32
   

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

 
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2014 11:07 pm
@Herald,
For your further edification:

FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2014 11:11 pm
@Herald,
Quote:
BTW if two points are expanding against each other what happens with the space between them? ... and if the space between two galaxies is expanding all the time in all directions (whatever this might mean) how do they collide at some point of time - for further details see the data from the collision of distant galaxies.


You're aware that objects move through space, right? You're being ambiguous. You start out saying that points in space recede from each other, then switch to objects moving through space colliding. The only problem would be if the points in space themselves collided, which is absurd.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 01:12 am
@FBM,
Quote:
RE: the 'basic consists of a handful of things' and further 'simple principles of the Big Bang cosmology' - on the video
     1. How do you understand that - the Big Bang has it own basics of physical laws (different from the laws of physics as we know them) ... or what - perhaps laws of metaphysics, or dark laws of physics?
     2. 'All the galaxies tend to contract' (from the video) - and how exactly are they contracting when the whole space is expanding 'everywhere'? What happens with the 'expanding space' when a star is engulfed by a black hole? ... and how much is the rate of expansion of the Universe right now (the valid answer is expected to be some number with dimension of cu.m/s)
     3. The distances that you are measuring in light years - you don't know exactly what you are measuring. Let's have the Solar System rotating around the Sagittarius - at a distance of 26 500 light years and the period of rotation 250 million terrestrial years. I am not going to ask how in an universe which is 'expanding to everywhere' the Milky Way & Andromeda will collide in 22 galactic years (x 250 million)? The question is what do you actually see from the objects engulfed by the Sagittarius, at which moment, on which side of what and at what distance you are watching ... and how far from your present position is a given space object right now if the light it has emitted from its position an year ago has been at a distance of 1 light year from your current position in space & time?
     3. BTW this video is made in 2009 and now we are almost the end of 2014 - so the presentations from the lecture there might have changed dramatically ... in the understanding of the world of the lecturer, in the first place. What guarantees do you have that he will present exactly the same 'things' in similar lecture in 2015, for example?
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 01:41 am
@FBM,
Quote:
For your further edification:


This man is an idiot! He also believes in the most stupid physical theory on earth: Relativity!!!

It is a mad mad world.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 01:49 am
@Herald,
1. The current model itself suggests that the presently observable fundamental forces will have been unified into a singular force. Nothing new or surprising or inconsistent there. Not sure how you're squeezing towards metaphysics or what you're referring to by "dark laws." Sounds like something you're pulling out of your mythology.
2. As I said before, objects move through space. Haven't you noticed?
3. 1 light-year = 9.4605284 × 1015 meters http://lmgtfy.com/?q= Again, the universe isn't expanding "into" anything. Your mental model seems to suggest that there's empty space outside the universe into which space-time expands. Until you correct that misunderstanding, you will continue to make egregious errors. Fact is, seems, you simply don't want to understand, because understanding would challenge your feel-good Bronze Age mythology.
3. [sic] I would hope so. Science is, unlike your mythology, subject to new observations.

So anyway, again, why should we accept your first premise, viz that there is a god?
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 02:04 am
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 02:05 am
@FBM,
Quote:
Science is, unlike your mythology, subject to new observations


Really????? I have to laugh! (again!!). Just try to bring some new really good ideas to them!!!


'Science' is idiocy packed in a religious pack!

I know you won't understand this, but it is ALL BOLLOCKS!!!



As I have said befiore, there is, nothing, I repeat nothing, that is here because of 'modern science''!!!




0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 02:07 am
@FBM,
do you really uncritically believe the youtube videos? Tell us why!!
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 02:32 am
Why god, indeed. Since Herod won't answer the question with intellectual honesty, I've had a look around: http://www.humanreligions.info/causes.html#Childhood

Quote:

4.2. Childhood Fantasies

Two of William James lectures on religion from 1901-02 were devoted to tracing the psychology of 'conversion' into a religion. He introduces Dr Starbuck:

Book Cover“Conversion is in its essence a normal adolescent phenomenon, incidental to the passage from the child's small universe to the wider intellectual and spiritual life of maturity. [...] In his recent work on the Psychology of Religion, Professor Starbuck of California [says] "Theology takes the adolescent tendencies and builds upon them; it sees that the essential thing in adolescent growth is bringing the person out of childhood into the new life of maturity and personal insight.”
"The Varieties of Religious Experience"
William James (1902) [Book Review]31
This compares well with the notes of many psychologists on god and religion, including Sigmund Freud: that religious feelings, and adult ideas about religion, are actually childhood fantasies in disguise. Luhrmann describes it in terms of "recreating a childhood world", in order to re-enchant adulthood32
...
4.3. The Fear of Death

Book Cover“It is not rational arguments, but emotions, that cause belief in a future life. The most important of these emotions is fear of death.”
"Why I am not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell (1957)33
Child psychologists say that 'there is no death' in the world of most children. Others in history, such as Freud, have explained that "dealing" with the learned idea of death is one of the greatest challenges of adulthood. Many avoid it by imagining that death is not real. That, in fact, we somehow survive death, despite that the self is the brain, and the brain dies. Many have come to the conclusion that the way religion provides reassurance against the spectre of death is one of the main appeals of religion4.

Many thinkers have theorized on the relationship between religion and death. The ancient Roman philosopher Lucretius (99-55BCE) famously said "Fear was the first thing on Earth to make gods"34. Modern sociologists and anthropologists have also often wondered what causes religion, and what psychological purpose it serves. The anthropologist Bronishaw Malinowski was born in 1884 and in his functionalist book Magic, Science and Religion and Other Essays he argues that religion safeguards us against the fear of death and gives us a sense of power over it35. The astute mind of Einstein also discerned in religion a response to fear of death. Einstein wrote in 1930 that "with primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions - fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death"36.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 02:43 am
@FBM,
What are you really trying to say , mate?!
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 03:01 am
Seems psychologists and psychiatrists have been interested in the question (why god?) I asked Herod for quite a while:

Quote:
Analytic thinking can decrease religious belief: UBC study.

A new University of British Columbia study finds that analytic thinking can decrease religious belief, even in devout believers.

The study, published in the journal Science, finds that thinking analytically increases disbelief among believers and skeptics alike, shedding important new light on the psychology of religious belief.

"Our goal was to explore the fundamental question of why people believe in a God to different degrees," says lead author Will Gervais, a PhD student in UBC's Dept. of Psychology. "A combination of complex factors influence matters of personal spirituality, and these new findings suggest that the cognitive system related to analytic thoughts is one factor that can influence disbelief."

Researchers used problem-solving tasks and subtle experimental priming - including showing participants Rodin's sculpture The Thinker or asking participants to complete questionnaires in hard-to-read fonts - to successfully produce "analytic" thinking. The researchers, who assessed participants' belief levels using a variety of self-reported measures, found that religious belief decreased when participants engaged in analytic tasks, compared to participants who engaged in tasks that did not involve analytic thinking.

The findings, Gervais says, are based on a longstanding human psychology model of two distinct, but related cognitive systems to process information: an "intuitive" system that relies on mental shortcuts to yield fast and efficient responses, and a more "analytic" system that yields more deliberate, reasoned responses.

"Our study builds on previous research that links religious beliefs to 'intuitive' thinking," says study co-author and Associate Prof. Ara Norenzayan, UBC Dept. of Psychology. "Our findings suggest that activating the 'analytic' cognitive system in the brain can undermine the 'intuitive' support for religious belief, at least temporarily."

The study involved more than 650 participants in the U.S. and Canada. Gervais says future studies will explore whether the increase in religious disbelief is temporary or long-lasting, and how the findings apply to non-Western cultures.

Recent figures suggest that the majority of the world's population believes in a God, however atheists and agnostics number in the hundreds of millions, says Norenzayan, a co-director of UBC's Centre for Human Evolution, Cognition and Culture. Religious convictions are shaped by psychological and cultural factors and fluctuate across time and situations, he says.

Keywords: University of British Columbia.

This article was prepared by NewsRx Health & Science editors from staff and other reports. Copyright 2012, NewsRx Health & Science via VerticalNews.com.


The source is a paid research resource, so I can't link you directly, but here's the MLA citation:

"Analytic thinking can decrease religious belief: UBC study." NewsRx Health & Science. NewsRX. 2012.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 03:04 am
again, what is your point?!
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 03:21 am
By the way, Herod, I noticed how you were resorting to "Judge not lest ye be judged" (or trying to) earlier. You people have a lot to answer for:

Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 03:40 am
@FBM,
Bill Maher????????? he works for the elite, dude!
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 05:40 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
1 light-year = 9.4605284 × 1015 meters
     I was not asking that. I asked you about the light from an object at a distance of 1 light year for example that has been emitted 1 year ago from some position of an object in the sky and that has arrived to us in one year - what distance are you actually measuring as you don't even know whether the object hasn't disappeared in-between ... by being engulfed into some black hole, for example. How can you measure a distance between our position and some place that has been there one year ago and you have no idea whether it is existing at present or not? What exactly are you measuring?
     What about the scale of the Universe - you are measuring a distance between an object that has existed 14.7 billion years ago and our location at present, at which the Solar System hasn't even existed some 5 billion years ago? What exactly are you measuring?
FBM wrote:
Again, the universe isn't expanding "into" anything.
     This is even worse than the 11D Hyperspace - you claim that the Universe is expanding into Nothing and has 'created' 3D space out of Nothing? Where is the proof of that?
FBM wrote:
into which space-time expands.
     Why don't you restrain talking about space only. What do you know about time - that with objects nearby some huge mass time runs faster, or what? Do you have any evidence and can you prove that? Can you prove that two identical Cesium clocks, one of them running inside the Great Pyramid, and one of them running on a buoy in the middle of the Pacific will count different elementary periods for one and the same period?
FBM wrote:
Until you correct that misunderstanding, you will continue to make egregious errors.
     As far as I can see you are pretty rigorous with me and too casual with your own misunderstanding of the world. Have you seen the definition of Cosmology: the study of the origin, evolution and fate of the Universe. Why do you think that it is too much different from the Theology: the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and of the nature of religious truths.
     Cosmology assumes by default, axiomatically that the Universe has been created (and has not always existed, for example); that the Universe has been stupid and retard in the beginning - 14.7 billion years ago or so, and that it somehow by means of evolution and natural selection has acquired various life forms and various types of intelligence (what about the case of the Universe having been always intelligent); that without the 'theory' of the Big Bang the Universe is going to Hell.
     If you are so curious to know, the Universe is going to Hell with or without the 'theory' of the Big Bang ... or at least our world for sure. You don't need any cosmological revelations to see that.
     If you haven't noticed there is no room to dispute the dogmas of Cosmology - in terms of which it is outperforming even the Theology.
     What evidences or pieces of evidence you are talking about all the time - at least be a little bit honest and start confessing that you neither know what has happened 14.7 Bya, nor ever be able to get knowing. What Creation, what Evolution, and what Relativity?
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 06:27 am
@Herald,
Quote:
whether the object hasn't disappeared in-between


Observed conservation laws. And it's 13.7 bya.

Quote:
you claim that the Universe is expanding into


Shooting yourself in the foot again, I see. Please pay attention. You're the only one here who's claiming that the universe is expanding into anything. If you could manage to overcome this mental hurdle, you might have a chance at understanding. But you won't, because you don't want to. You're too enamored with your Bronze Age comforts of a cosmic Santa who will bring you comfort on your deathbed. Good luck with that childhood fantasy.

Quote:
Why don't you restrain talking about space only. What do you know about time -


Wtf. I'm the one who brought space-time into this discussion. Whether due to your weak grasp of the English language or on reality, the rest of that response was incomprehesible. You seem to be pulling random words out of Google translate. You're simply not making comprehensible sentences. Please work on that.

Quote:
Cosmology assumes by default, axiomatically that the Universe has been created


No, it doesn't. You and your ilk are the only ones that claim that. You really haven't been paying attention, have you?

Quote:
If you are so curious to know, the Universe is going to Hell with or without the 'theory' of the Big Bang ... or at least our world for sure. You don't need any cosmological revelations to see that.


No, what I need is for you to produce some evidence for this and your other religious, supernatural claims. I've provided buttloads of evidence for the scientific argument, now how about just a sliver of something for your religious claim? Something other than fallacious hand-waving and rhetoric.

Why would any well-educated, rational person choose your god over empirical evidence and necessary inference? Why are you being so evasive and dishonest about my requests for your rationale? Talk straight, son. Show me your god. I've got a telescope; I can show you the universe I see with my own eyes. Scientists tell me that comet PanSTARRS is going to appear at a certain place and a certain time, so I take my telescope and camera out and "lo and behold," there's a comet there:

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/f94a2cb2-79b5-4a9f-9da6-208eb134ca9e.jpg

What has your scripture predicted that can be so easily verified even by an amateur like myself? Nada.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 06:37 am
Seriously. Wow. Damn.

Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 07:10 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
Please pay attention. You're the only one here who's claiming that the universe is expanding into anything.
     ... because this issue has been discussed long time ago with the others. These are all the possibilities: the Universe is expanding into Hyperspace (4D or 11D, or whatever); the Universe is expanding into Nothing (it just creates extra space); and the Universe is expanding into the metaspace (into some dimension of the matter - call it dark matter, call it dark energy, call it as you like) - there is no other option ... like for example 'expanding just so'.
FBM wrote:
the rest of that response was incomprehesible
     It is obvious that everything that does not suit you is incomprehensible - how convenient. Unfortunately it is not me claiming that near huge objects the time runs faster ... it is rather some of your fellow-bigbanists, Einstein or s.th.
FBM wrote:
No, what I need is for you to produce some evidence for this
     What evidence do you need: CO2 is raising along an exponent, headed to infinity (if you understand at all what it means); not to talk about NOx, SO2, dust particles 2.5, 10, etc. - where are they (going), and where are we (headed to)?
     With or without God the resources on the Earth are constrained (incl. the energy resources and the fossil fuels), and the point of exhaustion of some key resource (like for example energy - inability to pump out CO2 into the atmosphere any more) is actually rien ne va plus & game over. Do you understand that or you will need some more subtitles?
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 07:22 am
@Herald,
You're spinning out of control here, dropping random vocabulary to fabricate an illusion that you're scientifically literate.


Why should I or any rational being accept your god hypothesis over scientific evidence?

Why god?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2014 07:28 am
@FBM,
And yet, the first reaction of any normally constituted child to Genesis is one of contempt for God's own immorality and lack of logic... It takes a lot of indoctrination to get them to that point when they accept 2+2=5.
 

Related Topics

Intelligent Design - Question by giujohn
What is Intelligent Design? - Discussion by RexRed
Do *ANY* creationists understand evolution? - Discussion by rosborne979
The Bed Bug/Parasite Plant Theory - Question by TeePee38
dna worlds - Discussion by Syamsu
DD VERSUS EVOLUTION - Discussion by Setanta
The Evil of god - Discussion by giujohn
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 07:29:13