What's wrong with saying "we don't know"?

[Jimbo07]

ultimate reality might be-even if it composed of infinite dimensions as some physicists postulate,

Which physicists?

AFAIK, even branes aren't postulated in infinite dimension...

or an infinite number of multi universes which some astronomers such as Carl Sagan have speculated,

In what context?

that in all this vastness where our laws might not apply, that YOU know there isn't somewhere even the slightest possibility of a being we call God.

I don't know, but neither do you. In order to postulate that something A is a physical cause of something B, you should provide some evidence that the something A even exists.

I'm willing to allow theists to have a belief in God, but don't ascribe a claim of complete knowledge to the atheist position. It is dishonest.

BTW
You are also saying that you know for a certainty that all the sense impressions you receive are coming from an exterior world. Or that ultimate reaslity is exactly as you are perceivng bit.

I think some scientists may say exactly otherwise. Physicists will tell you that any description is a model which works... until it doesn't. Funny story, that was a saying by one of my favourite professors. After a long derivation, he would say, "and this works perfectly... until it doesn't."

 

[fuelair]

Certain? How do you know?




Sorry! I assumed that everyone knew that science has limits. But obviously I was wrong in assuming that. So let me give you an example in order to clarify. Let's consider the electron.
Scientists have striven to pinpoint the exact location of electrons as they move around the atomic nucleus but to no avail. Why? Well, because to their astonishment, the electrons seem to disappear and reappear at unpredictable random locations. Which raised the question where they were disappearing to and where they were reappearing from. This unknown
required an explanation. So scientists came up with the theory that these electrons were disappearing into other dimensions where they were also functioning as electrons and then reappearing in ours in order to function here. Now, this is just a theory, but astonishingly they found that such a theory helped them to hypothesis mathematically about what happened prior to the Big Bang. Something they had hitherto been unable to do. Two dimensions clashed, they concluded, and resulting in the "creation" of our universe.

This is the latest explanation for the disappearance and reappearance of the electrons. Yet, it is just a theory requiring, if I remember correctly, twelve dimensions. Which mathematically turns out satisfactorily from their viewpoint. This theory has taken the place of the previous string theory which was said previously to accurately represent the very fiber of our universe. But that other theory proved limited and left many questions unanswered while this present theory doesn't leave as many that way.



I don't think that philosophy alone is evidence. Neither do millions of other theists. We look about, see organic machines functioning and displaying all the characteristic of forethought and purpose of design and conclude a creator or designer just as you do when and if you find a complex machine displaying what you consider planning and forethought. Actually, scientists do that all the time with simple arrowheads and chipped stones. That we do so with the intricate computer called the human brain, for example, is far more justifiable. From our viewpoint-of course.

Uh, reread mine and yours on your second para here: I said (I'm not quoting me) that I would be commenting myself if I read some one saying science Never mind, this crap isn't worth it. You can make believe all you want, you can put words in atheists mouths and talk out of another part of your body. It doesn't change the fact that your only evidence is your belief and someone else's words. Words don't cut it. Show me this god thing or get off the pot.

 

[Irony]

A wild guess is saying that you know for a certainty what encompasses all reality whenyou are stuck here without any means to justify that statement via observation not limited by your fallible human senses. Now that's the mother of all wild guesses.

BTW
There is no need to evade the issue via irrelevant responses. That just clutters the board with and adds nothing to the discussion.

Do you honestly think for one second that you are going to convince anyone by using the tactic of deliberately lying about their own beliefs to them? Do you honestly think for one second that posting your rabid anti-atheist rants will in any way convince a person that they don't know what's going on in their own head?

We do not think the way you represent us to think. You have been told this enough times that your rants cannot be reasonably interpreted as ignorance, only as deliberate dishonesty. You're bigotry is not a valid argument, and heaping bigotry on lies that your audience cannot fail to spot is not going to win any debates.

So, since you obviously dislike cluttering this board with posts that add nothing to this discussion, might I suggest that you stop doing it?

 

[Radrook]

Part of the problem is that we don't know what science can and cannot know.

Strawman

Historically, science has provided the best way of knowing anything. The evidence is in the machine you're posting on. That doesn't make it a default that science will allow us to know everything, it just raises the question: do you have a better method for knowing stuff?

Irrelevant

What other dimensions, laws or possible universes would those be exactly? Do you have any tangible evidence of their existence whatsoever? Never mind a fully detailed analysis published in a scientific journal. Just provide some imminent practical evidence! You don't need a thorough data analysis to show that a hammer drives a nail, but their interactions are governed by physical principles.

For a person who claims to love science you sure do manage to remain uninformed. The dimensions and with possibly different laws which YOUR PHYSISCISTS are now constantly gawking about. Try googling for branes, dimensions at least.

No. "I don't know," is a perfectly acceptable answer to questions requiring real knowledge. "I don't know," is the start of learning. It does not apply to science fiction and other fairy tales for which no evidence has been provided.

The only real knowledge you receive are sense impressions. Antything beyond that is debateble. In fact, even the source of the sense impressions is debatable and ultimately unknowable. Scientists know thjis but have no oter choice but to plow ahead limited by their human senses while proclaiming things as ultimate truths.

We don't know that these other realms even exist, but your utter lack of evidence suggests that it is fair to work as if they do not.

Tell that to your beloved scientists who are presently the ones disseminating those cioncepts as the best explanation for the Big Bang.

If I don't know what is beyond scientific reach, you certainly do not.

Just reminding you to apply your criteria consistently.



Stoopid skoolin'... gettin' in the ways of reel learnin'

Yes, your statements are obviously untrue. I'm not an atheist and I know that you have miserably mischaracterized some of the posters here. These last lines go beyond strawman into outright dishonesty. No scientist, not even the Victorian examples (like Kelvin), have attributable quotes in which they say that, "there is nothing which science doesn't know."

In other swords you have difficulty understanding plain English so you make up these strawman argumenbts and then say they are mine.

It won't mean anything to you, but the wonder, glory and attraction of science is the unknown...

That's ad hominem. And you are on the verge of flying off the handle and coming at me with more as I can see. How sad! A gymnasium is the proper polace to blow off steam. Ever consider that?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Of course you are claiming to know. You are claiming to know tat such a being doesn't exist. Do you realize the significance of what you are saying? You are saying that you know for a certainty that no matter what the vastness real nature of our universe or of ultimate reality might be-even if it composed of infinite dimensions as some physicists postulate,
or an infinite number of multi universes which some astronomers such as Carl Sagan have speculated, that in all this vastness where our laws might not apply, that YOU know there isn't somewhere even the slightest possibility of a being we call God.

Do you realize how unscientific and illogical that sounds?

BTW
You are also saying that you know for a certainty that all the sense impressions you receive are coming from an exterior world. Or that ultimate reaslity is exactly as you are perceivng bit. Something you cannot prove. In short, you are applying skeptisism here but not there.

Typical atheist: There is no evidence that gods exist so there is no reason to assume that they do.

Radrook's straw man atheist: I am certain that no gods exist anywhere in the universe.

 

[Furi]

or an infinite number of multi universes which some astronomers such as Carl Sagan have speculated, that in all this vastness where our laws might not apply, that YOU know there isn't somewhere even the slightest possibility of a being we call God.

Do you realize how unscientific and illogical that sounds?

seeing as that being would have to be the creator of that particular multiverse instant,

it would require that void be given a degree of sentience and instilled with ideological values, in the instance prior to their being a requirement for physics and maths within that iteration of the multiverse.

this would also require that all logical constructs within the multiverse (such as void or Math models) are also attributed with sentience throughout, stating the rules do not apply in what is a logical construct, does not make a further construct a logical certainty.

In the above model it is more likely a multiverse construction that would be non-viable and would collapse it along with all other multiverses simultaneously.

How about we concentrate on the creation of the universe before we start arguing about the creation of the of Subverse Superverse Concentriverse Polyverse Paraverse Multiverse Infiverse,

If physics requires to a sub or multiple -verse constructs to model something, fine, that does not bring it into existance, if it fits in with existing data and can be modelled correctly, then it will do till we find a better model or is proven.

 

[Tanstaafl]

Wow, I don't have time to address much of this, so here's just a little:

1) Radrook, you seem to have no idea what a strawman is. That which you identified is not even close.

2) You are taking little sound bites about string theory and quantum mechanics and stretching it into something completely foreign. Just because you know a couple of words that scientists use doesn't mean you know the science.

3) and you also seem confused on ad hominem.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Do you honestly think for one second that you are going to convince anyone by using the tactic of deliberately lying about their own beliefs to them?

Radrook has proved two things to me:

1. He is willing to tell a bald faced lie in an attempt to avoid admitting error.

2. He's really bad at lying.

 

[Radrook]

Do you honestly think for one second that you are going to convince anyone by using the tactic of deliberately lying about their own beliefs to them? Do you honestly think for one second that posting your rabid anti-atheist rants will in any way convince a person that they don't know what's going on in their own head?

Another example of the hysterical quasi-religious fanatical reaction which some atheists who are unable to defend their illogical conclusions have or use as a last recourse. Whose trying to convince you aor anyone else. I'm just expressing my views. Don't like what I say? Sorry but pouting and throwing tantrums will not change my opinion to yours. That's called wishful thinking.

We do not think the way you represent us to think. You have been told this enough times that your rants cannot be reasonably interpreted as ignorance, only as deliberate dishonesty. You're bigotry is not a valid argument, and heaping bigotry on lies that your audience cannot fail to spot is not going to win any debates.

So, since you obviously dislike cluttering this board with posts that add nothing to this discussion, might I suggest that you stop doing it?[/QUOTE]

Have a problem with my opinion-tell Darat. In fact, I will brimng the matter to his attention myself. Fair enough?

BTW

Tagging things as rants and people who point out your policy inconsistency as bigots isn't going to change the fact that your claim that you know for sure what sciencve itseld admits is the unkowable is plain nonsense unnsupported by science or any reputable scientist woorth his salt.

 

[Radrook]

Uh, reread mine and yours on your second para here: I said (I'm not quoting me) that I would be commenting myself if I read some one saying science Never mind, this crap isn't worth it. You can make believe all you want, you can put words in atheists mouths and talk out of another part of your body. It doesn't change the fact that your only evidence is your belief and someone else's words. Words don't cut it. Show me this god thing or get off the pot.

bolding mine

Before I cast you off into the wild blue yonder, let me say that I am only saying what atheists themselves say-that they are sure that there is no God. Does that spoil yu little party-well, who said life was a bowl of cherries? Opinions vary and skeptisism is a double edged sword,. Your problem i that you like to wield it but don't like it pointed in your general direction. To which I say, you are probably either on the wrong thread, or on the wrong forum.

 

[Shalamar]

No make a fair point, many Atheists and scientists tend to say 'There is no evidence for the existence of God. Even theists have to admit to this one, after all, it wouldn't be called faith, then.

 

[Radrook]

Wow, I don't have time to address much of this, so here's just a little:

1) Radrook, you seem to have no idea what a strawman is. That which you identified is not even close.

2) You are taking little sound bites about string theory and quantum mechanics and stretching it into something completely foreign. Just because you know a couple of words that scientists use doesn't mean you know the science.

3) and you also seem confused on ad hominem.

In other words, you are evading the issue by accusation of ignorance. Strange since i passed those subjects with flying colors. In any case. Obviously you don't seem to have the necessry skills or emotional stability to deal with this subject rationally. So I will send you into the wild blue with your friends over there.

BTW
This is exactly the reaction I expected. Read my original comments. LOL

 

[Jimbo07]

Strawman

What?

Irrelevant

How so?

For a person who claims to love science you sure do manage to remain uninformed.

I am ignorant of many things which science has modelled. There isn't enough time to become well-informed about everything that has already been discovered. Science does not know everything, and no scientist knows everything that 'science' boggled does...

The dimensions and with possibly different laws which YOUR PHYSISCISTS are now constantly gawking about. Try googling for branes, dimensions at least.

You have no idea what a dimension is, do you? I wrote a fairly lengthy tutorial about it here once... I'll encapsulate by saying, "start with Freshman Linear Algebra."

The only real knowledge you receive are sense impressions. Antything beyond that is debateble. In fact, even the source of the sense impressions is debatable and ultimately unknowable. Scientists know thjis but have no oter choice but to plow ahead limited by their human senses

Agreed, but...

while proclaiming things as ultimate truths.

What? Which scientists have done this? Names? Papers? Anything?

Tell that to your beloved scientists who are presently the ones disseminating those cioncepts as the best explanation for the Big Bang.

Who are my beloved scientists?

Just reminding you to apply your criteria consistently.

I try. Like any human, I sometimes fail. I do try though...

In other swords you have difficulty understanding plain English so you make up these strawman argumenbts and then say they are mine.

Be careful about ridiculing me about plain English. I might not be able to make sense of your argumenbts [sic].

That's ad hominem.

No, it's true. Your subsequent posts demonstrated that my comment meant nothing to you. I'm sorry that it made you feel bad, but it is not argumentum ad hominem. See other threads for an explanation...

And you are on the verge of flying off the handle and coming at me with more as I can see. How sad! A gymnasium is the proper polace to blow off steam. Ever consider that?

Now that is a fair criticism. I may have given the impression that I was about to fly of the handle. Your posts on this topic got under my skin.

...

 

[Belz...]

Have a problem with my opinion-tell Darat.

Opinions are not a breach of the membership agreement. Stupidity is not a crime.

 

[Belz...]

No make a fair point, many Atheists and scientists tend to say 'There is no evidence for the existence of God. Even theists have to admit to this one, after all, it wouldn't be called faith, then.

Careful, now. SOME theists.

 

[Jimbo07]

Stupidity is not a crime.

Too bad. It would make my wife's job easier...

 

[Radrook]

seeing as that being would have to be the creator of that particular multiverse instant, it would require that void be given a degree of sentience and instilled with ideological values, in the instance prior to their being a requirement for physics and maths within that iteration of the multiverse.this would also require that all logical constructs within the multiverse (such as void or Math models) are also attributed with sentience throughout, stating the rules do not apply in what is a logical construct, does not make a further construct a logical certainty.[/quoute]

That's jiudst the point. You claim certainty.

In the above model it is more likely a multiverse construction that would be non-viable and would collapse it along with all other multiverses simultaneously.

Tell that to your physcisits who came up with such ideas.

How about we concentrate on the creation of the universe before we start arguing about the creation of the of Subverse Superverse Concentriverse Polyverse Paraverse Multiverse Infiverse, If physics requires to a sub or multiple -verse constructs to model something, fine, that does not bring it into existance, if it fits in with existing data and can be modelled correctly, then it will do till we find a better model or is proven.

That does not address the artheistic claims of certainty does it?

 

[Shalamar]

Careful, now. SOME theists.

Hmm.. Ok. My mistake.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Before I cast you off into the wild blue yonder, let me say that I am only saying what atheists themselves say-that they are sure that there is no God.

The vast majority of atheists do not claim to be sure that there are no gods. I can understand Radrook stating otherwise, once, out of ignorance, but his continued insistence that we believe what he says we believe, rather than what we say we believe is, I'm sorry to say, just foolish.

Oh, and in case you are reading this Radrook, you have not cast anyone off into the wild blue yonder. You have simply demonstrated your intellectual cowardice by turning your back on arguments that you are unable to address. Everyone else can still read the posts of those whom you have decided to ignore. Everyone else can still read those posts that demonstrate your inability to use reason and your willingness to lie.

 

[Furi]

Opinions are not a breach of the membership agreement. Stupidity is not a crime.

Not yet... Comrade. not yet,

But one day... and sooner than you think.

MWUWUWUWHAHAHAHAHahahahaha

*Goes back to coating rebar and plate steel with Nuclear Thermite*