Mazulu:
I'm sure one of your ancestors gave a two minute version of Genesis to your tribe. The tribesmen were so bored and disappointed by it that they joined someone else's tribe.
Whatever they did, I'm here today, so they must have been among the very few wildly successful tribes. Maybe they all became scientists.
Who are you talking about? I'm not confused by Modern Physics. Clearly you don't know what Modern Physics is.
Clearly you haven't read many of my past posts on that topic. Nor do you have the foggiest idea about my education or qualifications.
As for your confusion, I can only judge from what I read of your posts - just like you.
If you had the perception skill of a one-eyed deaf man, you would realize that I'm not ignorant of science, I am disappointed by it. Please attack my real position, not some straw man delusion you have about me. Also, I never said that "physicists have nothing...", so once again you're attacking a straw-man.
Actually, the "physicists have nothing..." was a direct quote from your post. Note the ellipsis. I was referring explicitly to something you wrote.
And please cut out the personal insults, ok? They make you look young and stupid.
I've been saying all along that the net energy of the universe is zero.
Great. Then you realise that there's no problem with "Where did all the energy come from?" Right? It was zero at the big bang. It's zero now. No problem.
In your defense, it may yet take decades and centuries for science to discover the existence of other universes and how they can interact with our universe via the predictability of eigenstates. In other words, the string theorist elitists still fluff their blazing egos. Egomaniacs of the scientific community hide the fact that they cannot predict which eigenstate will come next. They hide the fact that scientific knowledge begins with the birth of the universe, but have no idea why there is a universe at all. With swollen egos you strut about carelessly saying, "we are the scientific authority: there is no afterlife, only dirt and maggots. All your hope is schizophrenia and madness."
This reads like you have some kind of chip on your shoulder - like you were denied entry to a science degree or something. You should probably drop the silly claims about scientists' egos etc.
Taking your points in order:
1. I agree.
2. Some string theorists may well have blazing egos. Many do not. Scientists are people. It's a mistake to generalise.
3. Quantum mechanics is inherently random. There are a number of well-established results that suggest that there will never be a way to predict "which eigenstate comes next". Oh, and by the way, please don't assume that I'll be bamboozled by words like "eigenstate". Your attempt to pull rank in that way won't work with me.
4. There are, in fact, many scientific ideas about why there is a universe, what may have started it and so on. You just haven't read widely enough. There's no hiding about what we don't know. Scientists are generally quite open about such things.
5. Science isn't based on authority. Scientific theories are accepted or rejected based on evidence - unlike religious ideas. Regarding an afterlife, all that science can say about that is that there is no reliable evidence that such a thing exists. As for the question of whether you'd prefer truth or the happiness of a false hope, that's completely up to you.
CNN news reports events but cannot predict them. From their point of view, events cannot be predicted. But those who make the events happen, the terrorists, the shooters, political leaders, the military, they decide what events happen next.
There's a whole can of worms here that I really would rather not open unless you really want to. In principle, things like acts of terrorism can be predicted. This is quite different from quantum events. Also, at the human level we run into the question of free will. Do we
really make things happen, or does it just seem like we do? And so on and so forth.
Come back when you (the scientific community) invent a profound new capability, something that can truly revolutionize the world, like the industrial revolution and the invention of the computer.
Hey! Didn't "we" already do that? Scores on the board, I'd say.
Don't make me wait a google of years for the next big bang (sarcasm). Invent the gravity drive before humanity dies out.
We're far too busy working on that black hole at Cern. The gravity drive can wait.
I don't think you get it. There was no "where" for it to come from.
Magical thinking.
No. Magical thinking is where you imagine a God who looks just like you and lives in the sky, who creates the universe by the power of his command alone. Please don't confuse religious myths with scientific theories. The two really are quite different.
Long ago, there was nothingness, so nothingnessly nothing, that nothing could even begin to describe the nothingnessness. Then, bang!!!! A something appeared! A great and violent somethingness appeared from the nothingnessness. And so it was.
How do you know there was nothing at the time of the big bang? Who told you that?
If universes can big bang from the nothingnessness, then surely so can God appear out of nothingness.
I think creating a universe may be an easier proposition than creating both God and a universe.
OMG!!!! A unicorn and rainbows appeared out of nothing!!!! It was a quantum fluctuation!!!
Possible, of course, but very unlikely. Far more unlikely than a quantum fluctuation producing the big bang, for example.
For all of your religious hatred, I cannot think of a time when science has ever inspired me to be a better person.
My religious hatred? :shrug:
What
has inspired you to be a better person? Is this the kind of better person you're showing us in this thread?
And do you think science
should be about inspiring personal growth or morality?
I can think of lots of times when my relationship with God and/or my spiritual values have inspired me to be more polite, more patient, more kind to other people. But science, or more specifically this scum filled forum, has made me impatient with other people, it has made me question every reason to be polite, caring, kind, considerate or loving. This scum hole of atheists has had a very negative effect on my outlook. This place is like a tar pit of hate that I've become stuck in. Everything good and spiritual and sacred is reflected in the most negative outlook here. I have met good religious people and I have had really special and sacred experiences; but in this logicalized place of evil, everything good is soured and ruined. I don't necessarily blame science. Science is just a process of organizing knowledge into a testable explanation that makes predictions about the universe.
No, I don't blame science. In fact, I don't blame you for having become brainwashed into thinking you have no soul. You are just souls that have become lost in the whirlwinds of negativity. I forgive you and I pray that you find your way to the light.
I'm sorry you've had some negative experiences with atheists. I sure hope it isn't that you just don't like having your cosy worldview questioned. I hope it isn't that you feel that science threatens the security of your faith or the likelihood that your God actually exists. I'd hate to see you begin to doubt your
dogma faith due to (gods forbid!) science.
arauca:
In my view I don't take chapter 2 into account, Chapter one finishes the job of creation I believe chapter 2 is like a metaphor.
Could it be that chapter 2 is the real deal and chapter 1 is like a metaphor?
And while we're picking and choosing which parts of the bible are fact and which are useful stories, can you please give me a general guide as to how to determine which parts are which? You sound like an expert in religion.
rpenner:
(emphasis added)
I break my silence for a pedantic quibble. There are two creation stories in the first chapters of the book of Genesis.
Yes. I know. I didn't want to unnecessarily complicate things.
The Bible isn't a science textbook -- it's not even a competently edited narrative.
The bible is full of contradictions, bad advice, stuff that was just made up, and some silly nonsense. It also has the odd bit of wisdom. But you're right - it certainly is not a science textbook.
