arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
Well, I can confidently say that DOC has actually learned something from the Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins thread.
He has learned that he should not make declarative statements. Notice how the topic of this post is in the form of a question?
However, as others have already pointed out, DOC does not accept the answer "yes". So it need not have been in the form of a question at all.
DOC, why is this thread in the form of a question and not the other? If you don't have the time to respond to me, I'll understand.
He has learned that he should not make declarative statements. Notice how the topic of this post is in the form of a question?
However, as others have already pointed out, DOC does not accept the answer "yes". So it need not have been in the form of a question at all.
DOC, why is this thread in the form of a question and not the other? If you don't have the time to respond to me, I'll understand.
Or have faith to believe something you don't understand is true.
Last edited:
bokonon
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 4,438
The song Let It Be exists in time.
Paul McCartney exists in time.
Your observation, while true, is nonsensical as a response to the post you quoted. Perhaps there was a point you intended to make, and you simply failed to make it.
You said god does not exist in time. Since the universe we live in is filled with time, if god doesn't live in time, there doesn't seem to be any place for him in the universe in which we live. In fact, it appears to be the case that god (the eternal, benevolent, omnipotent thingie described in fundamentalist literature) does not exist in our universe.
devnull
Philosopher
yeh, got it. If I take a marshmallow, and compress it down to zero volume, I have infinite density but still only finite mass (ie, the original mass of the marshmallow).
The title of the other thread might have sounded condescending which wasn't my intention. I was just saying it in a matter of fact way.
Actually my personal opinion is that most atheists (and theists also) don't know that there are 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe and that they all came from a thing smaller than a single atom according to mainline scientific "theory". They might have heard of the big bang, but they know what that entails.
Just like they might have heard of abiogenesis but they don't know a leading (and from what I've seen, the main) scientific theory is that all life (plant and animals) came from the same bacteria organism.
I also believe that if more atheists found out about all this, and then took some time to dwell on it, it would effect the beliefs of some.
autumn1971
Illuminator
But the Bible is a simplistic collection of primitive myths and stories.
I am fully confidant that I can explain to you a Disney movie in one hundred words or less; the question of fundamental physics at ultra-high densities I would leave to the experts. I believe that I understand them as well as any layman does, but in this case simple analogies are no substitute for knowledge of the math and physics. If you gain a layman's understanding (and yes, layman's understanding means that which interested non-experts have) then the more knowledgeable will be able to take you further.
Read. It works.
God is an eternal Spirit according to mainline Christianity (although this is not true in the Mormon faith). God being an eternal Spirit can dwell in the universe but not in any way be subjected to or influenced by time. (Unless He chose to for some reason)
autumn1971
Illuminator
Okay, God v. Superman, Greco-Roman rules. . .
GO!
GO!
Oh my GOD, I need a church, NOW!! 
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
Well, you can persist in this opinion, but the consensus of the board is that you are wrong, and that most atheists do know these things, and that it doesn't affect their philosophy on the existence of a deity (I won't go so far as to call it a "belief").
I thought that this was pretty clear from the other thread, DOC. As I said over there, I know quite a few atheists, and most of them are pretty scientifically literate. I don't personally know anyone who doesn't understand what the big bang model of cosmogenesis means, and although I haven't specifically asked the question of every one of them, they all appear to understand what abiogenesis is (which, as pointed out in the other thread, is not what you think it is).
So what's up, DOC? (Sorry, had to say it) Why are you asking this question at all? What are you trying to achieve by asking the question? You have already clearly established that you will not simply take "yes" as an answer.
You've been on at Joobz for admitting mistakes, so why can't you admit yours? You can't even admit that your vision of abiogenesis is contrary to the current science - how about your opinion on how many atheists understand various scientific concepts?
I just want to hear you say "I was wrong about how many atheists understand basic scientific concepts".
devnull
Philosopher
You might be right, you might be wrong. Without a questionnaire I guess we'll never know.
Thats not the theory at all. Go do some reading.
But a magical being who exists outside of time (when he feels like it) who always existed, didnt evolve, and yet was somehow powerful enough to create 100 billion galaxies from nothing, created life spontaneously (for no apparent reason) from nothing 8000 years ago (while seeding all the evidence to point elsewhere) - that's easier to believe?
Again Doc, you argue from incredulity. You cant "visualise" it (your pea analogy is very telling) so therefore it cannot be true. But instead of simply stating that you dont understand it/dont believe it, you instead point to an even more unbelievable hypothesis and pronounce its truth by fiat.
Are you seriously telling me you see nothing wrong with this thought process?
Undesired Walrus
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 11,691
Not to mention forgiving sins, reading minds, and caring about a species that came along 13.7 Billion years after the creation of the Universe, on a tiny planet in a far flung corner of the universe, that had 96% of all life go extinct 250 Million years earlier.
And that is the problem, DOC. You are at a sceptics board. You have been here long enough to know that the person who makes a claim shoulders the burden of proof. That is how this game is played.
What you have really done is make a claim which is in the form "Most atheists do not know that science says all the galaxies come from something smaller than a pea". That is a claim which is quite easy to evidence, and Mashuna has pointed that out in a very witty post - witty and profoundly relevant. Other bits of evidence have been kindly provided by other posters ( even though they have no need to provide it, since the claim is yours). Thus Seismosaurus has explained this is taught in schools; and most of the atheists in this thread ( an admittedly small and self- selecting sample) have explained they do know it. So the evidence we do have is against you and it is now up to you to do the work: make a survey or find a survey which asks the question. There is nothing to prevent you doing this, and although it would be time consuming, and you might have to learn a fair bit about designing such studies, even a flawed bit of research would give us something to discuss. It is clear from the time you have spent on these two threads that you do have the time (nothwithstanding your busy life).
But you did not do this. Not about big bang and not about abiogenesis. In this thread you avoided the issue by posing your statement as a question. This has not fooled anyone. Arthwollipot has stated it most clearly but everyone else has recognised your ploy to some extent and has called it implicitly or explicitly.
You have now made it plain that you do not accept the affirmative answer and you are not interested in the evidence which supports that affirmative answer. Nor are you interested in research which would challenge that answer.
This is not about physics. I have already said I do not have the background to understand the physics, and I think randfan has admitted as much too. But it is clear there are those here who do have that understanding and they have spent their time and effort to help you to get it as well. You are not interested. That effort is not wasted because once again I have learned a little and I am sure many others have too. But you have not
While the physics is hard, and, as Hokulele has pointed out, the layman's usual mode of approach to new problems does not serve us very well in these fields ( visualisation and analogy tend to break down as tools in this area, for example); market research is a lot simpler and you have no excuse for not getting the basic idea in that field.
I suggest you accept the rules of the game, DOC. Go and find some evidence in support of your claim, then come back to us. I will be interested in the results, as I have said. I think others will as well. If you find that people do know this, and it does not affect their atheism, you will have learned something about the diversity of people. That is genuinely interesting if you happen to have that cast of mind. If your survey is sophisticated enough you might be able to test your second hypothesis (that this will make a difference to atheists' beliefs) too: or you can make a second bit of research to look at that one. There is a lot of scope here. Why not do something about it, instead of hanging on to your opinion in face of what evidence we do have. You might even enjoy it!
Last edited:
mrshadyvale
Scholar
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 60
Wait... holy moly, I think I get it now!
I understand why you asked so many loaded questions and did not answer any of the ones posed to you.
I totally believe your point now, it makes perfect sense!
You see, even though the people in this thread are the "evil scientist fringe" they come armed with the brutal facts... but... because god is infinite and perfect in every way imaginable and impossible that he is not bound within the facts of the universe.
If I stop to think about the singularity for a moment and realize how much is involved with it... thousands of minds with millions of hours of research and the worlds most advanced technology... all working with the most advanced fields of study... of course they would get it wrong! There is no way that three hundred different data sets could all line up and paint a picture of such complexity.
Since our minds created science... but science created the idea of something so small and so dense and so short in time... then it MUST be flawed! My mind can't understand it... and it can kind of sort of understand the idea of god... so what is more likely?
Thank you, DOC! To think, my faith was placed in doctors, scientists, and engineers! How simple it has been, all the terrible things in my life are because of them! They have done nothing for advancement in any way.
Doctors, scientists, and engineers... when all I need is god, church, and prayer. I can only hope when I am dying in a hospital that my surgeon is more familiar with the Holy Bible than Grays Anatomy!
Thanks, DOC, you have turned this once godless skeptic with your superior command of classic debate and your Atlas like grip on the reality of the world we live in.
FireGarden
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2002
- Messages
- 5,047
Benefit of the doubt time, again....
Maybe Doc has heard that gravitational/electromagnetic forces didn't exist immediately after the BB. I can't think of a reasonable quote which wouldn't mentioned unified forces, but maybe he heard something unreasonable.
So he asks: if these natural forces weren't shaping the BB, what did? Some other natural force? Or a supernatural force?
The given answer is the union of the natural forces.
I don't remember if the Singh book mentions unificiation of forces. And it's not something I understand.
If you heat up water to high enough temperatures, then the water molecules break up. I can imagine something similar for atoms, or even subatomic particles. But conditions so extreme that the forces join up? How does a force unify with another? What does it even mean?
Maybe it's time to go over to the science forum....
FireGarden
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2002
- Messages
- 5,047
I am willing to say that my own understanding of the big bang and singularities is bound to be wrong in places. It certainly has been in the past. I've not been corrected in this thread, so far, but I have been corrected in real-life discussions.
I don't understand the unification of forces. My tensor calculus is absolutely naff. Without getting better at that, I will still be a layman at this topic.
I still recommend you read Singh's book. Check it out from a library, or accept the generous offer made to you on this thread. Think of Volatile as the JREF's Gideon.
FireGarden
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2002
- Messages
- 5,047
[Just got to the top of page 5, which makes this post pointless.]
Last edited: