Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

[river]

river said: ↑
Yeah well , BB is not the definitive understanding of our Universe . It is a mainstream theory only .

And the biblical assertion of a WORD is a definitive understanding?

Whats your point ? I don't understand the relation .

 

[Write4U]

Whats your point ? I don't understand the relation .

The subject is the differences between Theism and Atheism

According to Theism "in the beginning was the word". According to Atheism "in the beginning was the Big Bang"

 

[Musika]

Why do you think that question has not been answered many times over?
Because we have some knowledge and understanding of how such things come to be.

I'm not sure how that answers the question. Its not clear how our ability to fabricate something somehow automatically establishes a precedent that is "out of bounds" for blind, unaided forces of the universe. We make things by putting things together and so does the macro and micro universe. If, so the thinking goes, the universe is doing this on a scale, both grand and minute, with the option of literally an innumerable number of false starts, its not apparent why a solar system is a clear candidate for a designerless origin while the crude model, which is remarkably less sophisticated in scale and interaction, isn't.

For example: We recognize the model as being too simple to be a likely product of growth and self-assembly, resembling instead a product of the simplifying abstractions typical of created things.

This doesn't even begin to make sense. Your ideas about growth and assembly are simply calibrated to your understandings of what humans can and cannot fabricate. All you are presenting is an argument that we did not create the solar system (a point which no one challenges) or the argument that we can make crude models (again, a point no one challenges).

Analogy, not model.

I purposely left life out of it so we could focus on the problem of engineering. You are bringing in a different analogy since we don't effectively "manufacture" any sort of life beyond the constraints of the reproductive systems in question.

It illustrates the principle - pull a dandelion, and you have in your hand something far more complex than the solar system of planets and orbits and such, that you know by observation was not created but instead grew over time (self-assembled, as they say). Then you set it alongside a model, that you know was created.

It not clear on what authority you are establishing the daisy as more complex than the solar system. Empirically speaking, they both exist outside the macro and micro extremes of what we have available. It seems you are doing a lot of gesturing in the shadows.

A model of a dandelion illustrates the ordinary properties of created things, compared with things that grew - things that grow and develop and evolve and accumulate alterations over time are more complicated and complex, not less complicated and complex, than things created.

An assortment of small sized balls is not complex. Bounce them around in a few million ways and you can get a model. Its not clear why we have recourse to making things that "the universe" doesn't. Remember we are just talking about a model here ... no intricate forces fine tuned over eons to form orbits etc for a fully functioning solar system need enter the equation.

This is a general principle: it's how we tell arrowheads and beads from rocks, beehives and wasp nests and spiderwebs from fungi and debris.

You are talking about the general principle of attributing objects to cultures or communities. Its not clear how you could possibly extend this meagre field of knowledge to something like the solar system.
It seems to be a double standard to say the vast resources of time and space can give us a designerless solar system yet such resources fall short if we are talking about tiny crude models of such things.

 

[Jan Ardena]

In the beginning the Word was not sound. Sound was created by the Word.

What was it, if it wasn't sound?

According to Genesis, anyway.

What? According to Genesis?

But then, you have repeatedly denied claiming that the Abrahamic mono-Deity is your God - so the sequence details are not important. Right?

Why the need to lie?
I don't even comprehend God, in those terms.
Stick to what I say, not what you want need me to say?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

In the beginning was the Big Bang!

A loud noise. So what?
To utter a word, one must make a noise.

After all the Bible does not specify the word itself, does it?

I guess it is a word that is able to makes shapes and form, out of chaos. What is the word that shatters glass?

Strike an anvil and it produces the word "PING", strike a larger object and it produces a "BING" or even a "BANG", but if it is not big enough it cannot produce the word "BONG"...

Very interesting, I'm sure. But moving on.

The subject is the differences between Theism and Atheism

According to Theism "in the beginning was the word". According to Atheism "in the beginning was the Big Bang"

Nonsense.

"Bang" merely describes the loudness of the sound.
God would know exactly how loud the word would need to be, in order to create the desired order.

Atheism denies, and reject God. The popularist atheist have no problem entertaini g the idea that a bang could be produced out a designer nothing, and create the universe.
But not God.

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

A loud noise. So what?
To utter a word, one must make a noise.

Which are waves.

I guess it is a word that is able to makes shapes and form, out of chaos. What is the word that shatters glass?

Yes, the frequency of the waves determine the harmonic vibrations (physical response).
Depends on the frequency that creates a harmonic vibration in the glass, or a suspension bridge

Very interesting, I'm sure. But moving on.

No, we're at the heart of the matter.

Nonsense.

They are both metaphors. Tell me what language was the "Word?

"Bang" merely describes the loudness of the sound.

No it describes the intensity of the wave.

God would know exactly how loud the word would need to be, in order to create the desired order.

No, it is the frequency which determines its harmonic results and the BB created all frequencies except the lowest, but as the universe expands in size the lowest frequencies are flattening to produce lower frequencies.

Atheism denies, and reject God. The popularist atheist have no problem entertaining the idea that a bang could be produced out a designer nothing, and create the universe.
But not God.....Jan.

No you keep insisting that there has to be a motivated intelligence which is the original cause. By Occam's razor, the more plausible scenario is a naturally occurring probabilistic event, given the near infinite dynamic (ringing) space and time scale which eventually and inevitably leads to a mathematically deterministic physical event.
Is our universe ringing like a crystal glass?

http://earthsky.org/space/is-our-universe-ringing-like-a-crystal-glass

What you see above is what you call God. There is nothing outside it that can possibly be called intelligent or motivated and obviously the universe itself is not an intelligent artifact.

However, the universe itself is clearly dynamic...

 

[Michael 345]

in the beginning was the word

god - BOO

But because he had not created anything there was nothing to carry his vocalisations

 

[Write4U]

god - BOO

But because he had not created anything there was nothing to carry his vocalisations

This may be of interest;

If the distance between the air particles is greater than this wavelength, the sound can't bridge the gap and the 'ripples' stop. Therefore, sounds have to have a wide wavelength - which would come across as a low pitch to our ears - in order to make it from one particle to the next out in certain parts of space. Once sounds go below 20 Hz, they become infrasounds, and we can't hear them.

One example noted by Gizmodo is of a black hole, which emanates the lowest note scientists know about so far: it's about 57 octaves below middle C and well below our hearing range (about a million billion times deeper than the sounds we can hear). You'd expect to be able to measure about one oscillation every 10 million years in a black hole sound, whereas our ears stop short with sounds that oscillate 20 times per second.

https://www.sciencealert.com/sound-can-travel-through-space-after-all-but-we-can-t-hear-it

There Is Sound In Space, Thanks To Gravitational Waves

Merging black holes are one class of objects that creates gravitational waves of certain frequencies and amplitudes. Thanks to detectors like LIGO, we can 'hear' these sounds as they occur.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...e-thanks-to-gravitational-waves/#37c9f0e34049

Which might indicate that a black hole either has an astoundingly large surface area, or that its gravity affects the frequency of a sound wave.

 

[billvon]

Atheism denies, and reject God. The popularist atheist have no problem entertaini g the idea that a bang could be produced out a designer nothing, and create the universe.

You do realize that the "big bang" is only a metaphor, and there was no sound, right?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Which are waves.

Soundwaves.

No, it is the frequency which determines its harmonic results and the BB created all frequencies except the lowest, but as the universe expands in size the lowest frequencies are flattening to produce lower frequencies.

Obviously, it's the frequencies that create form, hence the video.
God would know the exact frequency that it would make manifest the material world.

No you keep insisting that there has to be a motivated intelligence which is the original cause.

No. You're insisting that there isn't, because you're in denial of God. To the point where you will acknowledge potential, and mathematics as the origin. That's how I know, you subconsciously know God Is.

By Occam's razor, the more plausible scenario is a naturally occurring probabilistic event, given the near infinite dynamic (ringing) space and time scale which eventually and inevitably leads to a mathematically deterministic physical event.
Is our universe ringing like a crystal glass?

So you think the universe bringing itself into being, doesn't violate Occams Razor?
You're in denial matey.

What you see above is what you call God.

Nope. It's what you call God, so that you don't have to accept God.
Denial, and rejection, matey!

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You do realize that the "big bang" is only a metaphor, and there was no sound, right?

Sorry! I forgot that you were there.

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

So you think the universe bringing itself into being, doesn't violate Occams Razor?
You're in denial matey.

No it doesn't. Self-organization is an established fact in science.

But if you want to propose another additional and extremely complicated prior intelligent and motivated causality, you'll have to provide some evidential proof of how such a being could exist outside the universe, before it formed.

My logic is based on a purely non-sentient metaphysical pseudo-intelligent mathematical function of self-organization and subsequent probabilistic evolutionary processes.
An self-ordering chronology of physical expression in spacetime.

You even provided proof of that yourself in your post #895, where you demonstrated that specific wave frequencies (vibrations) produce specific harmonic responses in physical matter.

We know that cosmic inflation produced the wave function (Bohm's Pilot wave with the mathematical guiding equation) which was causal to harmonic physical expressions.

 

[iceaura]

We make things by putting things together and so does the macro and micro universe.

No, the micro and macro universe does not put things together as we do.

If, so the thinking goes, the universe is doing this on a scale, both grand and minute, with the option of literally an innumerable number of false starts, its not apparent why a solar system is a clear candidate for a designerless origin while the crude model, which is remarkably less sophisticated in scale and interaction, isn't.

We don't see a designer in the universe "doing this" at all, anywhere, except in the limited contexts of living beings acting in their own limited interests.

And we see far greater complexity and sophistication in the universe than would be indicated by construction according to a design.
Instead, we see the kind of complexity we observe - observe, right in front of us - to be a consequence of growth and evolutionary development.

An assortment of small sized balls is not complex.

Sometimes, it is. Especially if it has grown and developed over time.

It not clear on what authority you are establishing the daisy as more complex than the solar system.

Dandelion. Are you claiming otherwise? If not, we can move on.

Meanwhile, you are attempting to argue that the kind of complexity we routinely observe to be a consequence of growth and development, and never observe to be a consequence of design and construction, was in this case obtained by design and construction rather than growth and development. You need a good argument, and plenty of evidence, for such a claim. It's counterintuitive, and there seems to be no reason to put it forward.

What was it, if it wasn't sound?

Not my problem. It wasn't sound, is all I'm saying.

 

[Michael 345]

Which might indicate that a black hole either has an astoundingly large surface area, or that its gravity affects the frequency of a sound wave.

Thanks for the link. Very interesting

Will keep my ears open and if I hear any gravity will let you know

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

And you need to turn down the noise, listen, and observe.

A church is essentially, a building.
Yes, it is for the purpose of worship of Jesus, the son of God. But it doesn't mean it cannot be used for any other type of worship. Even of oneself, or humanity. Worship is worship, whether you worship Jesus, or your children.

Atheists really want to worship God, but for some reason they cannot. So they replace God with anything else.

Heck, not so long ago, they held a Beyonce mass, in the US. Where they worshiped the superstar, and used her lyrics as scripture. It was presided over by a real vicar/priest.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.theweek.co.uk/93733/what-are-atheist-churches?amp

Jan.

///
You are the useless noisemaker, full of sound & fury signifying nothing.
A church is not essentially a building except in your delirious dreamworld.
We cannot want to worship what we do not know exists & neither can you.

<>

 

[Jan Ardena]

No it doesn't. Self-organization is an established fact in science.

Try an experiment. Turn the sound down, on the video I posted, then see if those particles look as though they're organising themselves.
After a while start to turn up the sound, while watching, and realise there is a reason why it looks as though those particles are self-organising.

With regard to the article, the atheist knows the reason, but denies it. While you are an atheist, because you proclaim it, you are not without knowledge (con-science) of the reason, which is the truth. Hence you are essentially not, what you proclaim.

But if you want to propose another additional and extremely complicated prior intelligent and motivated causality, you'll have to provide some evidential proof of how such a being could exist outside the universe, before it formed.

You're the one who is denying God, then objecting when someone does the natural/normal, human thing, and acknowledge God. It's like objecting to the acknowledgement of the painter, or composer.

What is the source of knowledge, and intelligence? Why is it more difficult for you to attribute God, as the source, instead of nothing?

My logic is based on a purely non-sentient metaphysical pseudo-intelligent mathematical function of self-organization and subsequent probabilistic evolutionary processes.
An self-ordering chronology of physical expression in spacetime.

Turn the sound up, and you will realise there is a mover behind the expressions.

jan.

 

[iceaura]

Turn the sound down, on the video I posted, then see if those particles look as though they're organising themselves.

They don't. Of course that may be because I have some familiarity with vibrating and shaking surfaces, and resonance nodes are as visible to me as dust bunnies (another phenomenon produced by that kind of thing).

Turn the sound up, and you will realise there is a mover behind the expressions.

Or look closely at what's happening, and write good descriptions, and cobble together working models, and so forth - as with magnetism and electricity and light and gravity and the nuclear forces and so forth, the invisible will take shape.

With regard to the article, the atheist knows the reason, but denies it. While you are an atheist, because you proclaim it, you are not without knowledge (con-science) of the reason, which is the truth. Hence you are essentially not, what you proclaim.

The OP proclaims a falsehood - it bears false witness against the scientists whose research is described, and misrepresents their discoveries.

That is a relatively unpersuasive approach to describing the intellectual flaws of other people. One wonders at its common and characteristic employment by the theistically inclined.

 

[Write4U]

Try an experiment. Turn the sound down, on the video I posted, then see if those particles look as though they're organising themselves.

In space they do.

After a while start to turn up the sound, while watching, and realise there is a reason why it looks as though those particles are self-organising.

C'mon, are you for real? I just explained why the particles organized in that specific pattern and here you are asking me about self-organization as if I proposed that salt will self-organize all by itself? Actually they do in a weightless environment, such as space.

In your example the vibration of the smooth surface caused by the specific frequency of the sound waves caused the particles to form that specific pattern. Change the frequency and they will form a different specific pattern.
I have several examples in my library.

Are you now going to tell me God is a musician or a mathematician who is creating these harmonics today? Or are you going to tell me that God experimented with wave fuctions in order to create the wave-harmonic functions in the universe?

The astronomer Galileo Galilei observed in 1623 that the entire universe "is written in the language of mathematics", and indeed it is remarkable the extent to which science and society are governed by mathematical ideas. It is perhaps even more surprising that music, with all its passion and emotion, is also based upon mathematical relationships. Such musical notions as octaves, chords, scales, and keys can all be demystified and understood logically using simple mathematics.

https://plus.maths.org/content/magical-mathematics-music

Apparently you missed my link to the NOVA presentation of " The Great Math Mystery".

NARRATOR: In the sixth century B.C.E., the Greek philosopher Pythagoras is said to have discovered that those beautiful musical relationships were also beautiful mathematical relationships by measuring the lengths of the vibrating strings.

In an octave, the string lengths create a ratio of two to one. In a fifth, the ratio is three to two. And in a fourth, it is four to three.

ESPERANZA SPALDING: Seeing a common pattern throughout sound, that could be a big eye-opener of saying, “Well, if this exists in sound, and if it's true universally through all sounds, this ratio could exist universally everywhere, right? And doesn't it?”

NARRATOR: Pythagoreans worshipped the idea of numbers. The fact that simple ratios produced harmonious sounds was proof of a hidden order in the natural world. And that order was made of numbers, a profound insight that mathematicians and scientists continue to explore to this day.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/great-math-mystery.html

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

 

[Jan Ardena]

That's fine. Theism isn't about accept others claims, it is about accepting God.
Atheism is either disbelief, a lack of belief, or a combination of both, in God. Not claims about God.

If you come to the point, where your acceptance is based on being convinced by the claims of another. You disbelieve.
You ignore the natural connection that human beings can make, to God. You deny, and reject it, then pretend that theists must prove God exists, in order for you to accept.

Now you know you can string this out, as long as you want, giving the impression that you have no idea of God, because no one has proven it.

Jan.