Do Most Atheists Know that science..... Part 2

[JoeEllison]

Don't forget that the best arguments against specific scientific theories have come from science as well. It's this self-corrective mechanism that is at the heart of the scientific method and what prevents it from being dogmatic.

That self-corrective mechanism is why we're not afraid to present our best evidence to DOC, and why DOC is afraid to be exposed to that evidence. The worst that can happen to those of us who respect rationality is that we become wiser today than we were yesterday, which is the sort of net positive that science provides. The worst that can happen to DOC is that he has to admit that his worldview is wrong, which for him is impossible to deal with on even the most superficial level.

 

[Beerina]

"Smaller than a pea" is still a darn sight larger than "nothing", from which a god supposedly made it.

Secondly, IANAP, but from what I see, there appear to be 2 things, forces, and probably infinitely small zero-dimension particles (quarks, electrons). Once gravity overcomes the other forces, they can crush into each other infinitely well. Whether reality approaches this mathematical model or not, I don't know.

In any case, however goofy this theory sounds, it's still some 10-12 magnitudes less goofy than "goddidit!"

 

[Sunstealer]

Einstein put a fudge factor into one of his theories which he later said was the greatest regret of his professional life?

Oh, I'm well aware of what you call the fudge factor is and why it was added, but I wanted you to answer in your own words. I suspect the word "expand" which was in Italics in my post was too subtle for you to realise this and that you don't actually know what the "fudge factor" is and why it was added and then retracted.

 

[DOC]

Although the OP is a clear example of DOC's ongoing war with reality, there is some merit to the question posed.
The miracle of the universe is far greater than we usually realise. And I must admit that meditating on the size and complexity of it all sometimes gives me a warm, fuzzy, pantheist feeling. If I'm in a romantic mood.

By the way, this is my first post. So I guess that makes me an ex-lurker.

So you're a pantheist who believes in miracles, that's interesting.

Thanks for saying the question posed in the OP has merit, but why is the OP a clear example of my "alleged" war with reality?

 

[Sunstealer]

These forums are about discussing. If you have answers "discuss" them? Don't tell me they're someplace else? If I thought for a second that your books had answers, I would take the time in my busy life to read them. The fact that you won't discuss them in a discussion arena makes me suspicious. You sound like an author who wants to promote books.

What's the point? I mean honestly. I don't think it would be fair or within copy right laws to expect someone to copy large chunks of text onto a forum from a book just to show you. Does posting the exact same text here make it somehow more relevant or correct?

You do understand that the concepts that will be explained to you in laymen's terms will still more comprehensive and easier to understand than asking for multitudes of people to post here. Your time would be better spent reading the books on offer than on the interwebz.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Ok, so we have several people saying or implying that mainline science is theorizing that all of the matter (or physical material) of the 10 billion trillion stars in the known universe came from something smaller than an atom. My question is what percentage of atheists in the world do you estimate do not know this fact?

Well in the UK this fact is taught to every school child, repeatedly, by the age of 16. If they take physics at A level they will be learning the supporting evidence in some detail. It's also been the subject of many, many science documentaries over the years. So in theory just about everybody, atheist and believer alike, should know it. Of course many people forget the things they learn at school and don't watch science documentaries.

And also do you believe that if an atheist did not know the above information, and then found out about it, do you believe this would in any way effect his feelings about science or his feelings about a possible God?

I wouldn't have thought so. Why would it?

 

[Worm]

Serious deja-vu

The only thing that is lacking so far is DOC finding some document on the net from a respectable scientist that appears to support his position...

 

[DOC]

Unrelated and dishonest request. I've already admitted the mistake I've made.

This is not admitting you were wrong about what a singularity is:

Perhaps went about the wrong way in my question, but again my original point is valid.

I want to hear you say "I was wrong about the definition of a singularity."

The only reason I make a point of this is that you are constantly saying I don't know what I'm talking about regarding science. Maybe it's time to look in the mirror.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Was the force that caused the Big Bang a "natural" force or a "supernatural" force?

I see no reason to suppose that the big bang was caused by anything at all. Why do you suppose that it was?

 

[mrshadyvale]

You refuse to discuss this unless you hear someone admit to a mistake? Once again, your conversational technique reminds me of my four year old niece.

Oh, I get it now, If DOCs last post is any indication, he won't respond to our direct questions. Instead, he will only respond to opinions expressed about his misguided attempt to take a scientific idea and turn it into anti atheist sentiment.

Joobz has asked you SEVERAL questions that you continue to completely avoid. Do you just skip over what you don't think is worth your valuable time?

I think all of us have a distinct interest in trying to figure out what your point is. You started this thread and have made NO attempt to explain what it is you are trying to convey.

From your actions here I think we might be able to draw the conclusion that your initial post in this thread had no point and there is actually no discernible connection between the "pea" and atheists.

 

[Olowkow]

I think part of the problem in arguing "big bang" is that no one really knows what is going on before a certain time....yet. The Planck time is about 5x10^-44 seconds, and some believe that this is the smallest segment of time that has any meaning for scientific calculations. Our math just breaks down beyond that, and even Alan Guth does not claim to have the answers. His "inflation" seems to involve a sort of total change of state from intensely focused energy of a vacuum fluctuation, to a foam of quarks. I don't really get it, but there is little doubt in my mind that something went "pop" a long time ago.

There are certainly more fertile areas to discuss that can debunk any theistic ideas about the natural world.

I know it sounds like some are asking honest questions, but I agree with those that say that these questions are just specious. I am pretty sure these folks are aware that science just does not know the answers yet in certain areas, and they try to provoke an essentially meaningless debate.

As for any scientific findings changing my lack of belief in a god, it is pretty unlikely, but quite frankly, it would really be intriguing if there were in fact a creator of some sort behind all of this marvelous stuff of the known universe. It certainly would not be any entity that gave a rat's ass about us termites though.

 

[JoeEllison]

You refuse to discuss this unless you hear someone admit to a mistake? Once again, your conversational technique reminds me of my four year old niece.

Oh, I get it now, If DOCs last post is any indication, he won't respond to our direct questions. Instead, he will only respond to opinions expressed about his misguided attempt to take a scientific idea and turn it into anti atheist sentiment.

Joobz has asked you SEVERAL questions that you continue to completely avoid. Do you just skip over what you don't think is worth your valuable time?

I think all of us have a distinct interest in trying to figure out what your point is. You started this thread and have made NO attempt to explain what it is you are trying to convey.

From your actions here I think we might be able to draw the conclusion that your initial post in this thread had no point and there is actually no discernible connection between the "pea" and atheists.

I think you've got a good handle on DOC's discussion style, which is best described as "chicken**** 101"

He poses a flawed question, refuses to accept or even acknowledge most of the evidence showing how flawed his question is, and he laces most of his posts with insults towards his intellectual superiors, which at this point means everyone except that other troll plumjam. He's fundamentally dishonest, and has shown himself to be pretty cowardly in this thread.

After all, if other people offer to give you $50 or $100 worth of books that explain their position, and you are unwilling to read those books, what does that say about you?

 

[joobz]

This is not admitting you were wrong about what a singularity is:

Yes it is, as are these:

He implied my definition is different, but he didn't say it. He didn't say why it was different. He only said that the words I used were not found in those sources. DOC will hide behind semantics to avoid admitting error. As such, I hold him to the same level of semantics for providing credit.

If he had said, "Joobz you are wrong, because a singularity is of infinite density...." I would give him the point. In this case, you were the one to make the correction and I give you full credit for highlighting my mistake, for which I thank you.


ETA: please note the important point of this whole exchange. I have answered DOC's questions. DOC has refused to answer mine.

But I was referring to the big bang singularity, which I thought was infinite mass.

False Dichotomy. Any error on my part (which I acknowledge I did make an error) isn't proof of DOC being correct. Check back and note that DOC made no claim where my error was, only that the exact words I used were not contained in those references. These are fundementally different concepts.

I want to hear you say "I was wrong about the definition of a singularity."

I'll leave this statement as it stands. I think it clear what you want and it isn't discussion. Too bad.

The only reason I make a point of this is that you are constantly saying I don't know what I'm talking about regarding science.

And you still haven't proven that you do. Like I say, me being wrong doesn't equate you being right.

Maybe it's time to look in the mirror.

I'm quite happy with what I see. I've been honest, forthright and willing to admit error. Can you say the same?

 

[DOC]

I see no reason to suppose that the big bang was caused by anything at all. Why do you suppose that it was?

So then I guess you believe we should trash science because it is based on the concept of cause and effect.

 

[Olowkow]

This is not admitting you were wrong about what a singularity is:

I want to hear you say "I was wrong about the definition of a singularity."

The only reason I make a point of this is that you are constantly saying I don't know what I'm talking about regarding science. Maybe it's time to look in the mirror.

Density/mass, an easy mistake to make. Doc needs a pound of flesh.
Oh, the irony. Call him on the phone for heaven's sake.

 

[Seismosaurus]

So then I guess you believe we should trash science because it is based on the concept of cause and effect.

Science describes how the universe works. Before the big bang there was no universe was there? So why would there be science?

 

[fuelair]

Was the force that caused the Big Bang a "natural" force or a "supernatural" force?

Is a fart a natural or supernatural force if it comes from a certain brain rather than a certain rectum? Is god a supernatural fart or a natural fart of the nervous system?

 

[fuelair]

DOC - is there a reason you're ignoring my posts? I am offering to pay for you to get the answers to these questions. I will send you two excellent books that will lay out what you want to know. Will you read them?

I take it you want to at least try and understand what it is you're arguing against - surely that can only help you?

He who hesitates is hesitant, therefore, he who ignores must logically be.........?

 

[joobz]

Density/mass, an easy mistake to make. Doc needs a pound of flesh.
Oh, the irony. Call him on the phone for heaven's sake.

The amusing part is my mistake doesn't at all effect the signifigance of the question that I asked on the first page of this thread. The question that has remained unanswered.

Oh well, I think your avatar is quite appropriate for this thread though. Proof that the big bang occured, isn't it?

 

[mrshadyvale]

So then I guess you believe we should trash science because it is based on the concept of cause and effect.

That is the single most dishonest question you have asked YET. Based off of the collection of things you have said in this thread and your general practice of what you call "discussion" I can only assume you have no idea how to have an intellectual discussion.

If you would like to know why it is Atheists appear to be aggressive towards your views it is not because of your views, but rather you show no respect for other people and their honest pursuit of answers from you.

Many of us have asked many questions of you in this thread, and you dance around them while saying things like the above. I have weighed the very things you have said in this thread and determined that, in my personal opinion, that your mind is so dense with superstition, hatred of opposition, and fear of alternate ideas, that it is not in your capacity to have an actual discussion.

So, DOC, you have my apologies for the things I have previously said in regards to your actions so far in this thread. I made the assumption early on that you had the capacity to enter in to an intelligent discussion. I mean you no disrespect and do not wish this to be viewed as an insult.

I made the mistake of assuming that this would be an actual conversation. I suppose maybe I cannot be completely blamed... an inquisition is the religious version of a conversation. Besides, no one expects the inquisition.