do have. That said, the balance of probabilities favours inevitability over deliberate cause.



Nice try, but all you've done is further demonstrate your own intellectual dishonesty. This is hardly surprising though, considering your track record in this thread. Congratulations are merited for fitting so many fallacies into such a short sentence.



I made the correct observation that it is common for those with preconceptions to misinterpret data. Your cherry-picking of Hawking and co are perfect examples of this. Perhaps your real complaint is that you personally feel insulted by the suggestion that you are fallible.

See above, You made a statement that people who think physics leads to GOD means they misunderstand science. That is what you said. So, back that statement up.
What is misunderstood ? For example, Albert Einstein is often quoted about GOD and the "old one" (i.e., a creator). The reason being is because he saw the incredible order to the universe (i.e., non-randomness). He believed "GOD does not play with dice" (i.e., order over randomness).

An atheist tells you that the Big Bang event was a random event. However, when you study physics you see everything is not random, at least in Newtonian physics. So, it may lead one to believe in non-random creation.



What are you taking about? What probabilities? You just making this up ?




Did you even read the thread ? JSBACLover has a graduate degree in physics, works/worked in physics, and on the prior page admitted to being a Catholic priest.

Do you even know what a fallacy is? Do you even know what intellectual dishonesty means? You are failing at basic thinking, as well as being insulting, so I don't think you have understanding of the words you use.

Yes, there are many physicists/astrophysicists who believe in a GOD (different religions actually).



Correct? You can't even back up what you say. What is it - according to you - that religious physicists/atrophysicists misunderstand in science ?

adifferentname wrote:

No, everyone is fallible.

I cited from Hawking's books. How is that "cherry-picking"? You have cited nothing.

Yeah, and he was wrong.

You may as well quote a geocentrist claiming that Earth being at the centre of the universe is proof God has a plan for humanity. Einstein was wrong, if there is a God then he plays dice.

you are not correct. If you roll a fair 6-sided die 12 times, the sequence
1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 is extremely unlikely, but it is not even a tiny bit less likely than
1-4-5-2-1-3-6-4-4-1-2-5. Both sequences are equally mathematically unlikely. Both can are equally likely to come up randomly.


If he cared enough (or you cared enough to google it), he could dredge up the direct Hawking quotes that show that you're entirely wrong. Or you could actually read some Hawking, instead of the selectively cribbed bits you've pulled from theistic websites with 'smart people believe in god!' pullquotes.


No, he's not. No one pays any attention to the Teleological argument because it's so profoundly stupid.

That is clearly not what I said. You're asking me to back up your statement, which is a misrepresentation of my own.

I responded to this statement:



- This is about your opinion, and that of misinformed/dishonest/quote-mining/confused individuals who enter the realm of science with preconceptions.
- There is no mention of "GOD", rather you used the term "CREATOR".
- The terms "GOD" and "CREATOR" are not necessarily synonymous. I.E. you can believe in a "CREATOR" without it necessarily being "GOD".
- It is painfully obvious to any honest person who read my statement that your reinterpretation of said statement is dishonest (compare actual statement to bolded part in the above quote).



The topic is "People who don't understand science but have preconceptions which they apply to cherry-picked statements by actual scientists". I'm not interested in your alternative narrative.



I'm an Atheist. What I tell you is the following:

We don't know. We can only speculate based on current incomplete data. There is, as yet, no reason whatsoever to insert a creator - let alone an intelligent being - into matters, other than to push a specific dogmatic ideology or as a means of expressing your own ignorance.

Everything is not random =/= nothing is random. Depending on which hypothetical version of reality you ascribe to, Newtonian Physics do not necessarily apply to universe-building explosions/collapses/implosions as such forces may well exist only upon initiation of such universes.



You invoked Hawking, perhaps you should read further than a handful of quotes from flavoured articles or wikipedia. Also, it is customary to quote statements in their full context.



What does any of this have to do with what I originally stated? Are your posts so intellectually weak that you need to deflect criticism onto other forumites like an ill-equipped rebel cell hiding in the basement of a school?



As I've already pointed out extensively how you have misrepresented my position and then argued against the misrepresentation, the first should be fairly obvious. Then we have a reference to multiple physicists (whose inclusion here forms part of the misrepresentation) in a misplaced appeal to authority. The quoted text was (rather obviously) a loaded question, albeit an ineffective one. Remember, this is just a single sentence we're discussing here. That's three already and I could easily point out more.

As turnabout is fair play, I ask you in return:

Do you even know what a fallacy is?



Relevance?



This is a continuation of the same fallacious narrative.



You cited from Hawking's books sans context and proceeded to make the bizarre claim that Hawking's M-Theory supports a creator. If you don't understand how this constitutes cherry-picking, or why those of us who have actually read Hawking would conclude that you're actually citing wikipedia rather than his work, I'll have to consider this a lost cause.

Yeah apparently the only reason I would suggest she reads Krauss is because I am confused

As to providing evidence for Hawking et al I what the f**k is suggesting she read the full works unless of course she wants me to defy copyright and post a PDF. Like I said done discussing this with LNH I honestly think she is the most worst manipulator of actual evidence I have ever had the displeasure to debate.

^ spoken like someone who hasn't read the "Confused About Global Warming" thread

This genuinely caused me to spill my drink over myself. Nicely done

One cannot make a science based argument in favor of the existence of a creator without
potentially supporting some of the more backwards policies of mainstream religious conservatives.

If the majority of sensible people would only vote, then there wouldn't be any backlash against
these unmentioned agendas clouding what deserves to be an open and honest discussion.

But even demonstrating the existence of an intelligent Creator, a fine-tuned universe, a Supreme Being...
still doesn't say anything about any particular religion.

Really! That bad? Not sure if I want to visit it. Sounds like I might blow a gasket and get myself banned

Oh what the heck here goes. Can I hold you responsible if things get messy

Yes, but the argument was about extreme mathematical unlikeliness.

In cosmology there is a value called the cosmological constant.

"When one calculates, based on known principles of quantum mechanics, the "zero-point mass density'" or the "vacuum energy density" of the universe, focusing for the time being on the electromagnetic force, one obtains the incredible result that empty space "weighs" 10 to the power of 93 grams per cc.
The actual average mass density of the universe is 10 to the -28 grams per cc , which is roughly 120 orders of magnitude lower than the predicted value...

...Physicists are left to explain the startling fact that the positive and negative contributions to the cosmological constant cancel to 120-digit accuracy, yet fail to cancel beginning at the 121-st digit.
This observation is in accord with a prediction made by physicist Steven Weinberg in 1987, who argued from basic principles that the cosmological constant must be zero to within one part in roughly 10 to the power of 120, or else the universe either would have dispersed too fast for stars and galaxies to have formed, or else would have recollapsed upon itself long ago."

So, in longhand, the odds of hitting that cosmological constant by chance were
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, to 1.
To put this figure in perspective, the number of atoms in the universe is only 10 to the power of eighty.

source: http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/phy ... nstant.php

The constant isn't a principle of the universe, it's something physicists use to make their calculations work. This is an important distinction. The universe is not fine-tuned.

Yes, it was.


Well, gosh, I've never heard of that before. (/sarcasm)
Non-scientists are so unacquainted with large numbers that they freak out over the first one that someone throws down in front of them.

Again: if the universe were elsewhise, we wouldn't be here to wonder over it. If any of your ancestors had come from a different sperm out of the millions in a single ejaculate, you wouldn't be here. Someone else would be. The odds of your existence are infinitely, vanishingly, small. That doesn't mean that the entire universe was organized just to put you here.

@LoveNotHate

See? I told you! Arguments from science can go both ways. In the physical sciences which operate a priori under a materialism framework, order does not presuppose some Orderer; neither does it preclude said Orderer. That's why I avoid such arguments. Faith is a gift. It's like another sense. Once you have it, you can't deny its existence because you experience it like another sense. But if you don't have it, then there's no subjective way to judge one way or the other.

IS THE UNIVERSE FINE-TUNED FOR US?

In science, one does not duplicate assumptions unnecessarily. Therefore God is unnecessary.

Also, in science, they only assume materialism due to precedent. But science can study anything that can be observed, including the supernatural.

Faith is belief in things without evidence or even in spite of contrary evidence. It's a form of delusion, not a special power.