Quantum Physics vs. Religion??

[PoliticalChic]

Lot of good praying to God did that reporter that lost his head last week. I prefer AIM-120 AMRAAM and thousand pounder JDAM missles instead of physics.

"Lot of good praying to God did that reporter that lost his head last week."

And this is related to some post......how?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

PC,

As I've shown you in other threads, the Big Bang Theory ONLY describes what has happened since the expansion of tbe Universe. It does not attempt to describe what happened before that expansion.

There are many cosmologists who are attempting to figure out what was before that expansion, but as of right now there is no consensus and no theory which is far out-competing any others.

In other words, capital 'S' Science does not accept that the Universe came from nothing, but some scientists may favor hypotheses which argue that the Universe may come from nothing.

When it comes to God or any supernatural phenomena, science can not be used to study such things. Its not that scientists are matrialists who WON'T study the supernatural, its that science only works empirically. If you can't put God under a microscope, in an experiment, or have Him participate in a study, then how can you study Him scientifically? If your wide array telescope won't focus on God and you can't get Him into a particle accelerator, then science can't be used to determine whether there is a God, or what any characteristics of said Being may be.

The supernatural are by definition outside of the realm of the natural.

If a scientist leads the evidence to an already made conclusion, that's bad science. If a scientist follows wherever the evidence leads, then she is attempting to maintain objectivity. Which of those does creationism do? Since the ID crowd already believe the Universe was created and there attempts to scientifically prove that are based on agenda, they are doing bad science. If atheist scientists try to prove there is no God, they are also doing bad science.

Try to find any scholarly papers or studies that attempt to disprove God. Post them below to prove me wrong.

Under them, post the papers and studies that try to prove God exists. They are numerous and, unsurprisingly, all written by believers. But none of them are published in scholarly journals or carried out by secular institutions.

Now why would that be? Is it a conspiracy by the atheistic science faculties and editorial boards that control all Science from the top down despite prominent scientists who do important work who believe in God (i.e. Frances Collins).

Or is it because leading the evidence to aforegone conclusion is bad science and can't get funding or published?

Which seems more reasonable?

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC,

As I've shown you in other threads, the Big Bang Theory ONLY describes what has happened since the expansion of tbe Universe. It does not attempt to describe what happened before that expansion.

There are many cosmologists who are attempting to figure out what was before that expansion, but as of right now there is no consensus and no theory which is far out-competing any others.

In other words, capital 'S' Science does not accept that the Universe came from nothing, but some scientists may favor hypotheses which argue that the Universe may come from nothing.

When it comes to God or any supernatural phenomena, science can not be used to study such things. Its not that scientists are matrialists who WON'T study the supernatural, its that science only works empirically. If you can't put God under a microscope, in an experiment, or have Him participate in a study, then how can you study Him scientifically? If your wide array telescope won't focus on God and you can't get Him into a particle accelerator, then science can't be used to determine whether there is a God, or what any characteristics of said Being may be.

The supernatural are by definition outside of the realm of the natural.

If a scientist leads the evidence to an already made conclusion, that's bad science. If a scientist follows wherever the evidence leads, then she is attempting to maintain objectivity. Which of those does creationism do? Since the ID crowd already believe the Universe was created and there attempts to scientifically prove that are based on agenda, they are doing bad science. If atheist scientists try to prove there is no God, they are also doing bad science.

Try to find any scholarly papers or studies that attempt to disprove God. Post them below to prove me wrong.

Under them, post the papers and studies that try to prove God exists. They are numerous and, unsurprisingly, all written by believers. But none of them are published in scholarly journals or carried out by secular institutions.

Now why would that be? Is it a conspiracy by the atheistic science faculties and editorial boards that control all Science from the top down despite prominent scientists who do important work who believe in God (i.e. Frances Collins).

Or is it because leading the evidence to aforegone conclusion is bad science and can't get funding or published?

Which seems more reasonable?

"As I've shown you in other threads,..."

You've shown nothing.



You admit that right here: "...but as of right now there is no consensus...."



Then you go right on disputing yourself: "...capital 'S' Science does not accept that the Universe...."
If there is no consensus, there is no 'capital 'S' Science.
Logic isn't your strong point, is it.



"....Its not that scientists are matrialists (sic)..."
Atheists are....Marxists are....I've given quotes from same who admit the very opposite of what you write.

You appear nothing so much as a mass of hot air.




"...prove me wrong."
Why?

You've already proven you wrong.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

PC,

As I've shown you in other threads, the Big Bang Theory ONLY describes what has happened since the expansion of tbe Universe. It does not attempt to describe what happened before that expansion.

There are many cosmologists who are attempting to figure out what was before that expansion, but as of right now there is no consensus and no theory which is far out-competing any others.

In other words, capital 'S' Science does not accept that the Universe came from nothing, but some scientists may favor hypotheses which argue that the Universe may come from nothing.

When it comes to God or any supernatural phenomena, science can not be used to study such things. Its not that scientists are matrialists who WON'T study the supernatural, its that science only works empirically. If you can't put God under a microscope, in an experiment, or have Him participate in a study, then how can you study Him scientifically? If your wide array telescope won't focus on God and you can't get Him into a particle accelerator, then science can't be used to determine whether there is a God, or what any characteristics of said Being may be.

The supernatural are by definition outside of the realm of the natural.

If a scientist leads the evidence to an already made conclusion, that's bad science. If a scientist follows wherever the evidence leads, then she is attempting to maintain objectivity. Which of those does creationism do? Since the ID crowd already believe the Universe was created and there attempts to scientifically prove that are based on agenda, they are doing bad science. If atheist scientists try to prove there is no God, they are also doing bad science.

Try to find any scholarly papers or studies that attempt to disprove God. Post them below to prove me wrong.

Under them, post the papers and studies that try to prove God exists. They are numerous and, unsurprisingly, all written by believers. But none of them are published in scholarly journals or carried out by secular institutions.

Now why would that be? Is it a conspiracy by the atheistic science faculties and editorial boards that control all Science from the top down despite prominent scientists who do important work who believe in God (i.e. Frances Collins).

Or is it because leading the evidence to aforegone conclusion is bad science and can't get funding or published?

Which seems more reasonable?

"As I've shown you in other threads,..."

You've shown nothing.



You admit that right here: "...but as of right now there is no consensus...."



Then you go right on disputing yourself: "...capital 'S' Science does not accept that the Universe...."
If there is no consensus, there is no 'capital 'S' Science.
Logic isn't your strong point, is it.



"....Its not that scientists are matrialists (sic)..."
Atheists are....Marxists are....I've given quotes from same who admit the very opposite of what you write.

You appear nothing so much as a mass of hot air.




"...prove me wrong."
Why?

You've already proven you wrong.

That wasn't even close to a real response, but I understand: you just don't have one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC,

As I've shown you in other threads, the Big Bang Theory ONLY describes what has happened since the expansion of tbe Universe. It does not attempt to describe what happened before that expansion.

There are many cosmologists who are attempting to figure out what was before that expansion, but as of right now there is no consensus and no theory which is far out-competing any others.

In other words, capital 'S' Science does not accept that the Universe came from nothing, but some scientists may favor hypotheses which argue that the Universe may come from nothing.

When it comes to God or any supernatural phenomena, science can not be used to study such things. Its not that scientists are matrialists who WON'T study the supernatural, its that science only works empirically. If you can't put God under a microscope, in an experiment, or have Him participate in a study, then how can you study Him scientifically? If your wide array telescope won't focus on God and you can't get Him into a particle accelerator, then science can't be used to determine whether there is a God, or what any characteristics of said Being may be.

The supernatural are by definition outside of the realm of the natural.

If a scientist leads the evidence to an already made conclusion, that's bad science. If a scientist follows wherever the evidence leads, then she is attempting to maintain objectivity. Which of those does creationism do? Since the ID crowd already believe the Universe was created and there attempts to scientifically prove that are based on agenda, they are doing bad science. If atheist scientists try to prove there is no God, they are also doing bad science.

Try to find any scholarly papers or studies that attempt to disprove God. Post them below to prove me wrong.

Under them, post the papers and studies that try to prove God exists. They are numerous and, unsurprisingly, all written by believers. But none of them are published in scholarly journals or carried out by secular institutions.

Now why would that be? Is it a conspiracy by the atheistic science faculties and editorial boards that control all Science from the top down despite prominent scientists who do important work who believe in God (i.e. Frances Collins).

Or is it because leading the evidence to aforegone conclusion is bad science and can't get funding or published?

Which seems more reasonable?

"As I've shown you in other threads,..."

You've shown nothing.



You admit that right here: "...but as of right now there is no consensus...."



Then you go right on disputing yourself: "...capital 'S' Science does not accept that the Universe...."
If there is no consensus, there is no 'capital 'S' Science.
Logic isn't your strong point, is it.



"....Its not that scientists are matrialists (sic)..."
Atheists are....Marxists are....I've given quotes from same who admit the very opposite of what you write.

You appear nothing so much as a mass of hot air.




"...prove me wrong."
Why?

You've already proven you wrong.

That wasn't even close to a real response, but I understand: you just don't have one.

"... but I understand..."

No you don't.


Your farrago of a word salad,disputing with yourself, requires sympathy...not a reply.

 

[konradv]

That wasn't even close to a real response, but I understand: you just don't have one.

But it is the closest you're going to get to an admission that you've won the argument. Congrats!

 

[konradv]

Your farrago of a word salad,disputing with yourself, requires sympathy...not a reply.

I must admit, if there's anyone that understands that method of argument, baffle 'em with bullshit, it's you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That wasn't even close to a real response, but I understand: you just don't have one.

But it is the closest you're going to get to an admission that you've won the argument. Congrats!

Focus like a laser, and try to come up with an answer to this: exactly what argument do you imagine has been won?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your farrago of a word salad,disputing with yourself, requires sympathy...not a reply.

I must admit, if there's anyone that understands that method of argument, baffle 'em with bullshit, it's you.

Acquisition of either an education or a diction would go far in clearing up your confusion.

 

[Hollie]

Your farrago of a word salad,disputing with yourself, requires sympathy...not a reply.

I must admit, if there's anyone that understands that method of argument, baffle 'em with bullshit, it's you.

It is a consistent patter of behavior. Every thread PC opens is an exercise in drenching the forum in cut and paste "quotes".

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Your farrago of a word salad,disputing with yourself, requires sympathy...not a reply.

I must admit, if there's anyone that understands that method of argument, baffle 'em with bullshit, it's you.

It is a consistent patter of behavior. Every thread PC opens is an exercise in drenching the forum in cut and paste "quotes".

It's as if she believes she starts threads for argument and conversation, but in reality it's just PC attempting to convince herself.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your farrago of a word salad,disputing with yourself, requires sympathy...not a reply.

I must admit, if there's anyone that understands that method of argument, baffle 'em with bullshit, it's you.

It is a consistent patter of behavior. Every thread PC opens is an exercise in drenching the forum in cut and paste "quotes".

It's as if she believes she starts threads for argument and conversation, but in reality it's just PC attempting to convince herself.

My fav posts by opposition are those which any reader can immediately see are patently false.

That's why I love it when you and Hollie post.

 

[Hollie]

That wasn't even close to a real response, but I understand: you just don't have one.

But it is the closest you're going to get to an admission that you've won the argument. Congrats!

Focus like a laser, and try to come up with an answer to this: exactly what argument do you imagine has been won?

The one you lost. This was just another thread of silly "quotes" which is no different than the other threads of silly "quotes" you spam the board with.

You and Gismo share many common attributes, and probably the same IP address.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That wasn't even close to a real response, but I understand: you just don't have one.

But it is the closest you're going to get to an admission that you've won the argument. Congrats!

Focus like a laser, and try to come up with an answer to this: exactly what argument do you imagine has been won?

The one you lost. This was just another thread of silly "quotes" which is no different than the other threads of silly "quotes" you spam the board with.

You and Gismo share many common attributes, and probably the same IP address.

Great!

Another non-post!


Don't ever change.

 

[indiajo]

I was heading that way----we tend to be linear thinkers when it comes to time. I think it's a mistake but right now it's the best our little beaners can do.

The understanding of the Big Bang is that there was nothing before it....not even time!

No. The unerstanding of the Big Bang is: it makes no sense to talk about "before" because time only came into existance with it. So there is no "before".

The point is, this amateurish interpretaions are already again religious. Because we don't know.
We try to find out, but we started to find out about basic chemistry, atoms, and subsequently the layers below that just since about 250 years ago.
What the hell do you expect? To find the perfect explanation of everything next week in Vanity Fair?

All questions for which the answers are "understandable" by our brains made to survive in forests and plain fields are settled by physics.
The open questions cannot be grasped by our physical senses, actually they are mostly observations that contradict our senses and can be explaíned only by math. Pretty advanced math, by the way.

One of the most problematic thing is that out languages have a severe lack of terms to describe all the things to talk about in quantum physics. For example: what the fuck is a field? A field is an exchange of particles. Which are no particles because they have no mass. Whereas mass itself is not existant, it is only a special form of energy, which itself is again an exchange of particles that are no particles..............

Do you understand why I rarely participate in dicussions with no brainers about quantum physics and the universe? It's like talking to puppies. The responses are always: "wuff".

 

[Abishai100]

Magneto (Marvel Comics): Physics Pulp


The comic book character Magneto (Marvel Comics) is a super-mutant who can manipulate the forces of magnetism and control heavy metal objects by distorting magnetic fields to his advantage.

Magneto is popular with youngsters and comic book fans and has been portrayed in several Hollywood (USA) movies such as "X-Men" (2000).

Certainly there must be some tangible connection between constructive physics and lunchbox graffiti (or 'folkloric religion').







Magneto