You haven't answered the questions. Never mind, I know you can't answer them without altering your world view. Anyway thanks for the discussion. I really did enjoy it, and have developed respect for you. jan.
Until you can give substantial evidence in favor of your god, a timeless, omnipotent, omniscience, and omni-benevolent being will continue to be a substantially extraordinary claim you pulled out of your ass. Heck, I don't see, or notice, any gods on my daily basis. Second, something cannot come from nothing as the mere definition of philosophical nothing negates the possibility of any thing coming from it without me saying, "Hey, that wasn't nothing, it was something because something came from it, it just acted like it had no known properties." It is an illogical concept that has no baring on our own physical reality due to its contradictory and ill defined ways. Even talking about nothing implies it is something when it really isn't. How can this concept be in anyway meaningful in reality?
This reminds me of the paradox of The Smallest Interesting Number. Many mathematicians treat numbers like pets, and numberphiles know that almost every number has something interesting about it (to a numberphile). 6 is the Smallest Perfect Number. 65,537 is the smallest known Fermat Prime, etc. There are interesting things about the first few hundred, if the not first few thousand numbers. But at some point, there has to be a number that has nothing interesting about it. It would be The Smallest Uninteresting Number. Which would be interesting. Which would immediately disqualify it from being The Smallest Uninteresting Number. Meaning the next highest uninteresting number would now be the The Smallest Uninteresting Number. And so, on. Thus, the entire set of natural numbers is interesting. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is not true. If we took two waves that are 180 degrees out phase they will cancel. The result of this wave addition is no wave or nothing. Look up wave addition. If we placed a partition, in the stillness of no apparent waves, two waves will appear from the nothing. The partition has to be of a substance that is different from the medium of the waves. We live in space-time, therefore the partition needed to make our modern universe, from nothing, would need to come from something, other than from space-time. Characteristics like eternal and omnipresent come to mind as partition solutions, since these attributes are not possible in space-time, and therefore would be a possible partition. Beyond that, not all religions worship deities. Buddhism is a good example. Buddha found a path leading toward enlightenment. This is called a religion, even though it has no deities connected to his method. There something more fundamental, behind religion, which allows both options; deity and non deity based, to be both called religions. Both come from the same places in the brain. Atheism is a religion, in the image of Buddhism. Atheism, like Buddhism is not centered on deities, but both have methods leading to enlightenment. Instead of deep medication to discover the inner self, the atheist is more shallow for the ego, with the method based on science and reason. The Age of Enlightenment, in science, was about science seeking logical and natural explanation for nature, apart from the older approaches of science, like alchemy and astrology. These new rational explanations started out being worshipped like gods in their day; theory that was thought to be universal and infallible. But as time goes on, new data makes these pillars of the method, obsolete; fallible and limited. Then new gods or pillars are born, infallible; rational polytheism. If I was to insult the big bang theory or evolution, this will be heresy to many of the atheists. I have been excommunicated, many times, for challenging these pillar of their methods for enlightenment. That is not being rational. Because of emotions, when in their churches; science forums, one needs to respect their customs and their gods/pillars, which are thought to be infallible and universal; omnipresent and omniscience laws of nature. A true non-religious person, in the sense of not worshipping infallible theoretical deities, is someone who can challenge these gods/pillars. The nature of atheism are their gods, which are not called gods, but which assumed infallible like a god, wear out over time, since they are not real gods. They are also not real pillars that can even lead to enlightenment since they will change, while enlightenment is a final state.
A non religious person is just that, non religious I'm unclear how you could have a FAKE non religious person not worshipping infallible theoretical deities They don't someone who can challenge these gods/pillars All of them do all the time The nature of atheism are their gods, which are not called gods Because they are not but which assumed infallible like a god They are not assumed infallible and are not compared to god wear out over time, since they are not real gods They adapt over time based on observations and evidence and never ever claimed to be gods They are also not real pillars that can even lead They never claimed to be enlightenment since they will change Yes adapt to observations and evidence while enlightenment is a final state Above does not compute en·light·en·ment \in-ˈlī-tən-mənt, en-\ noun : the state of having knowledge or understanding : the act of givingsomeone knowledge or understanding : a movement of the 18th centurythat stressed the belief that science and logic give people more knowledge and understanding than tradition and religion Buddhism : a final spiritual state marked by the absence of desire or suffering Full Definition 1 : the act or means of enlightening : the state of being enlightened 2 capitalized : a philosophic movement of the 18th century marked by a rejection of traditional social, religious, and political ideas and an emphasis on rationalism — used with the 3 Buddhism : a final blessed state marked by the absence of desire or suffering First use: 1654 Mirriam-Webster
Apart from Buddhism being a religion and still being atheistic, this whole post seemed to be a complete straw man. There are numerous problems and unknowns in the big bang theory or evolution and the thing is, if a person decides to defend them as if they are infallible then it is a problem with their mindset. The whole scientific method is mostly based on NOT taking these theories as ever complete, un-questionable truth. You are a jackass for trying to comment to me without thinking.
Nicely, done. This is an excellent exemplar of the exact opposite of what you are claiming. Destructive interference demonstrates a situation where something that appears to be nothing superficially, is, in fact, something. That area where there appears to be no wave, contains the energy of two waves, just with opposite amplitude. The fact that you can't see it is immaterial. The fact that two light patterns emerge from it is patent indication that there is energy there. Compare to a guitar string, a similar dynamic, but easier to visualize. A vibrating guitar string has nodes of zero amplitude. But the fact that the string does not move up and down at a given point does not mean nothing is happening there. The energy of the vibration is travelling lengthwise through that point. It simply doesn't manifest as a translational movement. Well done, wellwisher.
In your example of the nodes in the guitar string, the vibration is traveling lengthwise in 1-D at the node, but not in 2-D as a wave. If we extrapolate this with energy waves, at nodes we should get something analogous to a monopole; 1-D affect, which is theorized to be possible, but which we cannot seem to find.
Every EM wave has an amplitude. One point in every cycle, the amplitude crosses the zero mark. Your idea of waves appearing from nothing is tantamount to saying each and every crest of every single cycle of every single wave appears from the nothingness that exists when the wave's amplitude is zero.
No. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. The scientific method has nothing to do with atheism. For example, you'll find any number of believers in "new age" nonsense who are atheists but who have little, if any, knowledge of or respect for the scientific method. No. Nobody has ever worshipped the scientific method as a god. You speak as if the big bang theory or the theory of evolution are articles of faith for atheists. They are not. Once again, there's no lack of atheists out there who disbelieve in evolution or the big bang theory. The only thing atheists can be guaranteed to agree on is that gods (probably) do not exist. I think you're confusing atheism with scientism. They are not the same thing. And neither is a religion.
Agreed Unfortunately as I understand the situation, in past times as Science was finding its feet and disproving many long held beliefs, Science was touted as the new religion It never was/is Sometimes my thought bubbles go to what would a Science church look like Would Science priest dress up in fancy garb? Who would be the equivalent to pope? What would the signal to indicate a new Chief Who Knows All has been elected? What could they offer to those who put money in the collection plate? Boy do us atheist miss out on a lot Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The more accurate term would be the antidote to religion. Good case in point here: Science doesn't just substitute existing ritual with a new ritual; it dispenses with ritual. That's why it's an antidote, not just "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
Was thinking more a church of Science in competition to god churches Our symbol would be 8 in repose INFINITE I think a few rituals wouldn't go amiss Think of acolytes Blue robes for the sea Black robes for Black Holes White for clouds Green plants Brown Earth Rainbow all inclusive helping BIGBANG (Boss In Genreal Building Atheist New Greatness) I asked before what could church of Science give those who donate to the collection plate? Then a thought bubble came Not exactly a confession box but a place where congregation members go and get the latest gadgets to test (gadgets donates by commercial interests) Counter to the white coated model who tries to tell you science gives you whiter teeth and all your dreams come true Church of Science could organise its own holidays Promote its own scientist to the equivalent of saints providing they made 3 discoveries Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Time is basically a measurement of the intervals between sequenced events of matter, witnessed by a conscious agents trapped in material reality. Anything that gives rise to the material world is necessarily timeless. The rest of your list follows. What is extraordinary about that? jan.
People may not construct alters, burn incence, or chant mantras. But they rely on scientists claiming to hold true to the scientific method to justify their worldview. Anything that is outside of their view is considered pseudo, quackery, or as you chose, nonsense. Of course acting rational is integral to your public character, so it's not going to come across. or have the common characteristics of belief in a diety, or religion, in the way religion is viewed. But it comes out in other ways. I can probably agree with that atheist don't believe in the BB, because it favours God. But can you show me where atheists don't believe in the theory of evolution (not just questioning)? Is the ''probably'' fixed. Or does it vary amongst individuals? Why include it at all? jan.