And which religion is based on advanced mathematics?
You've already rejected a proven Law of physics on the opinion of an astronomer, so God herself could tell you that you are wrong and you would reject it.
Like I said earlier in this thread, I truly wish you whackos can get science legally established as a religion so that I, as a physicist, can get the same special tax privileges the lesser religions get.
Now, now, Beets....try to be more accurate. It was a physicist who explained that the laws of physics fall apart at the singularity.
I hope this doesn't mean that your are giving up!!
If the Big Bang has proven too great a burden for you...how about this:
1. In Genesis 1:3, the Old Testament records that God said: Let there be light.” This presents a problem for the theologist, since the sun, moon, and stars were not made until the fourth day (1:14-16)… what was the nature of the ‘light’ mentioned in verse 3?
2. What a coincidence, we have the fullest of understanding of the nature of light from the science community….In his Opticks (1704), Newton argued that light was made up of tiny particles. Slightly earlier, the Dutch physicist Christiaan Huygens wrote a Treatise on light, in which he proposed that light was a wave. It was only in 1789 that Thomas Young proposed a simple experiment that appeared to resolve the controversy by showing that light indeed behaves as a wave. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~phys1/labs/lab2.pdf
3. In 1905, Albert Einstein provided an explanation of the photoelectric effect, a hitherto troubling experiment that the wave theory of light seemed incapable of explaining. He did so by postulating the existence of photons, quanta of light energy with particulate qualities. Wave
4. Luckily…Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger and Born finessed the problem by declaring ‘Young vs. Einstein’ a draw. Light is both like a wave and like a particle, this on the level of individual photons themselves! The wave, it seems can pass through two slits, as waves do…but to attest to a single particle may divide in the same way, requires…let’s call it an element of belief! Either that or legerdemain!
5. The mystery will not appear entirely unfamiliar to Christians persuaded of the threefold aspect of the deity: if light is a particle and a wave, religious observes might observe, God is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost. Need I say that this is an analogy that has not captured the allegiance of scientific atheists.
a.As physicist John Bell observed: “o long as the wave packet reduction is an essential component, and so long as we do not know exactly when and how it takes over from the Schrödinger equation, we do not have an exact and unambiguous formulation of our most fundamental physical theory.” http://faculty.washington.edu/afine/MSdraft.pdf
So, to review....there are mysteries in science analogous to those in religion, that are solved simply by...
...faith.
Wanna take a crack at that one, Beets?
(Mini is busy excusing his inadequasies.....but he'll be back).
Aren't you just proving yourself to be just another typical Intellectually dishonest superstitious retard?
Aren't you just proving yourself to be just another typical Intellectually dishonest superstitious retard?
There's a difference PoliticalChic, between what you think is happening, and what is really happening; this is it:
(Figure it out for yourself)NOTE: In both cases you nothing you're doing makes your point or leads to the conclusion you have "spanked" anybody.
Let's just examine in detail the "spanking" you have administered:
My opening response to your OP has not beeen refuted in any intellectually honest manner; each of your lame attempts are chroncled below:
Your first response is a failed attempt to demonstrate how science is baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence by asserting "absurdities" that scientists must accept as conclusions.As it turns out, the reality of this "effectiveness" is that you have been exposed as an intellectually dishonest retard, and have yourself been spanked numerous times during that exposition.
First, this proves to be an entirely meaningless quote-mining expedition expedition that fails in every way to demonstrate the assertion you advance that scientists (or militant atheists even) must accept any absurdities.
Secondly, you fail in every way to demonstrate that even these "absurdities" are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
Finally, you opened the door for me to provide the following examples of "absurd" beliefs held in faith by the superstitious:Examples that all share in common equal intellectual (and moral, BTW) value.
- If you step on a crack, you'll break your mother's back.
- There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
- When confronted by the disobedience of the beings He created in His own image, the ONLY solution available to this omniscient, omnipotent, and loving Creator was to cover the entire Earth with water, bringing ALL life to the brink of extinction, murdering infants as well as killing kittens and puppies in the process.
Clearly, you got "spanked" here.
In your next response to me, you post a series of denials of reality. As a result, I am obligated to deliver another spanking as I point out to you that,
- when you submit a quote to support your point, you are responsible for its content--particularly that content that is submitted to support your point;
- that the full content of the quote you mined, appropriately within its proper context, spoke less to the absurdities appurtenant to science and more to those appurtenant to superstitions;
- that "propositions without a great deal of evidence" enjoy some attenuation of absurdity that the absurdities of the superstitious will never enjoy, because superstitions cannot be redeemed from faith's absurd proposition that "earnestly believed inventions of one's imagination" are really "some(objectively real)things" that explain everything;
- that in failing to demonstrate any significant differences in the absurdity of the three examples of superstitious assertions I submitted, there is no basis for your conclusion that my position has been weakened by submitting them.
Then you earn your third spanking when you essentially ignore the fact that your intellectually dishonest tactics are transparent. You engage in more quote-mining to salvage your position; requiring me to point out to you:
- that evidence is not the exact same thing as absolute proof,
- and that you are going to continue to be entirely wrong a long as you are going to demand that the unproven assertions of science are assertions baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; hence assertions of faith.
Having had your ass unambiguously handed to you, you change from misrepresenting experts to bearing false witness. You, of course, fail to get away it without another spanking.
So your next move is to manufacture from nothing this notion that I am adopting a "fake angry tone" to cover the "insecurity" you imagine I am experiencing. Furthermore, in your imagination, I have declared myself some kind of intellectual, and you find it necessary to express your disappointment that as an intellectual I express myself with insufficientclarity and effectiveness when it's obvious that even the repeated application of unambiguous and precise terminology (or spankings) cannot bring any point to your limited awareness.
You then affirm your stolidly held dumb by refusing to acknowledge the actual definition of the terms you use in favor of those you have assigned to them in your imaginary world, where you are the sole and supreme judge of the validity of all things. Not that anyone should expect it to impact your impenetrable stupidity, but I expose your retarded folly and spank you once again.
As a bonus, you bring Aquinas to bear, just so I could spank you by exposing your special pleading.
You then make this special effort to spank yourself as you quote-mine scientists discussing what the evidence of the Big-Bang says about specific characteristics of the Big-bang, to disprove there's evidence of the Big-Bang; I pointed that out to you.
Apparently you found your self-flagellation uninteresting, so you made sure it could only be recognized as a complete failure by repeating it, bolding it, and then declaring that scientists discussing what the evidence of the Big-Bang says about specific characteristics of the Big-bang, disproves there's evidence of the Big-Bang.
And you went on to insure that I had plenty of spanking material to work with as I pointed out your transparent conflation of the terms "evidence" and "proof."
Meanwhile, you thought your continued quote-mining would continue without further spankings.
Having been so thoroughly spanked, you become an intellectual kamikaze with this broad denial of verifiable reality.
It's worth noting again here, that it might seem that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between what "proof" means, and what "evidence" means; yet the transparently purposeful way you mendaciously conflate the terms to create the illusion that you have demonstrated ANY ERROR WHAT-SO-EVER in my response to you, speaks to your full understanding of the difference between the terms and your lack of intellectual integrity and honesty.
If you wish to avoid getting spanked, over and over and over again, one thing you might keep in mind is that I don't conflate the terms "evidence" and "proof", and I'm always vigilant for the practice in the presence of intellectually dishonest retards cut from superstitious cloth, like yourself.
You then seem to regain your composure, and attempt to restore some of your thoroughly busted self-esteem, only to get spanked yet again.
You then grasp at the opportunity to appear clever, yet it's another spanking you're rewarded with.
You attempt to be clever again; and again, SPANKED!
Which brings us to where denial of reality has caused you to declare in a fit of retarded hubris "... the efficacy of the spanking [you] administered...".
While you're looking up the definition of the word "hubris", let me leave you with these thoughts; although science ideally seeks absolute certainty or "proof", scientists never really claim absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. Science does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of absolute certainty as religion does. You may attempt to argue the status of humility in knowledge among the faithful, but you would be the very first I have encountered or ever heard of that asserts ANY uncertainty in the existence of their "God" thing, or any of the various powers He has or the deeds he has performed; these are the unquestioned foundations that the faithful evaluate every argument and evidence from, and it is intellectual hubris.
Science allows for the existence of a creator who is responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived conclusions asserted as fast of reality on faith. In so far as you practice this kind of certainty, this certainty you have is intellectual hubris.
This is why the superstitious, like you and koshergrl here, are always demanding that we "prove" you wrong, and why you are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our beliefs and assertion regarding reality. Denying evidence is like breathing air, and no more difficult for you retards; but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof of our assertions" then we would have finally brought a REAL test of your faith--if you manage to maintain you retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but your delusional imagination, then you would "know"--you would finally have that certainty in yourselves that you have in your magical imaginary friends--that you can now finally claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over your fellows. You seek to validate you intellectual and moral hubris.
No evidence OR proof was required from you to hold your belief, yet you demand "proof" invalidating you beliefs as if should be considered valid in the first place. This is definitely your intellectual hubris in action. So, in the end, evidence, proof, valid logic, are all meaningless terms to you. It's just a better, and more useful expenditure of my time to expose you for the intellectually dishonest superstitious retard that you are; to point out vividly you intellectual and moral cretinism to children and those with childish intellects so your vain, mendacious, anti-reason, reality-denying hubris doesn't spread and kill every hope for a decent, thoughtful, just, and peaceful world.
I replied to your OP saying that, "... the scientific community doesn't consider faith to be a valid source of conclusions, and as such doesn't concern itself with superstition."
This is because there is no reason what-so-ever that any human being must hold a conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established. Hence, there is no reason what-so-ever that any scientist must hold a conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established.
Beliefs consistent with reality that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, are far superior to beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic--in so far as those beliefs are to be usefully applied to reality. In the "reality" of leprechauns, unicorns, and flying reindeer, there's no reasonable argument against the existence of an invisible white father who lives in the sky.
The reason there's no reasonable argument against your "Creator" in your imagination, is that there's nothing necessarily rational about your imagination, or any imaginary world where existence could be created. However in an objective reality, where reality is NOT contingent upon perception, your faith does not magically create real things--the actually real things, and the immutable laws of an objective existence are the validating criteria of rational beliefs and those who hold them.
So I will now close with the unrefuted reply I made to your OP:
Valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence available actually offers the "slightest reason to think" "that we are merely cosmic accidents." As unsatisfying and thin as such evidence may be, the conclusion drawn from it as such cannot be an article of faith.
OTOH, it IS an article of faith to assert some superstition as a valid alternative.
I think the underlying point here is that the scientific community doesn't consider faith to be a valid source of conclusions, and as such doesn't concern itself with superstition.
Non-Sequitur.Aren't you just proving yourself to be just another typical Intellectually dishonest superstitious retard?
There's a difference PoliticalChic, between what you think is happening, and what is really happening; this is it:
(Figure it out for yourself)NOTE: In both cases you nothing you're doing makes your point or leads to the conclusion you have "spanked" anybody.
Let's just examine in detail the "spanking" you have administered:
My opening response to your OP has not beeen refuted in any intellectually honest manner; each of your lame attempts are chroncled below:
Your first response is a failed attempt to demonstrate how science is baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence by asserting "absurdities" that scientists must accept as conclusions.As it turns out, the reality of this "effectiveness" is that you have been exposed as an intellectually dishonest retard, and have yourself been spanked numerous times during that exposition.
First, this proves to be an entirely meaningless quote-mining expedition expedition that fails in every way to demonstrate the assertion you advance that scientists (or militant atheists even) must accept any absurdities.
Secondly, you fail in every way to demonstrate that even these "absurdities" are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
Finally, you opened the door for me to provide the following examples of "absurd" beliefs held in faith by the superstitious:Examples that all share in common equal intellectual (and moral, BTW) value.
- If you step on a crack, you'll break your mother's back.
- There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
- When confronted by the disobedience of the beings He created in His own image, the ONLY solution available to this omniscient, omnipotent, and loving Creator was to cover the entire Earth with water, bringing ALL life to the brink of extinction, murdering infants as well as killing kittens and puppies in the process.
Clearly, you got "spanked" here.
In your next response to me, you post a series of denials of reality. As a result, I am obligated to deliver another spanking as I point out to you that,
- when you submit a quote to support your point, you are responsible for its content--particularly that content that is submitted to support your point;
- that the full content of the quote you mined, appropriately within its proper context, spoke less to the absurdities appurtenant to science and more to those appurtenant to superstitions;
- that "propositions without a great deal of evidence" enjoy some attenuation of absurdity that the absurdities of the superstitious will never enjoy, because superstitions cannot be redeemed from faith's absurd proposition that "earnestly believed inventions of one's imagination" are really "some(objectively real)things" that explain everything;
- that in failing to demonstrate any significant differences in the absurdity of the three examples of superstitious assertions I submitted, there is no basis for your conclusion that my position has been weakened by submitting them.
Then you earn your third spanking when you essentially ignore the fact that your intellectually dishonest tactics are transparent. You engage in more quote-mining to salvage your position; requiring me to point out to you:
- that evidence is not the exact same thing as absolute proof,
- and that you are going to continue to be entirely wrong a long as you are going to demand that the unproven assertions of science are assertions baseless in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; hence assertions of faith.
Having had your ass unambiguously handed to you, you change from misrepresenting experts to bearing false witness. You, of course, fail to get away it without another spanking.
So your next move is to manufacture from nothing this notion that I am adopting a "fake angry tone" to cover the "insecurity" you imagine I am experiencing. Furthermore, in your imagination, I have declared myself some kind of intellectual, and you find it necessary to express your disappointment that as an intellectual I express myself with insufficientclarity and effectiveness when it's obvious that even the repeated application of unambiguous and precise terminology (or spankings) cannot bring any point to your limited awareness.
You then affirm your stolidly held dumb by refusing to acknowledge the actual definition of the terms you use in favor of those you have assigned to them in your imaginary world, where you are the sole and supreme judge of the validity of all things. Not that anyone should expect it to impact your impenetrable stupidity, but I expose your retarded folly and spank you once again.
As a bonus, you bring Aquinas to bear, just so I could spank you by exposing your special pleading.
You then make this special effort to spank yourself as you quote-mine scientists discussing what the evidence of the Big-Bang says about specific characteristics of the Big-bang, to disprove there's evidence of the Big-Bang; I pointed that out to you.
Apparently you found your self-flagellation uninteresting, so you made sure it could only be recognized as a complete failure by repeating it, bolding it, and then declaring that scientists discussing what the evidence of the Big-Bang says about specific characteristics of the Big-bang, disproves there's evidence of the Big-Bang.
And you went on to insure that I had plenty of spanking material to work with as I pointed out your transparent conflation of the terms "evidence" and "proof."
Meanwhile, you thought your continued quote-mining would continue without further spankings.
Having been so thoroughly spanked, you become an intellectual kamikaze with this broad denial of verifiable reality.
It's worth noting again here, that it might seem that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between what "proof" means, and what "evidence" means; yet the transparently purposeful way you mendaciously conflate the terms to create the illusion that you have demonstrated ANY ERROR WHAT-SO-EVER in my response to you, speaks to your full understanding of the difference between the terms and your lack of intellectual integrity and honesty.
If you wish to avoid getting spanked, over and over and over again, one thing you might keep in mind is that I don't conflate the terms "evidence" and "proof", and I'm always vigilant for the practice in the presence of intellectually dishonest retards cut from superstitious cloth, like yourself.
You then seem to regain your composure, and attempt to restore some of your thoroughly busted self-esteem, only to get spanked yet again.
You then grasp at the opportunity to appear clever, yet it's another spanking you're rewarded with.
You attempt to be clever again; and again, SPANKED!
Which brings us to where denial of reality has caused you to declare in a fit of retarded hubris "... the efficacy of the spanking [you] administered...".
While you're looking up the definition of the word "hubris", let me leave you with these thoughts; although science ideally seeks absolute certainty or "proof", scientists never really claim absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. Science does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of absolute certainty as religion does. You may attempt to argue the status of humility in knowledge among the faithful, but you would be the very first I have encountered or ever heard of that asserts ANY uncertainty in the existence of their "God" thing, or any of the various powers He has or the deeds he has performed; these are the unquestioned foundations that the faithful evaluate every argument and evidence from, and it is intellectual hubris.
Science allows for the existence of a creator who is responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived conclusions asserted as fast of reality on faith. In so far as you practice this kind of certainty, this certainty you have is intellectual hubris.
This is why the superstitious, like you and koshergrl here, are always demanding that we "prove" you wrong, and why you are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our beliefs and assertion regarding reality. Denying evidence is like breathing air, and no more difficult for you retards; but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof of our assertions" then we would have finally brought a REAL test of your faith--if you manage to maintain you retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but your delusional imagination, then you would "know"--you would finally have that certainty in yourselves that you have in your magical imaginary friends--that you can now finally claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over your fellows. You seek to validate you intellectual and moral hubris.
No evidence OR proof was required from you to hold your belief, yet you demand "proof" invalidating you beliefs as if should be considered valid in the first place. This is definitely your intellectual hubris in action. So, in the end, evidence, proof, valid logic, are all meaningless terms to you. It's just a better, and more useful expenditure of my time to expose you for the intellectually dishonest superstitious retard that you are; to point out vividly you intellectual and moral cretinism to children and those with childish intellects so your vain, mendacious, anti-reason, reality-denying hubris doesn't spread and kill every hope for a decent, thoughtful, just, and peaceful world.
I replied to your OP saying that, "... the scientific community doesn't consider faith to be a valid source of conclusions, and as such doesn't concern itself with superstition."
This is because there is no reason what-so-ever that any human being must hold a conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established. Hence, there is no reason what-so-ever that any scientist must hold a conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established.
Beliefs consistent with reality that are validated by evidence in reality and valid logic, are far superior to beliefs validated by the strength of one's denial of evidence and denial of valid logic--in so far as those beliefs are to be usefully applied to reality. In the "reality" of leprechauns, unicorns, and flying reindeer, there's no reasonable argument against the existence of an invisible white father who lives in the sky.
The reason there's no reasonable argument against your "Creator" in your imagination, is that there's nothing necessarily rational about your imagination, or any imaginary world where existence could be created. However in an objective reality, where reality is NOT contingent upon perception, your faith does not magically create real things--the actually real things, and the immutable laws of an objective existence are the validating criteria of rational beliefs and those who hold them.
So I will now close with the unrefuted reply I made to your OP:
Valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence available actually offers the "slightest reason to think" "that we are merely cosmic accidents." As unsatisfying and thin as such evidence may be, the conclusion drawn from it as such cannot be an article of faith.
OTOH, it IS an article of faith to assert some superstition as a valid alternative.
I think the underlying point here is that the scientific community doesn't consider faith to be a valid source of conclusions, and as such doesn't concern itself with superstition.
Half of your posts could be obviated simply by removing "intellectual" and "dishonest," which have no bearing, and serve only as your attempt to stroke your needy ego.
You possess the hubris of believing you're absolutely right validated solely by your absolute conviction of certainty that you are absolutely right.
Same thing.
I don't have a "ploy," but what is working, is working perfectly.
Really?
... and since your use of quotation has been proven to unambiguously out of context, ...
... your objection to the term appears to be yet another one of your desperate denials of verifiable reality.
Yes. Let's do that.
Really?
And with religion, you can apply it universally.
Nope. It sounds like you're making up some crap though.
Only in your superstitious imagination.
The religious don't speculate; they are certain. They are certain that this "God" thing of theirs is real; they are certain of His powers; they are certain of His deeds.
The doctrines of religious belief and the doctrines of quantum cosmology are entirely different in that quantum cosmology remains established in verifiable evidence (even if woefully scant) and remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence.
So you say. But the end game, the actual crux of the biscuit is that science understands FULLY that Quantum Cosmology is speculative. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unqualified certainty. EVERY SINGLE CLAIM made by scientists in the field of Quantum Cosmology remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence.
You'd really think you would link to one of them if you could.
Correction, "is not, is not, and here's why and here's a link demonstrating it."
ENJOY!
And it all would be unnecessary if people like you weren't so stupid.
TRANSLATION:
And your usual pathological projection.
