Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
And the best part about Quantum Physics is that most of the outlandish claims have been empirically observed. Double Slit experiment varifies that atoms exist as both waves and particles (2 states at once), Scientists have actually gotten 2 atoms entangled. Don't try to mistake Quantum physics with theoretical physics. Must of the claims have been verified through observation. Also, to claim that the more outlandish the claims become the more we should question them is silly. The universe doesn't act in the way that it seems to us. For example Quantum mechanics seems ridiculous because it only works at molecular levels. Since stuff like this doesn't happen in our daily lives, you can expect it to seem weird. The same goes for Relativity. The concept of time being able to tick at different rates for different objects, that space can curve all seem directly contradictory to our senses. It's because these describe situations that never occur in our daily lives is why the seem silly to us. Also, the reason Atheist's don't ask questions is because they leave Science to Scientists. If they say something, I'm not going to question it because they most likely know a lot more about the subject and spend much more time dedicated to it than me, so I'd just let them do Science rather than question things that seem silly and be regarded as an idiot.
Not everything lol, don't get your hopes up. But we know enough to say with certainty certain things about the universe.
The quantum fluctuation theory that particles come in and out of existence from nothing.
I already told you I won't explain it myself. I do not want to hurt the impact or validity of the argument by giving a *******ized version of it. You're really just going to have to listen to the lecture.
/Philosophy
if this is true, it still doesn't answer the question of why there is something instead of nothing...
...so do you have an answer to my question?
It doesn't concretely answer the question, as you might expect, but it gives some fascinating food for thought, and Krauss believes we're making our way toward understanding the origin of the universe through evidence he shows.
Your lack of comprehension is very irksome. I ignored the rest of your post because it was flat out invalid. You're making a false assumption about my argument, so all I need to to is point it out, and correct you. I don't have to entertain the conclusions you made with your false assumption, because the very fact that you falsely assumed something about my argument makes yours untrue. I have not rejected scientific facts. I'm not saying that quantum physics is a lie, far from it. In fact, the observed phenomena in quantum physics further advances my own point, that science needs to explain some very confusing things in order for an atheistic theory of creation to be sound.
I'll repeat the same thing I just said to Holder. I do not doubt the observations of quantum physics, I doubt the ability of those premises to lead to an ultimate truth about creation that does not deal with metaphysics. This doubt comes from the very fact that the very observations of quantum physics are outlandish, unpredictable, and difficult to comprehend. For example, the results of the Double Silt experiment are true. That's fine, but WHY are they true? How can they be true? What causes them function in this manner? Has science answered these questions?
It's absolutely foolish for an atheist to not question science. This is the problem I have with atheism: it assumes the truth that God doesn't exist without fact, and people who ascribe to that belief do so without trying to understand existence past what science tells them. You jump to a conclusion, hoping that other people will do the thinking for you. At most, I can understand agnosticism, because agnosticism acknowledges the unknown and the lack of effectiveness of science alone to make the conclusion, but not atheism.
If you recall my statements about 20 pages ago, I said multiple times that I don't believe science could ever understand everything without accepting metaphysics, so that answer doesn't surprise me, and my hopes certainly weren't up. The certainty at which we can determine things about the universe is completely unknown. Think of before Einstein's theory, when it was "certain" that time moved at a set pace. None of us has any idea how certain we can be about how we understand the universe.
Ok, so you do understand that I'm not debating whether or not this theory is true, right? I'm saying that, even if this theory is true, in order for an atheistic argument for existence to be sound, there must be an explanation for why particles come in and out of existence that does not require metaphysics. You can't simply conclude that the universe could be made without a god if you don't know why and how particles come in and out of existence.
Ok, in case you didn't get the picture last time, this time I have highlighted what exactly you are misunderstanding about me.
I certainly have questioned more than you. It seems to me that you can't ask a question that science hasn't already answered. You're totally dependent on science to think everything for you. Have you asked at all, "How is it possible that particles come in and out of existence at random?" Have you come up with a theory that makes sense? Have you philosophized over it? If so then tell me. Show me all the questions you ask, since you claim that I'm the one not asking the questions.
I didn't say you claim it to be a lie or anything (not entirely sure where you got that?), I'm telling you that you have no base for questioning what others who are far more educated than you have to say about it. You simply just say it is fishy, that is all you say. They even understand it further than you understand your own idea of creation, considering they are testing it, have had empirical evidence, and can explain it. You can't do any of these things. You haven't really said anything here either.
Once more, I never said you believed them to be lies, you just put more stock in your own belief than in quantum physics. In fact, your whole premise was that it must necessarily be an illogical being that made us, for there is no other way. You are slipping up a bit here, and seem to acknowledge that things may not be as necessarily logically stupid that you think they must be.
Wrong, I can't ANSWER the questions science has because I am not superior to our top scientists. I don't expect for you to break out surpassing them anytime soon either, but I at least believe that they test enough to know what they are doing. It would be quite strange otherwise.
Wrong, you couldn't provide any answers for me. In fact, I just destroyed it all over again.
I already answered this. Quantum Physics predictions do NOT happen at the size scale we are at, so you can expect them to not seem the same as our daily experiences.
yeah......no.
The reason is because we don't question things we don't know about. Today's Physicists more than likely know much more than you or me about Quantum Mechanics. To question something you haven't studied or don't know much about is absurd. You should only question a claim unless you've evaluated it and understand what it asserts.
>implying Atheists think there is no God
Through the Scientific Method.......................?
Which is why Science always evaluates it's theories and reevaluates them when evidence suggests something else.
The Laws of Physics aren't metaphysical.
You question things that doesn't make sense to you.
Law of Cause and Effect is silly.
just to be clear: you think that if someone is not a theist, they are automatically an atheist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
rejection based on what evidence? rejection is a positive action.
notice the distinction.
My base for questioning science is the pursuit of understanding. Scientists aren't deciding whether or not God exists, and the virtue of being scientists does not make them more qualified than me to philosophize logical conclusions to God. As long as science doesn't contradict my cause and effect philosophy, I am as eligible to make an argument as the next person. i have no problem with scientific discovery, I don't know what exactly it is you think I'm questioning, but it's not science. It's the trends that scientific discovery follows, I.E. the things we find out about how the universe works.
Again, quantum physics doesn't affect my belief at all. I'm not putting more stock in myself than quantum physics, I don't know where you got that idea. My point about quantum physics is that it describes some outrageous stuff, not that that stuff is untrue, not that that stuff threatens my logic.
I'm not saying I believe science can do it, i don't know whether or not it can for this particular issue, but I believe that at one point science won't be able to explain something we discover.
Again, I'm not disputing the accuracy of science. I'm talking about the ramifications of scientific discovery on how we understand existence. Do you ask questions about that? You don't need to be a scientist to do that, you just need information, and an understanding of how basically reality works, which I believe to be cause and effect, and you can come up with a general answer.
That doesn't exempt the questions I asked from needing to be answered.
Funny, all the atheists I know personally flat out say that God doesn't exist.
It still sounds like you think I'm questioning the accuracy of quantum physics. I am not. I'm questioning the ramifications of quantum physics on how we understand reality. I.E. If particles come into existence at random, why do they come in existence at random?
Let me rephrase the question: What property of the universe makes it possible for "enter specific scientific theory" to be possible?
I am aware.
Don't see what you're getting at.
I question things that need to be questioned. I accept that particles come into existence at random, but I also want to know why that happens. Or, are you saying that particles coming in and out of existence at random for no particular reason makes sense to you?
I went over this several pages ago. I'm not interested in proving God, I'm only interested in showing how God is a very large possibility. Proving metaphysics alone does that. My own belief in God is based on other things as well.
I was being a bit dramatic, giving Holder the opposite end of the extreme.
I've got no problem with this.
There's a difference between the definition of atheists, and how atheists actually behave. In my own personal experience, all the atheists I know flat out say that there is no God. So I'm not exactly sure what the majority is.
There are rational atheists and there are irrational atheists. The irrational ones say there is no god. The rational atheists know there's no way to ultimately disprove it.
every single type of atheist says that there is no god. the only difference is in their level of certainty. the less certain ones tend to use terms like "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" to mask the fact that they are making an unfounded assumption without evidence (although they aren't as sure of their beliefs as a strong, militant atheist)
no, it wouldn't. that's why the terms "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" are terrible in any sort of debate. nobody can be 100% sure of anything.
That may be a good RATIONAL RULE OF THUMB, but it seems really impractical for anything meaningful.
mathematics would like a word with you.
Oh my god did this really just happen? Did he really say this?
the only difference between the two is the amount of evidence, and the credibility of said evidence. (and you can accept the evidence for both claims too, they aren't mutually exclusive)
Funny thing about that: theist ≠ religious. It's entirely possible to believe in a god or multiple gods but not have a religious affiliation or belief. Furthermore, you (like many others, and incredibly disappointingly like MuraRengan) fail to understand atheism in its modern forums. And as for your question of "rejection based on what evidence", you're simply shifting the burden of proof in an unreasonable manner. I might as well ask what your evidence is to reject the invisible purple dragon in my garage that demands a gold tribute from you.
Look, imagine if I were to say in a post something along the lines of "but it's completely obvious, indeed I'd go so far as to say self-evident, that the story of Noah's Ark is a true historical recounting of actual events with no embellishment or exaggeration". Would that not be grounds to simply quote that and call it ridiculous? To point out that it's absolutely ludicrous? I'm not mad because my worldview has been called into question, nor am I too stupid to formulate a good counterargument to a point like that (for the record: the most obvious counterargument is that you're on a computer and not, say, crippled from polio). It's just that that's the kind of thing you don't argue against. That's the kind of thing you point and laugh at. I mean, for ****'s sake, you said it yourself:
YES! Yes, the difference is the amount of evidence and the quality of that evidence! Our trust in the scientists and their methods is earned, because the scientific community has been vindicated time and time and time again, and because they have made significant progress in our society. Meanwhile our evidence for god or gods has shriveled up and disappeared under the light of harsh scrutiny, but people continue, with neither evidence nor reasoning, to put their faith (not their trust – trust means something entirely different) in religion, the consequences for society and humanity be damned. The fact that I have to explain this **** is really kinda pathetic.
In the same way that if you ask any adult if Santa is real they will tell you Santa isn't real. Atheists view Religion and the concept in a similar way, as in it was made up.
No.
The difference, is that having faith in God implies that God exists, which can't be taken on faith. Scientists you can empirically prove exist, and they have evidence to support their claims.
Yes, by giving off the same damn argument from ignorance I addressed before.
This is ridiculous. We have the burden of proof to disprove your claim, despite you having, in essence, no evidence for it? We hold no burden of proof for our stance on god because our stance is the rejection of an idea with no proof behind it! You don't magically get to define god in such a way that you don't have to prove your claims. **** doesn't work that way.
By failing to understand what science is?
And this, once again, deserves no answer. It deserves a combination of any two of laughter, pity, and scorn.
