Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Lean not on your own understanding...

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 12:22:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just because you can create a model, a mathematical formula, an ideology that is self establishing or coherent..

Just because you can think of ways a universe is crafted without God by injecting a material called Dark Energy..

Just because you can imagine a way life emerges from non living material based on physical laws but astronomical odds..

Just because it is coherent in your head, does not mean it is how this universe works.

The truth will always be found in the examination of this universe and reality.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 12:50:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 12:22:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Just because you can create a model, a mathematical formula, an ideology that is self establishing or coherent..

Just because you can think of ways a universe is crafted without God by injecting a material called Dark Energy..

Just because you can imagine a way life emerges from non living material based on physical laws but astronomical odds..

Just because it is coherent in your head, does not mean it is how this universe works.

The truth will always be found in the examination of this universe and reality.

Yes, instead we should 'lean on the lord', pffft. I'll do that if/when you can prove the Christian god exists without me having to jump through hoops. Until then, I will lean on the best possible explanation that does not require ancient beliefs of fantastic tall tales.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 12:59:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 12:22:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Just because you can create a model, a mathematical formula, an ideology that is self establishing or coherent..

Just because you can think of ways a universe is crafted without God by injecting a material called Dark Energy..

Just because you can imagine a way life emerges from non living material based on physical laws but astronomical odds..

Just because it is coherent in your head, does not mean it is how this universe works.

The truth will always be found in the examination of this universe and reality.

Does "Lean not on your own understanding"mean don't think for yourself and don't rely on your own logic?
Whose understanding should people "lean on" if they should not "lean on" their own?
It would be sheer stupidity to lean on someone elses understanding if all who understand anything should not even lean on their own understanding. Why rely on someone who does not rely on themselves?
It would also be sheer stupidity to lean on any invisible characters understanding when you can't even see or hear them in reality.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 1:12:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 12:50:20 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/18/2014 12:22:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Just because you can create a model, a mathematical formula, an ideology that is self establishing or coherent..

Just because you can think of ways a universe is crafted without God by injecting a material called Dark Energy..

Just because you can imagine a way life emerges from non living material based on physical laws but astronomical odds..

Just because it is coherent in your head, does not mean it is how this universe works.

The truth will always be found in the examination of this universe and reality.

Yes, instead we should 'lean on the lord', pffft. I'll do that if/when you can prove the Christian god exists without me having to jump through hoops. Until then, I will lean on the best possible explanation that does not require ancient beliefs of fantastic tall tales.

Do you apply this to all your held thoughts?

Dark energy? real or not?
Abiogenesis? real or not?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 1:16:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 12:59:27 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 12:22:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Just because you can create a model, a mathematical formula, an ideology that is self establishing or coherent..

Just because you can think of ways a universe is crafted without God by injecting a material called Dark Energy..

Just because you can imagine a way life emerges from non living material based on physical laws but astronomical odds..

Just because it is coherent in your head, does not mean it is how this universe works.

The truth will always be found in the examination of this universe and reality.

Does "Lean not on your own understanding"mean don't think for yourself and don't rely on your own logic?

No that's not what it means.

Whose understanding should people "lean on" if they should not "lean on" their own?

Look for understanding in the facts of this world. Rely on observations and real world experiments more than crafted simulations and mental constructions.

It would be sheer stupidity to lean on someone elses understanding if all who understand anything should not even lean on their own understanding. Why rely on someone who does not rely on themselves?

Because if they rely on reality they probably are not self induced delusional.

It would also be sheer stupidity to lean on any invisible characters understanding when you can't even see or hear them in reality.

I do not know how to speak English with you.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 1:24:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 1:16:03 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 12:59:27 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 12:22:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Just because you can create a model, a mathematical formula, an ideology that is self establishing or coherent..

Just because you can think of ways a universe is crafted without God by injecting a material called Dark Energy..

Just because you can imagine a way life emerges from non living material based on physical laws but astronomical odds..

Just because it is coherent in your head, does not mean it is how this universe works.

The truth will always be found in the examination of this universe and reality.

Does "Lean not on your own understanding"mean don't think for yourself and don't rely on your own logic?

No that's not what it means.

Whose understanding should people "lean on" if they should not "lean on" their own?

Look for understanding in the facts of this world. Rely on observations and real world experiments more than crafted simulations and mental constructions.

One still need to rely on their own logic and common sense to understand their own observations and decide whether they are observing facts or observing an illusion of facts.

It would be sheer stupidity to lean on someone elses understanding if all who understand anything should not even lean on their own understanding. Why rely on someone who does not rely on themselves?

Because if they rely on reality they probably are not self induced delusional.

Most seem to deny reality and reject it when it comes to past history. Just look at the thread Life comes from life and see how many deny it has always done what it can be observed to do in reality. Are they delusional for believing life evolved from space dust or are those who believe life has always come from life delusional?

It would also be sheer stupidity to lean on any invisible characters understanding when you can't even see or hear them in reality.

I do not know how to speak English with you.
That's a shame. Maybe you should learn how to communicate with me through common sense and logic.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 1:27:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 1:24:31 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 1:16:03 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 12:59:27 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 12:22:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Just because you can create a model, a mathematical formula, an ideology that is self establishing or coherent..

Just because you can think of ways a universe is crafted without God by injecting a material called Dark Energy..

Just because you can imagine a way life emerges from non living material based on physical laws but astronomical odds..

Just because it is coherent in your head, does not mean it is how this universe works.

The truth will always be found in the examination of this universe and reality.

Does "Lean not on your own understanding"mean don't think for yourself and don't rely on your own logic?

No that's not what it means.

Whose understanding should people "lean on" if they should not "lean on" their own?

Look for understanding in the facts of this world. Rely on observations and real world experiments more than crafted simulations and mental constructions.

One still need to rely on their own logic and common sense to understand their own observations and decide whether they are observing facts or observing an illusion of facts.

It would be sheer stupidity to lean on someone elses understanding if all who understand anything should not even lean on their own understanding. Why rely on someone who does not rely on themselves?

Because if they rely on reality they probably are not self induced delusional.

Most seem to deny reality and reject it when it comes to past history. Just look at the thread Life comes from life and see how many deny it has always done what it can be observed to do in reality. Are they delusional for believing life evolved from space dust or are those who believe life has always come from life delusional?

It would also be sheer stupidity to lean on any invisible characters understanding when you can't even see or hear them in reality.

I do not know how to speak English with you.
That's a shame. Maybe you should learn how to communicate with me through common sense and logic.

No I remember one time you took the word "omnipresent" which I understand to me in every spatial location at once, and you said "omni-present" present as in NOW, which I understand to be a temporal instance. So if we can not use the same words to convey the same ideas then it is we can not understand each other.

One of us is speaking gibberish and the other is speaking English.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 11:11:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 1:12:13 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 12:50:20 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/18/2014 12:22:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Just because you can create a model, a mathematical formula, an ideology that is self establishing or coherent..

Just because you can think of ways a universe is crafted without God by injecting a material called Dark Energy..

Just because you can imagine a way life emerges from non living material based on physical laws but astronomical odds..

Just because it is coherent in your head, does not mean it is how this universe works.

The truth will always be found in the examination of this universe and reality.

Yes, instead we should 'lean on the lord', pffft. I'll do that if/when you can prove the Christian god exists without me having to jump through hoops. Until then, I will lean on the best possible explanation that does not require ancient beliefs of fantastic tall tales.

Do you apply this to all your held thoughts?

Yes, I do my best. I am sure there are some areas in my life in which I rely on ignorance, not intentionally, of course.

Dark energy? real or not?
Abiogenesis? real or not?

Good questions, but these are the best possible explanations, and they do not rely on ancient myths of gods. To say the Christian god is responsible for the creation of [X] does not explain [X] in any way, except to say [X] is so far beyond our comprehension it would take a supernatural being of unimaginable power to create it. This diminishes our current/potential capabilities and has absolutely no explanatory power at all. Secondly, it is not valid to explain [X] with something which still needs an explanation itself: god(s).
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 11:19:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 11:11:50 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/18/2014 1:12:13 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 12:50:20 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/18/2014 12:22:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Just because you can create a model, a mathematical formula, an ideology that is self establishing or coherent..

Just because you can think of ways a universe is crafted without God by injecting a material called Dark Energy..

Just because you can imagine a way life emerges from non living material based on physical laws but astronomical odds..

Just because it is coherent in your head, does not mean it is how this universe works.

The truth will always be found in the examination of this universe and reality.

Yes, instead we should 'lean on the lord', pffft. I'll do that if/when you can prove the Christian god exists without me having to jump through hoops. Until then, I will lean on the best possible explanation that does not require ancient beliefs of fantastic tall tales.

Do you apply this to all your held thoughts?

Yes, I do my best. I am sure there are some areas in my life in which I rely on ignorance, not intentionally, of course.

Dark energy? real or not?
Abiogenesis? real or not?

Good questions, but these are the best possible explanations, and they do not rely on ancient myths of gods. To say the Christian god is responsible for the creation of [X] does not explain [X] in any way, except to say *we think* [X] is so far beyond our comprehension it would take a supernatural being of unimaginable power to create it. This diminishes our current/potential capabilities and has absolutely no explanatory power at all. Secondly, it is not valid to explain [X] with something which still needs an explanation itself: god(s).

*edit
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 1:39:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 11:11:50 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/18/2014 1:12:13 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 12:50:20 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/18/2014 12:22:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Just because you can create a model, a mathematical formula, an ideology that is self establishing or coherent..

Just because you can think of ways a universe is crafted without God by injecting a material called Dark Energy..

Just because you can imagine a way life emerges from non living material based on physical laws but astronomical odds..

Just because it is coherent in your head, does not mean it is how this universe works.

The truth will always be found in the examination of this universe and reality.

Yes, instead we should 'lean on the lord', pffft. I'll do that if/when you can prove the Christian god exists without me having to jump through hoops. Until then, I will lean on the best possible explanation that does not require ancient beliefs of fantastic tall tales.

Do you apply this to all your held thoughts?

Yes, I do my best. I am sure there are some areas in my life in which I rely on ignorance, not intentionally, of course.

Dark energy? real or not?
Abiogenesis? real or not?

Good questions, but these are the best possible explanations, and they do not rely on ancient myths of gods. To say the Christian god is responsible for the creation of [X] does not explain [X] in any way, except to say [X] is so far beyond our comprehension it would take a supernatural being of unimaginable power to create it. This diminishes our current/potential capabilities and has absolutely no explanatory power at all. Secondly, it is not valid to explain [X] with something which still needs an explanation itself: god(s).

Your last sentence is we should not explain X with something which still needs an explanation itself. Isn't that what "Dark Energy" is? An energy that makes up 75% of Universe, is unseen inside the solar system, reacts differently than any other form of Energy known.

God is not unimaginable. But more so, a God is not supernatural. No more supernatural than wave/particle duality (being both unchanging solid and moving form of energy at the same time), superposition (being in more than one location at the same time), Black Hole (information resetting).

Dark Energy explains [x], is not different than God explains [x]. The only difference is in what you think is possible in this universe. Deeming God supernatural, you make a god impossible in you natural universe. Which then begs the question what about a god is unnatural?
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 1:45:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Lean not on your own understanding...

Instead lean on the understanding of 3000yrs dead goatherds.

YEP.

ROFL.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 4:28:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 1:39:44 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 11:11:50 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/18/2014 1:12:13 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 12:50:20 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/18/2014 12:22:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Just because you can create a model, a mathematical formula, an ideology that is self establishing or coherent..

Just because you can think of ways a universe is crafted without God by injecting a material called Dark Energy..

Just because you can imagine a way life emerges from non living material based on physical laws but astronomical odds..

Just because it is coherent in your head, does not mean it is how this universe works.

The truth will always be found in the examination of this universe and reality.

Yes, instead we should 'lean on the lord', pffft. I'll do that if/when you can prove the Christian god exists without me having to jump through hoops. Until then, I will lean on the best possible explanation that does not require ancient beliefs of fantastic tall tales.

Do you apply this to all your held thoughts?

Yes, I do my best. I am sure there are some areas in my life in which I rely on ignorance, not intentionally, of course.

Dark energy? real or not?
Abiogenesis? real or not?

Good questions, but these are the best possible explanations, and they do not rely on ancient myths of gods. To say the Christian god is responsible for the creation of [X] does not explain [X] in any way, except to say [X] is so far beyond our comprehension it would take a supernatural being of unimaginable power to create it. This diminishes our current/potential capabilities and has absolutely no explanatory power at all. Secondly, it is not valid to explain [X] with something which still needs an explanation itself: god(s).

Your last sentence is we should not explain X with something which still needs an explanation itself. Isn't that what "Dark Energy" is? An energy that makes up 75% of Universe, is unseen inside the solar system, reacts differently than any other form of Energy known.

First, let me start by saying I'm not a theoretical physicist or an astrophysicist, so this may be a little above my pay grade, but I'll give it a shot! Dark Matter and Dark Energy attempt to explain our observations of the cosmos which can not be completely explained by the visible matter and energy we know about. They are hypothesis. I would be willing to accept the Christian god as a hypothesis if this is the direction you're going. If not, then your analogy is inadequate.

God is not unimaginable. But more so, a God is not supernatural. No more supernatural than wave/particle duality (being both unchanging solid and moving form of energy at the same time), superposition (being in more than one location at the same time), Black Hole (information resetting).

This is nothing more than an argument from incredulity. Not completely understanding something does not automatically make it supernatural. Wave/particle duality and quantum superposition could simply be a matter of limitations of the observer, and there are many different theories for black holes illustrating our current ignorance, IMO.

Dark Energy explains [x], is not different than God explains [x]. The only difference is in what you think is possible in this universe. Deeming God supernatural, you make a god impossible in you natural universe. Which then begs the question what about a god is unnatural?

Dark energy is not an explanation, it is simply a name we have given to attributes of the cosmos we don't understand. The Christian god, on the other hand, is given attributes from the book he is said to have inspired and not because we can infer these attributes through observations.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 4:58:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 4:28:46 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/18/2014 1:39:44 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 11:11:50 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/18/2014 1:12:13 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 12:50:20 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/18/2014 12:22:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Just because you can create a model, a mathematical formula, an ideology that is self establishing or coherent..

Just because you can think of ways a universe is crafted without God by injecting a material called Dark Energy..

Just because you can imagine a way life emerges from non living material based on physical laws but astronomical odds..

Just because it is coherent in your head, does not mean it is how this universe works.

The truth will always be found in the examination of this universe and reality.

Yes, instead we should 'lean on the lord', pffft. I'll do that if/when you can prove the Christian god exists without me having to jump through hoops. Until then, I will lean on the best possible explanation that does not require ancient beliefs of fantastic tall tales.

Do you apply this to all your held thoughts?

Yes, I do my best. I am sure there are some areas in my life in which I rely on ignorance, not intentionally, of course.

Dark energy? real or not?
Abiogenesis? real or not?

Good questions, but these are the best possible explanations, and they do not rely on ancient myths of gods. To say the Christian god is responsible for the creation of [X] does not explain [X] in any way, except to say [X] is so far beyond our comprehension it would take a supernatural being of unimaginable power to create it. This diminishes our current/potential capabilities and has absolutely no explanatory power at all. Secondly, it is not valid to explain [X] with something which still needs an explanation itself: god(s).

Your last sentence is we should not explain X with something which still needs an explanation itself. Isn't that what "Dark Energy" is? An energy that makes up 75% of Universe, is unseen inside the solar system, reacts differently than any other form of Energy known.

First, let me start by saying I'm not a theoretical physicist or an astrophysicist, so this may be a little above my pay grade, but I'll give it a shot! Dark Matter and Dark Energy attempt to explain our observations of the cosmos which can not be completely explained by the visible matter and energy we know about. They are hypothesis. I would be willing to accept the Christian god as a hypothesis if this is the direction you're going. If not, then your analogy is inadequate.

God is not unimaginable. But more so, a God is not supernatural. No more supernatural than wave/particle duality (being both unchanging solid and moving form of energy at the same time), superposition (being in more than one location at the same time), Black Hole (information resetting).

This is nothing more than an argument from incredulity. Not completely understanding something does not automatically make it supernatural. Wave/particle duality and quantum superposition could simply be a matter of limitations of the observer, and there are many different theories for black holes illustrating our current ignorance, IMO.


Observation prove the "substance" of a particle can be in 2 different places at the exact same time. The wave/duality is not a limitation of measurement, it is proven to be a characteristic of matter and energy.

Dark Energy explains [x], is not different than God explains [x]. The only difference is in what you think is possible in this universe. Deeming God supernatural, you make a god impossible in you natural universe. Which then begs the question what about a god is unnatural?

Dark energy is not an explanation, it is simply a name we have given to attributes of the cosmos we don't understand. The Christian god, on the other hand, is given attributes from the book he is said to have inspired and not because we can infer these attributes through observations.

1. Scientist created a mathematical model in which the universe was zero energy sum. Why is this popular because it removes any need for a god-like cause.
2. When observations were taken to see if this model was correct, the amount of energy in the universe was not enough.
3. the fix was to surmise Dark Energy. So much so that this hypothetical something would have to be present in 75% of the universe, rare in our solar system, unseeable, and negative pressure.

This is backwards in my opinion. In my opinion one should look at the observations and then produce a hypothesis.

Theist who were also scientist, did that. And they came to the conclusion that God exists.

Sure there are a lot of people who do not accept God. This is because they accept the hypothesis of men above the observations of God handiwork. When push comes to shove they are forced to adopt a god-like natural substance or process. Except the adopted constant, or cause, has no mind.

I think mankind can't even recognize intelligence very well, right now. When this changes Science will adopt a Spinoza type God.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 5:58:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 1:27:42 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 1:24:31 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 1:16:03 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 12:59:27 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 12:22:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Just because you can create a model, a mathematical formula, an ideology that is self establishing or coherent..

Just because you can think of ways a universe is crafted without God by injecting a material called Dark Energy..

Just because you can imagine a way life emerges from non living material based on physical laws but astronomical odds..

Just because it is coherent in your head, does not mean it is how this universe works.

The truth will always be found in the examination of this universe and reality.

Does "Lean not on your own understanding"mean don't think for yourself and don't rely on your own logic?

No that's not what it means.

Whose understanding should people "lean on" if they should not "lean on" their own?

Look for understanding in the facts of this world. Rely on observations and real world experiments more than crafted simulations and mental constructions.

One still need to rely on their own logic and common sense to understand their own observations and decide whether they are observing facts or observing an illusion of facts.

It would be sheer stupidity to lean on someone elses understanding if all who understand anything should not even lean on their own understanding. Why rely on someone who does not rely on themselves?

Because if they rely on reality they probably are not self induced delusional.

Most seem to deny reality and reject it when it comes to past history. Just look at the thread Life comes from life and see how many deny it has always done what it can be observed to do in reality. Are they delusional for believing life evolved from space dust or are those who believe life has always come from life delusional?

It would also be sheer stupidity to lean on any invisible characters understanding when you can't even see or hear them in reality.

I do not know how to speak English with you.
That's a shame. Maybe you should learn how to communicate with me through common sense and logic.

No I remember one time you took the word "omnipresent" which I understand to me in every spatial location at once, and you said "omni-present" present as in NOW, which I understand to be a temporal instance. So if we can not use the same words to convey the same ideas then it is we can not understand each other.

One of us is speaking gibberish and the other is speaking English.

Then it must be you who is having trouble with the English language since I happen to understand how NOW can be omnipresent as well as temporal at the very same time. It is a temporal instant which is everywhere and it is always passing away while at the same time constantly being replaced by the "new" instant and it is also always with us at any place and any time in history. Wherever you or anyone else is, it is NOW for you and wherever I am it is also NOW for me.
We live in the instance of the eternal NOW which is eternally passing away and also eternally being replaced by the "new" instant.
When we remember the past NOW we call it the past and when we imagine the future NOW we call it the future but ultimately past and future are only in our minds, in memories, and in hopes and dreams not in our present reality. It is the present passing away which creates the memories of the past and it is the present coming again which gives us continual hope for the future.

When you comprehend that concept it will no longer be gibberish to you.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 9:56:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 4:58:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 4:28:46 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/18/2014 1:39:44 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 11:11:50 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/18/2014 1:12:13 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 12:50:20 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/18/2014 12:22:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Just because you can create a model, a mathematical formula, an ideology that is self establishing or coherent..

Just because you can think of ways a universe is crafted without God by injecting a material called Dark Energy..

Just because you can imagine a way life emerges from non living material based on physical laws but astronomical odds..

Just because it is coherent in your head, does not mean it is how this universe works.

The truth will always be found in the examination of this universe and reality.

Yes, instead we should 'lean on the lord', pffft. I'll do that if/when you can prove the Christian god exists without me having to jump through hoops. Until then, I will lean on the best possible explanation that does not require ancient beliefs of fantastic tall tales.

Do you apply this to all your held thoughts?

Yes, I do my best. I am sure there are some areas in my life in which I rely on ignorance, not intentionally, of course.

Dark energy? real or not?
Abiogenesis? real or not?

Good questions, but these are the best possible explanations, and they do not rely on ancient myths of gods. To say the Christian god is responsible for the creation of [X] does not explain [X] in any way, except to say [X] is so far beyond our comprehension it would take a supernatural being of unimaginable power to create it. This diminishes our current/potential capabilities and has absolutely no explanatory power at all. Secondly, it is not valid to explain [X] with something which still needs an explanation itself: god(s).

Your last sentence is we should not explain X with something which still needs an explanation itself. Isn't that what "Dark Energy" is? An energy that makes up 75% of Universe, is unseen inside the solar system, reacts differently than any other form of Energy known.

First, let me start by saying I'm not a theoretical physicist or an astrophysicist, so this may be a little above my pay grade, but I'll give it a shot! Dark Matter and Dark Energy attempt to explain our observations of the cosmos which can not be completely explained by the visible matter and energy we know about. They are hypothesis. I would be willing to accept the Christian god as a hypothesis if this is the direction you're going. If not, then your analogy is inadequate.

God is not unimaginable. But more so, a God is not supernatural. No more supernatural than wave/particle duality (being both unchanging solid and moving form of energy at the same time), superposition (being in more than one location at the same time), Black Hole (information resetting).

This is nothing more than an argument from incredulity. Not completely understanding something does not automatically make it supernatural. Wave/particle duality and quantum superposition could simply be a matter of limitations of the observer, and there are many different theories for black holes illustrating our current ignorance, IMO.


Observation prove the "substance" of a particle can be in 2 different places at the exact same time. The wave/duality is not a limitation of measurement, it is proven to be a characteristic of matter and energy.

Dark Energy explains [x], is not different than God explains [x]. The only difference is in what you think is possible in this universe. Deeming God supernatural, you make a god impossible in you natural universe. Which then begs the question what about a god is unnatural?

Dark energy is not an explanation, it is simply a name we have given to attributes of the cosmos we don't understand. The Christian god, on the other hand, is given attributes from the book he is said to have inspired and not because we can infer these attributes through observations.

1. Scientist created a mathematical model in which the universe was zero energy sum. Why is this popular because it removes any need for a god-like cause.
2. When observations were taken to see if this model was correct, the amount of energy in the universe was not enough.
3. the fix was to surmise Dark Energy. So much so that this hypothetical something would have to be present in 75% of the universe, rare in our solar system, unseeable, and negative pressure.

1. Scientist created a mathematical model in which the universe was zero energy sum. (in the 1970's) This part is verifiable.
2. I know that dark matter came from observations of galaxies in which the visible matter could not explain the gravity necessary to keep individual stars from flying off into space from the spin of the galaxy (and other various examples). Dark energy came about due to observations in the acceleration of the universe and how it was not slowing down. So, while your statement may be correct, it does not seem to be the main reason for these hypothesis.
3. Again, I am not an astrophysicist, but your reasons for the theorization of dark energy seem to be reaching, IMO, since the zero sum came about in the early 1970's and dark energy came about in the late 90's.

This is backwards in my opinion. In my opinion one should look at the observations and then produce a hypothesis.

Sometimes, we have gifted individuals who are ahead of their time. Consider Einstein's general relativity. It predicted an expanding universe, but since the universe was thought to be static at the time, he added a cosmological constant. If only he had a little more confidence in himself he would have predicted the expanding universe before Hubble showed it to be true. I suppose it is good he didn't, because by your reasoning, we would have been adjusting observations to match hypothesis. The biggest problem with your accusations of conspiracy is the fact that there are alternative theories to dark energy that have been tested, such as the "Big Wave". If the goal was only to validate the zero sum universe, then they could have stopped with Dark energy, no?


Theist who were also scientist, did that. And they came to the conclusion that God exists.

Sure there are a lot of people who do not accept God. This is because they accept the hypothesis of men above the observations of God handiwork. When push comes to shove they are forced to adopt a god-like natural substance or process. Except the adopted constant, or cause, has no mind.

What do you consider to be 'observations of God's handiwork'?

I think mankind can't even recognize intelligence very well, right now.

That may be true, but it may also be true that mankind has pattern recognition turned up way too high and see patterns of intelligence where there are none.

When this changes Science will adopt a Spinoza type God.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2014 10:17:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 9:56:24 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/18/2014 4:58:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 4:28:46 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/18/2014 1:39:44 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 11:11:50 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/18/2014 1:12:13 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 12:50:20 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/18/2014 12:22:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Just because you can create a model, a mathematical formula, an ideology that is self establishing or coherent..

Just because you can think of ways a universe is crafted without God by injecting a material called Dark Energy..

Just because you can imagine a way life emerges from non living material based on physical laws but astronomical odds..

Just because it is coherent in your head, does not mean it is how this universe works.

The truth will always be found in the examination of this universe and reality.

Yes, instead we should 'lean on the lord', pffft. I'll do that if/when you can prove the Christian god exists without me having to jump through hoops. Until then, I will lean on the best possible explanation that does not require ancient beliefs of fantastic tall tales.

Do you apply this to all your held thoughts?

Yes, I do my best. I am sure there are some areas in my life in which I rely on ignorance, not intentionally, of course.

Dark energy? real or not?
Abiogenesis? real or not?

Good questions, but these are the best possible explanations, and they do not rely on ancient myths of gods. To say the Christian god is responsible for the creation of [X] does not explain [X] in any way, except to say [X] is so far beyond our comprehension it would take a supernatural being of unimaginable power to create it. This diminishes our current/potential capabilities and has absolutely no explanatory power at all. Secondly, it is not valid to explain [X] with something which still needs an explanation itself: god(s).

Your last sentence is we should not explain X with something which still needs an explanation itself. Isn't that what "Dark Energy" is? An energy that makes up 75% of Universe, is unseen inside the solar system, reacts differently than any other form of Energy known.

First, let me start by saying I'm not a theoretical physicist or an astrophysicist, so this may be a little above my pay grade, but I'll give it a shot! Dark Matter and Dark Energy attempt to explain our observations of the cosmos which can not be completely explained by the visible matter and energy we know about. They are hypothesis. I would be willing to accept the Christian god as a hypothesis if this is the direction you're going. If not, then your analogy is inadequate.

God is not unimaginable. But more so, a God is not supernatural. No more supernatural than wave/particle duality (being both unchanging solid and moving form of energy at the same time), superposition (being in more than one location at the same time), Black Hole (information resetting).

This is nothing more than an argument from incredulity. Not completely understanding something does not automatically make it supernatural. Wave/particle duality and quantum superposition could simply be a matter of limitations of the observer, and there are many different theories for black holes illustrating our current ignorance, IMO.


Observation prove the "substance" of a particle can be in 2 different places at the exact same time. The wave/duality is not a limitation of measurement, it is proven to be a characteristic of matter and energy.

Dark Energy explains [x], is not different than God explains [x]. The only difference is in what you think is possible in this universe. Deeming God supernatural, you make a god impossible in you natural universe. Which then begs the question what about a god is unnatural?

Dark energy is not an explanation, it is simply a name we have given to attributes of the cosmos we don't understand. The Christian god, on the other hand, is given attributes from the book he is said to have inspired and not because we can infer these attributes through observations.

1. Scientist created a mathematical model in which the universe was zero energy sum. Why is this popular because it removes any need for a god-like cause.
2. When observations were taken to see if this model was correct, the amount of energy in the universe was not enough.
3. the fix was to surmise Dark Energy. So much so that this hypothetical something would have to be present in 75% of the universe, rare in our solar system, unseeable, and negative pressure.

1. Scientist created a mathematical model in which the universe was zero energy sum. (in the 1970's) This part is verifiable.
2. I know that dark matter came from observations of galaxies in which the visible matter could not explain the gravity necessary to keep individual stars from flying off into space from the spin of the galaxy (and other various examples). Dark energy came about due to observations in the acceleration of the universe and how it was not slowing down. So, while your statement may be correct, it does not seem to be the main reason for these hypothesis.

I said nothing of dark matter. This is a good history of Dark Energy, http://home.fnal.gov...

It is from Stephen Kent, who works on the Dark Energy Survey project. He is a professor for Chicago University.

3. Again, I am not an astrophysicist, but your reasons for the theorization of dark energy seem to be reaching, IMO, since the zero sum came about in the early 1970's and dark energy came about in the late 90's.

This is backwards in my opinion. In my opinion one should look at the observations and then produce a hypothesis.

Sometimes, we have gifted individuals who are ahead of their time. Consider Einstein's general relativity. It predicted an expanding universe, but since the universe was thought to be static at the time, he added a cosmological constant. If only he had a little more confidence in himself he would have predicted the expanding universe before Hubble showed it to be true. I suppose it is good he didn't, because by your reasoning, we would have been adjusting observations to match hypothesis. The biggest problem with your accusations of conspiracy is the fact that there are alternative theories to dark energy that have been tested, such as the "Big Wave". If the goal was only to validate the zero sum universe, then they could have stopped with Dark energy, no?


Actually Einstein is a great example. He made his formulas based on observations and empirical knowledge. When he saw it was not a steady state universe result he added in the Cosmological Constant. It was adjusting to consensus that impeded the lessons learned from relativity. It was the math derived from the facts that brought the truth out.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2014 1:53:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/18/2014 10:17:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 9:56:24 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/18/2014 4:58:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 4:28:46 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/18/2014 1:39:44 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 11:11:50 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/18/2014 1:12:13 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/18/2014 12:50:20 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/18/2014 12:22:54 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Just because you can create a model, a mathematical formula, an ideology that is self establishing or coherent..

Just because you can think of ways a universe is crafted without God by injecting a material called Dark Energy..

Just because you can imagine a way life emerges from non living material based on physical laws but astronomical odds..

Just because it is coherent in your head, does not mean it is how this universe works.

The truth will always be found in the examination of this universe and reality.

Yes, instead we should 'lean on the lord', pffft. I'll do that if/when you can prove the Christian god exists without me having to jump through hoops. Until then, I will lean on the best possible explanation that does not require ancient beliefs of fantastic tall tales.

Do you apply this to all your held thoughts?

Yes, I do my best. I am sure there are some areas in my life in which I rely on ignorance, not intentionally, of course.

Dark energy? real or not?
Abiogenesis? real or not?

Good questions, but these are the best possible explanations, and they do not rely on ancient myths of gods. To say the Christian god is responsible for the creation of [X] does not explain [X] in any way, except to say [X] is so far beyond our comprehension it would take a supernatural being of unimaginable power to create it. This diminishes our current/potential capabilities and has absolutely no explanatory power at all. Secondly, it is not valid to explain [X] with something which still needs an explanation itself: god(s).

Your last sentence is we should not explain X with something which still needs an explanation itself. Isn't that what "Dark Energy" is? An energy that makes up 75% of Universe, is unseen inside the solar system, reacts differently than any other form of Energy known.

First, let me start by saying I'm not a theoretical physicist or an astrophysicist, so this may be a little above my pay grade, but I'll give it a shot! Dark Matter and Dark Energy attempt to explain our observations of the cosmos which can not be completely explained by the visible matter and energy we know about. They are hypothesis. I would be willing to accept the Christian god as a hypothesis if this is the direction you're going. If not, then your analogy is inadequate.

God is not unimaginable. But more so, a God is not supernatural. No more supernatural than wave/particle duality (being both unchanging solid and moving form of energy at the same time), superposition (being in more than one location at the same time), Black Hole (information resetting).

This is nothing more than an argument from incredulity. Not completely understanding something does not automatically make it supernatural. Wave/particle duality and quantum superposition could simply be a matter of limitations of the observer, and there are many different theories for black holes illustrating our current ignorance, IMO.


Observation prove the "substance" of a particle can be in 2 different places at the exact same time. The wave/duality is not a limitation of measurement, it is proven to be a characteristic of matter and energy.

Dark Energy explains [x], is not different than God explains [x]. The only difference is in what you think is possible in this universe. Deeming God supernatural, you make a god impossible in you natural universe. Which then begs the question what about a god is unnatural?

Dark energy is not an explanation, it is simply a name we have given to attributes of the cosmos we don't understand. The Christian god, on the other hand, is given attributes from the book he is said to have inspired and not because we can infer these attributes through observations.

1. Scientist created a mathematical model in which the universe was zero energy sum. Why is this popular because it removes any need for a god-like cause.
2. When observations were taken to see if this model was correct, the amount of energy in the universe was not enough.
3. the fix was to surmise Dark Energy. So much so that this hypothetical something would have to be present in 75% of the universe, rare in our solar system, unseeable, and negative pressure.

1. Scientist created a mathematical model in which the universe was zero energy sum. (in the 1970's) This part is verifiable.
2. I know that dark matter came from observations of galaxies in which the visible matter could not explain the gravity necessary to keep individual stars from flying off into space from the spin of the galaxy (and other various examples). Dark energy came about due to observations in the acceleration of the universe and how it was not slowing down. So, while your statement may be correct, it does not seem to be the main reason for these hypothesis.

I said nothing of dark matter. This is a good history of Dark Energy, http://home.fnal.gov...

It is from Stephen Kent, who works on the Dark Energy Survey project. He is a professor for Chicago University.

3. Again, I am not an astrophysicist, but your reasons for the theorization of dark energy seem to be reaching, IMO, since the zero sum came about in the early 1970's and dark energy came about in the late 90's.

This is backwards in my opinion. In my opinion one should look at the observations and then produce a hypothesis.

Sometimes, we have gifted individuals who are ahead of their time. Consider Einstein's general relativity. It predicted an expanding universe, but since the universe was thought to be static at the time, he added a cosmological constant. If only he had a little more confidence in himself he would have predicted the expanding universe before Hubble showed it to be true. I suppose it is good he didn't, because by your reasoning, we would have been adjusting observations to match hypothesis. The biggest problem with your accusations of conspiracy is the fact that there are alternative theories to dark energy that have been tested, such as the "Big Wave". If the goal was only to validate the zero sum universe, then they could have stopped with Dark energy, no?


Actually Einstein is a great example. He made his formulas based on observations and empirical knowledge. When he saw it was not a steady state universe result he added in the Cosmological Constant. It was adjusting to consensus that impeded the lessons learned from relativity. It was the math derived from the facts that brought the truth out.

It was Hubble 's observations of red shift which ushered us into a new theoretical model of the universe. This shows the consensus can change when presented with new observations that conflict with current understanding. Einstein added the fudge factor of the cosmological constant and it was one of his greatest mistakes. If only he would have 'leaned into his own understanding'. ;-) Thanks for the discussion. It has been very interesting.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten