Total Posts:89|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I am a Genius and I beleive in God.

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 6:03:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Sir Isaac Newton:
Contributions to Science: Calculus, Laws of Motion, Universal Gravity, Description of planetary movements, etc...
God belief: Translated the Bible from hebrew and greek, first proponent of a Bible code. Yeah crazy bible thumping dude there, thought all the answers to the questions worth asking were in the Bible!

Georges Lameitre:
Contributions to Science: Fast Fourier transform algorithm, Big Bang theory, computers for cosmology work, FLRW metric.
God belief: Roman Catholic Priest. nuff said that guy was drinking Christs blood kool-aid crazy.

Werner Heisenberg:
Contributions to Science: Many parts of quantum mechanics, theories of the hydrodynamics of turbulent flows, the atomic nucleus, ferromagnetism, cosmic rays, and subatomic particles.
God belief: Jesus Freak! Lutheran Christian actually gave talks on reconciling Science with Religion.

Edward Jenner
Contributions to Science: Father of immunology, How about cure for SMALL POX, only disease eradicated off earth!
God Belief: Anglican and said " people were ungrateful to him for his discovery, but he was surprised that they were ungrateful to God for the benefits of which he was the humble means" Giving God the glory!

Louis Pasteur
Contributions: Principles of Vaccination, Fermentation (think milk), created first vaccine for RABBIES and ANTHRAX
God belief: His swan neck experiment for chiral molecules was to oppose abiogenesis. Yeah this GUY thought life was a God did it!

List goes on people. If you hear an Atheist say a belief in God (these guys were clearly judo-christian) means you are unreasonable and of low intelligence. Tell them to stop spreading lies and STFU.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 6:16:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 6:03:23 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Sir Isaac Newton:
Contributions to Science: Calculus, Laws of Motion, Universal Gravity, Description of planetary movements, etc...
God belief: Translated the Bible from hebrew and greek, first proponent of a Bible code. Yeah crazy bible thumping dude there, thought all the answers to the questions worth asking were in the Bible!

Georges Lameitre:
Contributions to Science: Fast Fourier transform algorithm, Big Bang theory, computers for cosmology work, FLRW metric.
God belief: Roman Catholic Priest. nuff said that guy was drinking Christs blood kool-aid crazy.

Werner Heisenberg:
Contributions to Science: Many parts of quantum mechanics, theories of the hydrodynamics of turbulent flows, the atomic nucleus, ferromagnetism, cosmic rays, and subatomic particles.
God belief: Jesus Freak! Lutheran Christian actually gave talks on reconciling Science with Religion.

Edward Jenner
Contributions to Science: Father of immunology, How about cure for SMALL POX, only disease eradicated off earth!
God Belief: Anglican and said " people were ungrateful to him for his discovery, but he was surprised that they were ungrateful to God for the benefits of which he was the humble means" Giving God the glory!

Louis Pasteur
Contributions: Principles of Vaccination, Fermentation (think milk), created first vaccine for RABBIES and ANTHRAX
God belief: His swan neck experiment for chiral molecules was to oppose abiogenesis. Yeah this GUY thought life was a God did it!

List goes on people. If you hear an Atheist say a belief in God (these guys were clearly judo-christian) means you are unreasonable and of low intelligence. Tell them to stop spreading lies and STFU.

This is a troll topic, right?

The fact you are down to picking out individual people (borderline anecdote) who believe in god rather than looking across the board of top scientists to see how many of them believe in god amuses me. The 1998 survey of Nobel Laureates in Science found just 7% of these scientists professed a belief in God.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org...

Substantially less than the national average.

Isaac Newton is a most interesting figure however, as most the work he did was actually theological... Although he did alchemy too... He could have been even more successful if he ditched his theological work and pressed harder on solving some of the loose ends he had in the motion of the planets, and light. It took 200 years before significant progress was made in this area.. Which was almost certainly within Newton's capabilities had he not given up on it.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 6:32:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 6:16:13 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/27/2014 6:03:23 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Sir Isaac Newton:
Contributions to Science: Calculus, Laws of Motion, Universal Gravity, Description of planetary movements, etc...
God belief: Translated the Bible from hebrew and greek, first proponent of a Bible code. Yeah crazy bible thumping dude there, thought all the answers to the questions worth asking were in the Bible!

Georges Lameitre:
Contributions to Science: Fast Fourier transform algorithm, Big Bang theory, computers for cosmology work, FLRW metric.
God belief: Roman Catholic Priest. nuff said that guy was drinking Christs blood kool-aid crazy.

Werner Heisenberg:
Contributions to Science: Many parts of quantum mechanics, theories of the hydrodynamics of turbulent flows, the atomic nucleus, ferromagnetism, cosmic rays, and subatomic particles.
God belief: Jesus Freak! Lutheran Christian actually gave talks on reconciling Science with Religion.

Edward Jenner
Contributions to Science: Father of immunology, How about cure for SMALL POX, only disease eradicated off earth!
God Belief: Anglican and said " people were ungrateful to him for his discovery, but he was surprised that they were ungrateful to God for the benefits of which he was the humble means" Giving God the glory!

Louis Pasteur
Contributions: Principles of Vaccination, Fermentation (think milk), created first vaccine for RABBIES and ANTHRAX
God belief: His swan neck experiment for chiral molecules was to oppose abiogenesis. Yeah this GUY thought life was a God did it!

List goes on people. If you hear an Atheist say a belief in God (these guys were clearly judo-christian) means you are unreasonable and of low intelligence. Tell them to stop spreading lies and STFU.

This is a troll topic, right?

No. I'm saying a religious belief is not synonymous with no contributions to science or a lack of intelligence. Are you arguing con to this assertion?


The fact you are down to picking out individual people (borderline anecdote) who believe in god rather than looking across the board of top scientists to see how many of them believe in god amuses me. The 1998 survey of Nobel Laureates in Science found just 7% of these scientists professed a belief in God.

I could pick out more. The Nobel prize is only back to 1901. The last 100 hundred years. Did you notice that only one on the list I gave got a Nobel in physics. I guess The cosmological egg theory (big bang) was not important enough. I listed contributions to society not awards. Are you making an argument that a Nobel is the only real measure of a contribution?


http://www.stephenjaygould.org...

Substantially less than the national average.

Isaac Newton is a most interesting figure however, as most the work he did was actually theological... Although he did alchemy too... He could have been even more successful if he ditched his theological work and pressed harder on solving some of the loose ends he had in the motion of the planets, and light. It took 200 years before significant progress was made in this area.. Which was almost certainly within Newton's capabilities had he not given up on it.

I think this was more on personal social reasons, and that his work in alchemy was also urged by his position to expose counterfeit coinage.

Should I extend my list to muslim and hindu scientist that made contributions as well. Or will you prod the subject with they did not receive a Nobel either.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 6:39:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 6:32:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 6:16:13 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/27/2014 6:03:23 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Sir Isaac Newton:
Contributions to Science: Calculus, Laws of Motion, Universal Gravity, Description of planetary movements, etc...
God belief: Translated the Bible from hebrew and greek, first proponent of a Bible code. Yeah crazy bible thumping dude there, thought all the answers to the questions worth asking were in the Bible!

Georges Lameitre:
Contributions to Science: Fast Fourier transform algorithm, Big Bang theory, computers for cosmology work, FLRW metric.
God belief: Roman Catholic Priest. nuff said that guy was drinking Christs blood kool-aid crazy.

Werner Heisenberg:
Contributions to Science: Many parts of quantum mechanics, theories of the hydrodynamics of turbulent flows, the atomic nucleus, ferromagnetism, cosmic rays, and subatomic particles.
God belief: Jesus Freak! Lutheran Christian actually gave talks on reconciling Science with Religion.

Edward Jenner
Contributions to Science: Father of immunology, How about cure for SMALL POX, only disease eradicated off earth!
God Belief: Anglican and said " people were ungrateful to him for his discovery, but he was surprised that they were ungrateful to God for the benefits of which he was the humble means" Giving God the glory!

Louis Pasteur
Contributions: Principles of Vaccination, Fermentation (think milk), created first vaccine for RABBIES and ANTHRAX
God belief: His swan neck experiment for chiral molecules was to oppose abiogenesis. Yeah this GUY thought life was a God did it!

List goes on people. If you hear an Atheist say a belief in God (these guys were clearly judo-christian) means you are unreasonable and of low intelligence. Tell them to stop spreading lies and STFU.

This is a troll topic, right?

No. I'm saying a religious belief is not synonymous with no contributions to science or a lack of intelligence. Are you arguing con to this assertion?

Oh, I quite agree with you there. I would argue that religious belief tends to be discarded with more intelligent individuals/greater contributors however. Which is just a brute restatement of what essentially all the studies find.


The fact you are down to picking out individual people (borderline anecdote) who believe in god rather than looking across the board of top scientists to see how many of them believe in god amuses me. The 1998 survey of Nobel Laureates in Science found just 7% of these scientists professed a belief in God.

I could pick out more. The Nobel prize is only back to 1901. The last 100 hundred years. Did you notice that only one on the list I gave got a Nobel in physics. I guess The cosmological egg theory (big bang) was not important enough. I listed contributions to society not awards. Are you making an argument that a Nobel is the only real measure of a contribution?

No, but you made a list of a few very significant contributors to science, so I showed a study of a large sample of what are regarded as the most influential scientists today, to see how the numbers stack up.

It seems to be a fair contrast to what you posted.


http://www.stephenjaygould.org...

Substantially less than the national average.

Isaac Newton is a most interesting figure however, as most the work he did was actually theological... Although he did alchemy too... He could have been even more successful if he ditched his theological work and pressed harder on solving some of the loose ends he had in the motion of the planets, and light. It took 200 years before significant progress was made in this area.. Which was almost certainly within Newton's capabilities had he not given up on it.

I think this was more on personal social reasons, and that his work in alchemy was also urged by his position to expose counterfeit coinage.

Interesting.

Should I extend my list to muslim and hindu scientist that made contributions as well. Or will you prod the subject with they did not receive a Nobel either.

Well you could use other measures, but they unanimously agree with the statement I made, religiousity tends to be discarded with level of scientific contribution. It's also interesting when you look at the 'golden age' of Islam, in the 1200's in Baghdad. And to see exactly what ended this golden age of discovery and innovation. It's a pretty telling story.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 6:50:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 6:39:40 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/27/2014 6:32:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 6:16:13 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/27/2014 6:03:23 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Sir Isaac Newton:
Contributions to Science: Calculus, Laws of Motion, Universal Gravity, Description of planetary movements, etc...
God belief: Translated the Bible from hebrew and greek, first proponent of a Bible code. Yeah crazy bible thumping dude there, thought all the answers to the questions worth asking were in the Bible!

Georges Lameitre:
Contributions to Science: Fast Fourier transform algorithm, Big Bang theory, computers for cosmology work, FLRW metric.
God belief: Roman Catholic Priest. nuff said that guy was drinking Christs blood kool-aid crazy.

Werner Heisenberg:
Contributions to Science: Many parts of quantum mechanics, theories of the hydrodynamics of turbulent flows, the atomic nucleus, ferromagnetism, cosmic rays, and subatomic particles.
God belief: Jesus Freak! Lutheran Christian actually gave talks on reconciling Science with Religion.

Edward Jenner
Contributions to Science: Father of immunology, How about cure for SMALL POX, only disease eradicated off earth!
God Belief: Anglican and said " people were ungrateful to him for his discovery, but he was surprised that they were ungrateful to God for the benefits of which he was the humble means" Giving God the glory!

Louis Pasteur
Contributions: Principles of Vaccination, Fermentation (think milk), created first vaccine for RABBIES and ANTHRAX
God belief: His swan neck experiment for chiral molecules was to oppose abiogenesis. Yeah this GUY thought life was a God did it!

List goes on people. If you hear an Atheist say a belief in God (these guys were clearly judo-christian) means you are unreasonable and of low intelligence. Tell them to stop spreading lies and STFU.

This is a troll topic, right?

No. I'm saying a religious belief is not synonymous with no contributions to science or a lack of intelligence. Are you arguing con to this assertion?

Oh, I quite agree with you there. I would argue that religious belief tends to be discarded with more intelligent individuals/greater contributors however. Which is just a brute restatement of what essentially all the studies find.


The fact you are down to picking out individual people (borderline anecdote) who believe in god rather than looking across the board of top scientists to see how many of them believe in god amuses me. The 1998 survey of Nobel Laureates in Science found just 7% of these scientists professed a belief in God.

I could pick out more. The Nobel prize is only back to 1901. The last 100 hundred years. Did you notice that only one on the list I gave got a Nobel in physics. I guess The cosmological egg theory (big bang) was not important enough. I listed contributions to society not awards. Are you making an argument that a Nobel is the only real measure of a contribution?

No, but you made a list of a few very significant contributors to science, so I showed a study of a large sample of what are regarded as the most influential scientists today, to see how the numbers stack up.

It seems to be a fair contrast to what you posted.

How many Nobel Laureates in Science are black? or are women? Significantly lower than the national average.



http://www.stephenjaygould.org...

Substantially less than the national average.

Isaac Newton is a most interesting figure however, as most the work he did was actually theological... Although he did alchemy too... He could have been even more successful if he ditched his theological work and pressed harder on solving some of the loose ends he had in the motion of the planets, and light. It took 200 years before significant progress was made in this area.. Which was almost certainly within Newton's capabilities had he not given up on it.

I think this was more on personal social reasons, and that his work in alchemy was also urged by his position to expose counterfeit coinage.

Interesting.

Yes Alchemy was the metallurgy in that day. Newton held the position of Master of the Royal Mint (I may be wrong but I think he held it the longest), So his studies were directly related to his responsibilities in this matter.


Should I extend my list to muslim and hindu scientist that made contributions as well. Or will you prod the subject with they did not receive a Nobel either.

Well you could use other measures, but they unanimously agree with the statement I made, religiousity tends to be discarded with level of scientific contribution. It's also interesting when you look at the 'golden age' of Islam, in the 1200's in Baghdad. And to see exactly what ended this golden age of discovery and innovation. It's a pretty telling story.

All you prove is that social economic conditions have an impact on scientific endeavors. Not that individual beliefs hinder scientific contributions. Plus I would add that I think some contributions like Heisenberg are more impacting than some other Nobel Laureates in Science.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 7:06:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 6:50:30 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 6:39:40 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/27/2014 6:32:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 6:16:13 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/27/2014 6:03:23 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Sir Isaac Newton:
Contributions to Science: Calculus, Laws of Motion, Universal Gravity, Description of planetary movements, etc...
God belief: Translated the Bible from hebrew and greek, first proponent of a Bible code. Yeah crazy bible thumping dude there, thought all the answers to the questions worth asking were in the Bible!

Georges Lameitre:
Contributions to Science: Fast Fourier transform algorithm, Big Bang theory, computers for cosmology work, FLRW metric.
God belief: Roman Catholic Priest. nuff said that guy was drinking Christs blood kool-aid crazy.

Werner Heisenberg:
Contributions to Science: Many parts of quantum mechanics, theories of the hydrodynamics of turbulent flows, the atomic nucleus, ferromagnetism, cosmic rays, and subatomic particles.
God belief: Jesus Freak! Lutheran Christian actually gave talks on reconciling Science with Religion.

Edward Jenner
Contributions to Science: Father of immunology, How about cure for SMALL POX, only disease eradicated off earth!
God Belief: Anglican and said " people were ungrateful to him for his discovery, but he was surprised that they were ungrateful to God for the benefits of which he was the humble means" Giving God the glory!

Louis Pasteur
Contributions: Principles of Vaccination, Fermentation (think milk), created first vaccine for RABBIES and ANTHRAX
God belief: His swan neck experiment for chiral molecules was to oppose abiogenesis. Yeah this GUY thought life was a God did it!

List goes on people. If you hear an Atheist say a belief in God (these guys were clearly judo-christian) means you are unreasonable and of low intelligence. Tell them to stop spreading lies and STFU.

This is a troll topic, right?

No. I'm saying a religious belief is not synonymous with no contributions to science or a lack of intelligence. Are you arguing con to this assertion?

Oh, I quite agree with you there. I would argue that religious belief tends to be discarded with more intelligent individuals/greater contributors however. Which is just a brute restatement of what essentially all the studies find.


The fact you are down to picking out individual people (borderline anecdote) who believe in god rather than looking across the board of top scientists to see how many of them believe in god amuses me. The 1998 survey of Nobel Laureates in Science found just 7% of these scientists professed a belief in God.

I could pick out more. The Nobel prize is only back to 1901. The last 100 hundred years. Did you notice that only one on the list I gave got a Nobel in physics. I guess The cosmological egg theory (big bang) was not important enough. I listed contributions to society not awards. Are you making an argument that a Nobel is the only real measure of a contribution?

No, but you made a list of a few very significant contributors to science, so I showed a study of a large sample of what are regarded as the most influential scientists today, to see how the numbers stack up.

It seems to be a fair contrast to what you posted.

How many Nobel Laureates in Science are black? or are women? Significantly lower than the national average.

You don't have a point, since most top contributors at that time were indeed white and male. And we are arguing assuming the subset of top contributors, which given that to be the case, clearly exhibit significantly lower religiosity than would be expected if the two variables were unrelated.



http://www.stephenjaygould.org...

Substantially less than the national average.

Isaac Newton is a most interesting figure however, as most the work he did was actually theological... Although he did alchemy too... He could have been even more successful if he ditched his theological work and pressed harder on solving some of the loose ends he had in the motion of the planets, and light. It took 200 years before significant progress was made in this area.. Which was almost certainly within Newton's capabilities had he not given up on it.

I think this was more on personal social reasons, and that his work in alchemy was also urged by his position to expose counterfeit coinage.

Interesting.

Yes Alchemy was the metallurgy in that day. Newton held the position of Master of the Royal Mint (I may be wrong but I think he held it the longest), So his studies were directly related to his responsibilities in this matter.


Should I extend my list to muslim and hindu scientist that made contributions as well. Or will you prod the subject with they did not receive a Nobel either.

Well you could use other measures, but they unanimously agree with the statement I made, religiousity tends to be discarded with level of scientific contribution. It's also interesting when you look at the 'golden age' of Islam, in the 1200's in Baghdad. And to see exactly what ended this golden age of discovery and innovation. It's a pretty telling story.

All you prove is that social economic conditions have an impact on scientific endeavors. Not that individual beliefs hinder scientific contributions. Plus I would add that I think some contributions like Heisenberg are more impacting than some other Nobel Laureates in Science.

Social economic reasons that were primarily driven because of Islam.

I never made the claim that a person's religion inhibits their performance as a scientist, only that top scientists tend to drop religion (the causation is the opposite way around). This makes sense from a practice standpoint, since all top scientific contributions form theists are almost completely unrelated to their belief in god. In other words, god is set aside while they work, as it's unrelated.

Of course this isn't black and white, especially in fields such as evolutionary biology. The religiosity among biologists is lower than scientists in other fields, and I don't think it's by accident. Clearly some fields conflict with religious beliefs more than others.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 7:22:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 7:06:29 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/27/2014 6:50:30 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 6:39:40 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/27/2014 6:32:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 6:16:13 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/27/2014 6:03:23 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Sir Isaac Newton:
Contributions to Science: Calculus, Laws of Motion, Universal Gravity, Description of planetary movements, etc...
God belief: Translated the Bible from hebrew and greek, first proponent of a Bible code. Yeah crazy bible thumping dude there, thought all the answers to the questions worth asking were in the Bible!

Georges Lameitre:
Contributions to Science: Fast Fourier transform algorithm, Big Bang theory, computers for cosmology work, FLRW metric.
God belief: Roman Catholic Priest. nuff said that guy was drinking Christs blood kool-aid crazy.

Werner Heisenberg:
Contributions to Science: Many parts of quantum mechanics, theories of the hydrodynamics of turbulent flows, the atomic nucleus, ferromagnetism, cosmic rays, and subatomic particles.
God belief: Jesus Freak! Lutheran Christian actually gave talks on reconciling Science with Religion.

Edward Jenner
Contributions to Science: Father of immunology, How about cure for SMALL POX, only disease eradicated off earth!
God Belief: Anglican and said " people were ungrateful to him for his discovery, but he was surprised that they were ungrateful to God for the benefits of which he was the humble means" Giving God the glory!

Louis Pasteur
Contributions: Principles of Vaccination, Fermentation (think milk), created first vaccine for RABBIES and ANTHRAX
God belief: His swan neck experiment for chiral molecules was to oppose abiogenesis. Yeah this GUY thought life was a God did it!

List goes on people. If you hear an Atheist say a belief in God (these guys were clearly judo-christian) means you are unreasonable and of low intelligence. Tell them to stop spreading lies and STFU.

This is a troll topic, right?

No. I'm saying a religious belief is not synonymous with no contributions to science or a lack of intelligence. Are you arguing con to this assertion?

Oh, I quite agree with you there. I would argue that religious belief tends to be discarded with more intelligent individuals/greater contributors however. Which is just a brute restatement of what essentially all the studies find.


The fact you are down to picking out individual people (borderline anecdote) who believe in god rather than looking across the board of top scientists to see how many of them believe in god amuses me. The 1998 survey of Nobel Laureates in Science found just 7% of these scientists professed a belief in God.

I could pick out more. The Nobel prize is only back to 1901. The last 100 hundred years. Did you notice that only one on the list I gave got a Nobel in physics. I guess The cosmological egg theory (big bang) was not important enough. I listed contributions to society not awards. Are you making an argument that a Nobel is the only real measure of a contribution?

No, but you made a list of a few very significant contributors to science, so I showed a study of a large sample of what are regarded as the most influential scientists today, to see how the numbers stack up.

It seems to be a fair contrast to what you posted.

How many Nobel Laureates in Science are black? or are women? Significantly lower than the national average.

You don't have a point, since most top contributors at that time were indeed white and male. And we are arguing assuming the subset of top contributors, which given that to be the case, clearly exhibit significantly lower religiosity than would be expected if the two variables were unrelated.

I argue my point is direct to the logic you assert. The population Nobel recipients are drawn from are primarily White Male and Agnostic/Atheist. So what ever argument you are making, I may equally apply to Sex or Ethnic background.




http://www.stephenjaygould.org...

Substantially less than the national average.

Isaac Newton is a most interesting figure however, as most the work he did was actually theological... Although he did alchemy too... He could have been even more successful if he ditched his theological work and pressed harder on solving some of the loose ends he had in the motion of the planets, and light. It took 200 years before significant progress was made in this area.. Which was almost certainly within Newton's capabilities had he not given up on it.

I think this was more on personal social reasons, and that his work in alchemy was also urged by his position to expose counterfeit coinage.

Interesting.

Yes Alchemy was the metallurgy in that day. Newton held the position of Master of the Royal Mint (I may be wrong but I think he held it the longest), So his studies were directly related to his responsibilities in this matter.


Should I extend my list to muslim and hindu scientist that made contributions as well. Or will you prod the subject with they did not receive a Nobel either.

Well you could use other measures, but they unanimously agree with the statement I made, religiousity tends to be discarded with level of scientific contribution. It's also interesting when you look at the 'golden age' of Islam, in the 1200's in Baghdad. And to see exactly what ended this golden age of discovery and innovation. It's a pretty telling story.

All you prove is that social economic conditions have an impact on scientific endeavors. Not that individual beliefs hinder scientific contributions. Plus I would add that I think some contributions like Heisenberg are more impacting than some other Nobel Laureates in Science.

Social economic reasons that were primarily driven because of Islam.

The Mongolian sack of the city may have had something to do with that as well. It was an event of national infraction not religious implosion.


I never made the claim that a person's religion inhibits their performance as a scientist, only that top scientists tend to drop religion (the causation is the opposite way around). This makes sense from a practice standpoint, since all top scientific contributions form theists are almost completely unrelated to their belief in god. In other words, god is set aside while they work, as it's unrelated.

The way they work is because the scientific method is by default materialistic naturalism. Because a variable of a God can not be removed from an experiment so God is ignored. But faith was a driving factor in these men to discern what their creator had created.

Top scientist are indoctrinated into an academy does not ever even want to hear the word God. An education system at it's finest. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. The problem is the Academy of science is a greased pig squealing what a bank roll wants it to.


Of course this isn't black and white, especially in fields such as evolutionary biology. The religiosity among biologists is lower than scientists in other fields, and I don't think it's by accident. Clearly some fields conflict with religious beliefs more than others.

Gregor Mendel
Contribution: Father of modern Genetics
Belief: Augustinian friar

This is because biologist like other scientist are taught to lock God out of the laboratory. More indoctrination because I see no conflict i
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 7:33:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 7:22:44 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 7:06:29 AM, Envisage wrote:
I never made the claim that a person's religion inhibits their performance as a scientist, only that top scientists tend to drop religion (the causation is the opposite way around). This makes sense from a practice standpoint, since all top scientific contributions form theists are almost completely unrelated to their belief in god. In other words, god is set aside while they work, as it's unrelated.

Look when I go to see why my truck's back tail light does not work, I diagnose it using a methodical process. Just because I don't get down on my hands and knees and pray to God what's wrong does not mean I discount God.

Science, Math and Logic are man made tools. Like a wrench and a ruler. They aid in the measurement and observation of God's Creation.

They can no more tell me Why I find Hawthorne more suspenseful than Stephen King, nor why I find Bach better than Mozart then the hammer in my toolbox can.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 7:36:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago

This is a troll topic, right?

No. I'm saying a religious belief is not synonymous with no contributions to science or a lack of intelligence. Are you arguing con to this assertion?

Oh, I quite agree with you there. I would argue that religious belief tends to be discarded with more intelligent individuals/greater contributors however. Which is just a brute restatement of what essentially all the studies find.


The fact you are down to picking out individual people (borderline anecdote) who believe in god rather than looking across the board of top scientists to see how many of them believe in god amuses me. The 1998 survey of Nobel Laureates in Science found just 7% of these scientists professed a belief in God.

I could pick out more. The Nobel prize is only back to 1901. The last 100 hundred years. Did you notice that only one on the list I gave got a Nobel in physics. I guess The cosmological egg theory (big bang) was not important enough. I listed contributions to society not awards. Are you making an argument that a Nobel is the only real measure of a contribution?

No, but you made a list of a few very significant contributors to science, so I showed a study of a large sample of what are regarded as the most influential scientists today, to see how the numbers stack up.

It seems to be a fair contrast to what you posted.

How many Nobel Laureates in Science are black? or are women? Significantly lower than the national average.

You don't have a point, since most top contributors at that time were indeed white and male. And we are arguing assuming the subset of top contributors, which given that to be the case, clearly exhibit significantly lower religiosity than would be expected if the two variables were unrelated.

I argue my point is direct to the logic you assert. The population Nobel recipients are drawn from are primarily White Male and Agnostic/Atheist. So what ever argument you are making, I may equally apply to Sex or Ethnic background.

You need to show that there is a biased selection of top scientists for the Nobel prizes. It seems rather obvious this is not the case, or if it is, then not to a significant degree.

Virtually all the major contributions in physics chemistry and biology that are spoken about today in the core theories and findings that have had high impact value are by white male scientists. Relativity, quantum mechanics, atomic theory, cross-coupling, cosmology, evolution, etc.

Virtually everything worth talking about from the past 100 years was performed by white male scientists. I will quickly concede that there are exceptions, one notable one is Marie Curie for example. But the overall numbers are pretty much in line with the facts.




http://www.stephenjaygould.org...

Substantially less than the national average.

Isaac Newton is a most interesting figure however, as most the work he did was actually theological... Although he did alchemy too... He could have been even more successful if he ditched his theological work and pressed harder on solving some of the loose ends he had in the motion of the planets, and light. It took 200 years before significant progress was made in this area.. Which was almost certainly within Newton's capabilities had he not given up on it.

I think this was more on personal social reasons, and that his work in alchemy was also urged by his position to expose counterfeit coinage.

Interesting.

Yes Alchemy was the metallurgy in that day. Newton held the position of Master of the Royal Mint (I may be wrong but I think he held it the longest), So his studies were directly related to his responsibilities in this matter.


Should I extend my list to muslim and hindu scientist that made contributions as well. Or will you prod the subject with they did not receive a Nobel either.

Well you could use other measures, but they unanimously agree with the statement I made, religiousity tends to be discarded with level of scientific contribution. It's also interesting when you look at the 'golden age' of Islam, in the 1200's in Baghdad. And to see exactly what ended this golden age of discovery and innovation. It's a pretty telling story.

All you prove is that social economic conditions have an impact on scientific endeavors. Not that individual beliefs hinder scientific contributions. Plus I would add that I think some contributions like Heisenberg are more impacting than some other Nobel Laureates in Science.

Social economic reasons that were primarily driven because of Islam.

The Mongolian sack of the city may have had something to do with that as well. It was an event of national infraction not religious implosion.

I'll save this for another topic. Seems to lack relevance for now.


I never made the claim that a person's religion inhibits their performance as a scientist, only that top scientists tend to drop religion (the causation is the opposite way around). This makes sense from a practice standpoint, since all top scientific contributions form theists are almost completely unrelated to their belief in god. In other words, god is set aside while they work, as it's unrelated.

The way they work is because the scientific method is by default materialistic naturalism. Because a variable of a God can not be removed from an experiment so God is ignored. But faith was a driving factor in these men to discern what their creator had created.

You can vouch for all of those scientists?

Top scientist are indoctrinated into an academy does not ever even want to hear the word God. An education system at it's finest. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. The problem is the Academy of science is a greased pig squealing what a bank roll wants it to.

I don't care much for your own squealing and rambling.


Of course this isn't black and white, especially in fields such as evolutionary biology. The religiosity among biologists is lower than scientists in other fields, and I don't think it's by accident. Clearly some fields conflict with religious beliefs more than others.

Gregor Mendel
Contribution: Father of modern Genetics
Belief: Augustinian friar

This is

Back to picking out individual data points are you?

Anyway you don't seem to disagree with my point that top scientists tend to discard religion, rather than religion inhibits performance. You only seem to disagree there is a statistically significant proportion of top scientists that don't believe in god.

Which pretty much flies in the face of the facts. I don't see why you would want to make such a futile argument anyway, since I don't see how it's an important issue for religion or science. There are atheist scientists and theist scientists, a is fists tend to drop rigion, that's all there is to it really.
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 8:07:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 6:03:23 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
List goes on people. If you hear an Atheist say a belief in God (these guys were clearly judo-christian) means you are unreasonable and of low intelligence. Tell them to stop spreading lies and STFU.

1. Only 7% of the leading American scientists believe in a god.
2. The Null Hypothesis, which is a scientific and logical tool, supports atheism.
3. We have no need for a god to exist for the universe to exist as there are naturalistic explanations that work and are favored by Occam's Razor.

"A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God " at a time when 68.5 percent of the general UK population described themselves as believers. A separate poll in the 90s found only seven percent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God."

http://freethinker.co.uk...

"Like most atheists, I do not claim that I know God does not exist. I merely claim that there is not enough evidence to justify belief in God. And the best way to illustrate this claim is through the null hypothesis. This is a statistical concept that is used for hypothesis testing in science."

http://aafwaterloo.wordpress.com...

So, are there some geniuses that believe in a god? Yes, but few. Do atheists make up the majority of the leading scientists? Yes, an overwhelming majority.

When we look at this we see that it is not wrong to say that theists are less intelligent than atheists OVERALL. There are some outliers, there always will be, but that does not mean that the statistics that atheists tend to have higher intellect than theists is wrong, it just means that there are outliers.

If you want to justify your belief in a god, in order to make it a reasonable belief, you must do the following:

1. Provide evidence for the God Hypothesis.
2. Have enough evidence and specific enough evidence that Occam's Razor supports it.
3. Have the evidence be tested (have people attempt to show that it is wrong) and pass (they fail to show it is wrong).

When those 3 steps are accomplished you will have a reasonable belief in a god, but not yet a specific god.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 8:07:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 7:36:48 AM, Envisage wrote:

This is a troll topic, right?

No. I'm saying a religious belief is not synonymous with no contributions to science or a lack of intelligence. Are you arguing con to this assertion?

Oh, I quite agree with you there. I would argue that religious belief tends to be discarded with more intelligent individuals/greater contributors however. Which is just a brute restatement of what essentially all the studies find.


The fact you are down to picking out individual people (borderline anecdote) who believe in god rather than looking across the board of top scientists to see how many of them believe in god amuses me. The 1998 survey of Nobel Laureates in Science found just 7% of these scientists professed a belief in God.

I could pick out more. The Nobel prize is only back to 1901. The last 100 hundred years. Did you notice that only one on the list I gave got a Nobel in physics. I guess The cosmological egg theory (big bang) was not important enough. I listed contributions to society not awards. Are you making an argument that a Nobel is the only real measure of a contribution?

No, but you made a list of a few very significant contributors to science, so I showed a study of a large sample of what are regarded as the most influential scientists today, to see how the numbers stack up.

It seems to be a fair contrast to what you posted.

How many Nobel Laureates in Science are black? or are women? Significantly lower than the national average.

You don't have a point, since most top contributors at that time were indeed white and male. And we are arguing assuming the subset of top contributors, which given that to be the case, clearly exhibit significantly lower religiosity than would be expected if the two variables were unrelated.

I argue my point is direct to the logic you assert. The population Nobel recipients are drawn from are primarily White Male and Agnostic/Atheist. So what ever argument you are making, I may equally apply to Sex or Ethnic background.

You need to show that there is a biased selection of top scientists for the Nobel prizes. It seems rather obvious this is not the case, or if it is, then not to a significant degree.

Virtually all the major contributions in physics chemistry and biology that are spoken about today in the core theories and findings that have had high impact value are by white male scientists. Relativity, quantum mechanics, atomic theory, cross-coupling, cosmology, evolution, etc.

Virtually everything worth talking about from the past 100 years was performed by white male scientists. I will quickly concede that there are exceptions, one notable one is Marie Curie for example. But the overall numbers are pretty much in line with the facts.

So you agree it is a skewed population of white male scientist. Why not include this majority should also include agnostic/atheistic belief.

Could I make a case that a person is more likely to receive the Nobel if they are white, male, agnostic/atheist, English speaking, and hail from a NATO country?

So the beliefs of this group are on par with their other demographics. Making your argument in respect to other demographic traits sound bias and bigoted. But this bias and bigotry not apply to religiosity? I say it does.

... Deleted discussion on Newton's area of study. I'm not sure if you found my reasoning sufficient or the topic off topic.

Should I extend my list to muslim and hindu scientist that made contributions as well. Or will you prod the subject with they did not receive a Nobel either.

Well you could use other measures, but they unanimously agree with the statement I made, religiousity tends to be discarded with level of scientific contribution. It's also interesting when you look at the 'golden age' of Islam, in the 1200's in Baghdad. And to see exactly what ended this golden age of discovery and innovation. It's a pretty telling story.

All you prove is that social economic conditions have an impact on scientific endeavors. Not that individual beliefs hinder scientific contributions. Plus I would add that I think some contributions like Heisenberg are more impacting than some other Nobel Laureates in Science.

Social economic reasons that were primarily driven because of Islam.

The Mongolian sack of the city may have had something to do with that as well. It was an event of national infraction not religious implosion.

I'll save this for another topic. Seems to lack relevance for now.


Well if you make a resolution like "Muslim religion lead to the end of the Golden Age of Islam" I'm sure I would not be the only one to debate you on this.


I never made the claim that a person's religion inhibits their performance as a scientist, only that top scientists tend to drop religion (the causation is the opposite way around). This makes sense from a practice standpoint, since all top scientific contributions form theists are almost completely unrelated to their belief in god. In other words, god is set aside while they work, as it's unrelated.

The way they work is because the scientific method is by default materialistic naturalism. Because a variable of a God can not be removed from an experiment so God is ignored. But faith was a driving factor in these men to discern what their creator had created.

You can vouch for all of those scientists?

Newton most definately, all you have to do is read Principia. Lametria and Heisenburg took actions to imply the same. Jenner appearently did not leave much on his personal views but he said he was God's humble tool.

Pasteur well he said "Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator"

So I let their own words and work vouch for them.


Top scientist are indoctrinated into an academy does not ever even want to hear the word God. An education system at it's finest. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. The problem is the Academy of science is a greased pig squealing what a bank roll wants it to.

I don't care much for your own squealing and rambling.

How to discern an indoctrination program? It's participates abandon their previous social norms and adopt ideas not held by the majority.

Science does not need a person to abandon faith to be performed. It's like going to a school for motorcycle building and coming out Buddhist. If that were happening people would investigate the school a little more closely.



Gregor Mendel
Contribution: Father of modern Genetics
Belief: Augustinian friar


Back to picking out individual data points are you?

The father of Genetics was a monk. You say biology is in conflict with religion. I found it a funny convergence of both themes in Mendel.



Which pretty much flies in the face of the facts. I don't see why you would want to make such a futile argument anyway, since I don't see how it's an important issue for religion or science. There are atheist scientists and theist scientists, a is fists tend to drop rigion, that's all there is to it really.

My point is that there is no good correlation between religious belief in God and a scientific mind. The argument to link intelligence with the abandonment of religion is a non sequitur one.
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 8:15:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 7:33:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Science, Math and Logic are man made tools. Like a wrench and a ruler. They aid in the measurement and observation of God's Creation.

And if you want this to be a reasonable belief you need to provide evidence that it is God's Creation.

They can no more tell me Why I find Hawthorne more suspenseful than Stephen King,

"Now Katz is using the technology to better understand how people experience his movies. He thinks so-called neurocinema, while still in its early stages, could change the way films are made in the future and result in more interesting movies.

Mapping brain activity with fMRIs can help filmmakers identify not just whether scenes from a movie are working for audiences, but to what extent they are engaging with them, he told CNN.

During Katz's experiment, researchers analyzed scans to identify the exact moment during each film scene that the viewer's amygdala -- the part of the brain linked to several emotions, including fear -- was activated, and to what degree."

http://www.cnn.com...

I know suspense and horror are not the same thing, but neurological research is still neurological research.

nor why I find Bach better than Mozart then the hammer in my toolbox can.

Science explains this.

"Music we enjoy causes several different regions of the brain "light up" during an fMRI scan " which detects blood flow in different parts of the brain. "

"The inferior frontal cortex compares new sounds we hear with all of the older templates of sounds we have stored in our superior temporal gyrus. What we think of as our "taste" in music depends on all of these old patterns we have filed away.
Our brains like patterns " when we listen to music we are constantly making predictions about the sounds we will hear next in a song or the direction the music will take us. This is exactly what we do when we dance."

"If the music we hear meets or surpasses our expectations, the nucleus accumbens will release dopamine, a feel-good chemical that's generally associated with rewards like the feelings we get from good food, great sex, or drugs. "

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com...
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 8:20:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 8:07:20 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/27/2014 6:03:23 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
List goes on people. If you hear an Atheist say a belief in God (these guys were clearly judo-christian) means you are unreasonable and of low intelligence. Tell them to stop spreading lies and STFU.

1. Only 7% of the leading American scientists believe in a god.

Indoctrination by education system

2. The Null Hypothesis, which is a scientific and logical tool, supports atheism.

Absence of Evidence is not evidence for absence. And please explain to me how the Null Hypothesis relates to God's existence. I'm interested in hearing that in your own words.

3. We have no need for a god to exist for the universe to exist as there are naturalistic explanations that work and are favored by Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor is a heuristic, it is not evidence for anything. Simple solutions tend to be the most elegant is another way of phrasing it. This being the case God is the lowest denominator for the cause of the universe being the way it is.

You would have to assume multiple universes or higher dimensional membranes to account for the same result. Most of which has already been discounted by the BICEPT2 and Planck results.


"A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God " at a time when 68.5 percent of the general UK population described themselves as believers. A separate poll in the 90s found only seven percent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God."

http://freethinker.co.uk...

"Like most atheists, I do not claim that I know God does not exist. I merely claim that there is not enough evidence to justify belief in God. And the best way to illustrate this claim is through the null hypothesis. This is a statistical concept that is used for hypothesis testing in science."

http://aafwaterloo.wordpress.com...

So, are there some geniuses that believe in a god? Yes, but few. Do atheists make up the majority of the leading scientists? Yes, an overwhelming majority.

When we look at this we see that it is not wrong to say that theists are less intelligent than atheists OVERALL. There are some outliers, there always will be, but that does not mean that the statistics that atheists tend to have higher intellect than theists is wrong, it just means that there are outliers.

If you want to justify your belief in a god, in order to make it a reasonable belief, you must do the following:

1. Provide evidence for the God Hypothesis.
2. Have enough evidence and specific enough evidence that Occam's Razor supports it.
3. Have the evidence be tested (have people attempt to show that it is wrong) and pass (they fail to show it is wrong).

When those 3 steps are accomplished you will have a reasonable belief in a god, but not yet a specific god.

No I disagree. The steps you outline are paraphrasing a scientific method. It is not the only way to prove a reasonable beleif in God. I argue this method is not even how you conduct your day to day business. Nor how you accept half the stuff you have cited here.

1. The null hypothesis is never proved or established, but is possibly disproved, in the course of experimentation.

2.Occam's Razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.

So before you say I have to prove God with steps 1-2-3, maybe you should make sure 1-2-3 apply to your own highly valued explanations.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 8:23:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago

How many Nobel Laureates in Science are black? or are women? Significantly lower than the national average.

You don't have a point, since most top contributors at that time were indeed white and male. And we are arguing assuming the subset of top contributors, which given that to be the case, clearly exhibit significantly lower religiosity than would be expected if the two variables were unrelated.

I argue my point is direct to the logic you assert. The population Nobel recipients are drawn from are primarily White Male and Agnostic/Atheist. So what ever argument you are making, I may equally apply to Sex or Ethnic background.

You need to show that there is a biased selection of top scientists for the Nobel prizes. It seems rather obvious this is not the case, or if it is, then not to a significant degree.

Virtually all the major contributions in physics chemistry and biology that are spoken about today in the core theories and findings that have had high impact value are by white male scientists. Relativity, quantum mechanics, atomic theory, cross-coupling, cosmology, evolution, etc.

Virtually everything worth talking about from the past 100 years was performed by white male scientists. I will quickly concede that there are exceptions, one notable one is Marie Curie for example. But the overall numbers are pretty much in line with the facts.

So you agree it is a skewed population of white male scientist. Why not include this majority should also include agnostic/atheistic belief.

Lol, no. It's just the case the top scientists are indeed a skewed population. The skewed population is just another interesting finding when surveying the top contributing scientists. You can ask questions about it but this just seems to be a red herring.

Could I make a case that a person is more likely to receive the Nobel if they are white, male, agnostic/atheist, English speaking, and hail from a NATO country?

Yep. It seems to just be a case of where the money, education and research facilities are, rather than by virtue of what they are though. You seem to have causation the wrong way around.

So the beliefs of this group are on par with their other demographics. Making your argument in respect to other demographic traits sound bias and bigoted. But this bias and bigotry not apply to religiosity? I say it does.

I don't see any causal rational for a bias in selection of non-religious over religious in the top-scientists circle. And you did not dispute that virtually all of the core science worth talking about are by those demographic and religious groups. Which pretty much pours water all over your claims.

... Deleted discussion on Newton's area of study. I'm not sure if you found my reasoning sufficient or the topic off topic.

Should I extend my list to muslim and hindu scientist that made contributions as well. Or will you prod the subject with they did not receive a Nobel either.

Well you could use other measures, but they unanimously agree with the statement I made, religiousity tends to be discarded with level of scientific contribution. It's also interesting when you look at the 'golden age' of Islam, in the 1200's in Baghdad. And to see exactly what ended this golden age of discovery and innovation. It's a pretty telling story.

All you prove is that social economic conditions have an impact on scientific endeavors. Not that individual beliefs hinder scientific contributions. Plus I would add that I think some contributions like Heisenberg are more impacting than some other Nobel Laureates in Science.

Social economic reasons that were primarily driven because of Islam.

The Mongolian sack of the city may have had something to do with that as well. It was an event of national infraction not religious implosion.

I'll save this for another topic. Seems to lack relevance for now.


Well if you make a resolution like "Muslim religion lead to the end of the Golden Age of Islam" I'm sure I would not be the only one to debate you on this.


I never made the claim that a person's religion inhibits their performance as a scientist, only that top scientists tend to drop religion (the causation is the opposite way around). This makes sense from a practice standpoint, since all top scientific contributions form theists are almost completely unrelated to their belief in god. In other words, god is set aside while they work, as it's unrelated.

The way they work is because the scientific method is by default materialistic naturalism. Because a variable of a God can not be removed from an experiment so God is ignored. But faith was a driving factor in these men to discern what their creator had created.

You can vouch for all of those scientists?

Newton most definately, all you have to do is read Principia. Lametria and Heisenburg took actions to imply the same. Jenner appearently did not leave much on his personal views but he said he was God's humble tool.

You do realise the time in which Newton lived, right? It seems irrelevant when talking about the data I am giving and today's society.

Pasteur well he said "Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator"

So I let their own words and work vouch for them.


Top scientist are indoctrinated into an academy does not ever even want to hear the word God. An education system at it's finest. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. The problem is the Academy of science is a greased pig squealing what a bank roll wants it to.

I don't care much for your own squealing and rambling.

How to discern an indoctrination program? It's participates abandon their previous social norms and adopt ideas not held by the majority.

Science does not need a person to abandon faith to be performed. It's like going to a school for motorcycle building and coming out Buddhist. If that were happening people would investigate the school a little more closely.

Agreed, but the data pretty clearly suggests a substantially lower level of religiosity among top scientists than would otherwise be expected, it's just a fact, and your attempts to wiggle out of it are pretty laughable.



Gregor Mendel
Contribution: Father of modern Genetics
Belief: Augustinian friar


Back to picking out individual data points are you?

The father of Genetics was a monk. You say biology is in conflict with religion. I found it a funny convergence of both themes in Mendel.

This doesn't prove biology isn't in conflict with religion whatsoever. It just proves one person is religious and a top biologist. I am giving general exaggerated trends, which is a lot mor telling than a lone data point.



Which pretty much flies in the face of the facts. I don't see why you would want to make such a futile argument anyway, since I don't see how it's an important issue for religion or science. There are atheist scientists and theist scientists, a is fists tend to drop rigion, that's all there is to it really.

My point is that there is no good correlation between religious belief in God and a scientific mind. The argument to link intelligence with the abandonment of religion is a non sequitur one.

Please show the statistics and data that support your position.

Perhaps this study, which is a much large survey over all scientists is more convincing:
http://www.pewforum.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 8:37:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 8:23:46 AM, Envisage wrote:

If you hear an Atheist say a belief in God (these guys were clearly judo-christian) means you are unreasonable and of low intelligence. Tell them to stop spreading lies and STFU.

That was the assertion I made. Your arguments show me a moving of goal past and muddying of the well. Laughable really.

You appear to have causation backwards. Religion does not indicate lower Intelligence, nor does it predicate a lack in scientific contributions. Those were my OP assertions.

The quote I gave from Pasteur is actually quite poignant, in that we see a great mind admonishing current day mentality in the sciences.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 8:57:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 6:16:13 AM, Envisage wrote:
...

This is a troll topic, right?

The fact you are down to picking out individual people (borderline anecdote) who believe in god rather than looking across the board of top scientists to see how many of them believe in god amuses me. The 1998 survey of Nobel Laureates in Science found just 7% of these scientists professed a belief in God.


So, you think taking a snapshot of scientists awarded a politically motivated prize counters a populist appeal, lol?

Personally, I think anybody who is wrong about the single most important datum in the cosmos is pretty suspect from the starting gate. If a person can't see that God is, I don't have a lot of confidence in their powers of observation and/or logic. We can certainly be unsure of who or what God is, but to say there is no God is just silly, really. You have to step over the evidence of your own humanity to say such a thing, so it at least means the atheist is not good at integrating ALL the evidence. Tunnel vision, in other words. Or, more likely, it's an emotional problem clouding their thinking.
This space for rent.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 9:08:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 8:57:19 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/27/2014 6:16:13 AM, Envisage wrote:
...

This is a troll topic, right?

The fact you are down to picking out individual people (borderline anecdote) who believe in god rather than looking across the board of top scientists to see how many of them believe in god amuses me. The 1998 survey of Nobel Laureates in Science found just 7% of these scientists professed a belief in God.


So, you think taking a snapshot of scientists awarded a politically motivated prize counters a populist appeal, lol?

The OP gave 5 specific examples of people... I think my study is substantially more useful than his data points.

Personally, I think anybody who is wrong about the single most important datum in the cosmos is pretty suspect from the starting gate. If a person can't see that God is, I don't have a lot of confidence in their powers of observation and/or logic.

Nothing todo with OP

We can certainly be unsure of who or what God is, but to say there is no God is just silly, really.

Says you. And we don't necessarily say that.

You have to step over the evidence of your own humanity to say such a thing, so it at least means the atheist is not good at integrating ALL the evidence. Tunnel vision, in other words. Or, more likely, it's an emotional problem clouding their thinking.

Sounds like a rant to me with no substance.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 9:20:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 8:37:28 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 8:23:46 AM, Envisage wrote:

If you hear an Atheist say a belief in God (these guys were clearly judo-christian) means you are unreasonable and of low intelligence. Tell them to stop spreading lies and STFU.

That was the assertion I made. Your arguments show me a moving of goal past and muddying of the well. Laughable really.

You appear to have causation backwards. Religion does not indicate lower Intelligence, nor does it predicate a lack in scientific contributions. Those were my OP assertions.

The quote I gave from Pasteur is actually quite poignant, in that we see a great mind admonishing current day mentality in the sciences.

Has there ever been any atheist here in Debate.org that has claimed that all scientists are atheists? Has there ever been anyone here that has claimed that there has never been a theist who was a scientist?

I mean, first off, you can be dumb in one area, and smart in another. Im sure there are plenty of scientists who cant fix a car to save their life, including myself. I am clearly dumb with regards to car repair, because i dont understand or know the first thing about it.

But putting that aside, i dont see what the point of this topic, is. You seem to be making up a straw man caricature of an atheist argument and arguing against it. Ive never seen an atheist who has said that theists cant be scientists and contribute to science, or that all theists are necessarily idiots in all aspects of their life.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 9:31:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 9:20:15 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/27/2014 8:37:28 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 8:23:46 AM, Envisage wrote:

If you hear an Atheist say a belief in God (these guys were clearly judo-christian) means you are unreasonable and of low intelligence. Tell them to stop spreading lies and STFU.

That was the assertion I made. Your arguments show me a moving of goal past and muddying of the well. Laughable really.

You appear to have causation backwards. Religion does not indicate lower Intelligence, nor does it predicate a lack in scientific contributions. Those were my OP assertions.

The quote I gave from Pasteur is actually quite poignant, in that we see a great mind admonishing current day mentality in the sciences.

Has there ever been any atheist here in Debate.org that has claimed that all scientists are atheists? Has there ever been anyone here that has claimed that there has never been a theist who was a scientist?

I mean, first off, you can be dumb in one area, and smart in another. Im sure there are plenty of scientists who cant fix a car to save their life, including myself. I am clearly dumb with regards to car repair, because i dont understand or know the first thing about it.

But putting that aside, i dont see what the point of this topic, is. You seem to be making up a straw man caricature of an atheist argument and arguing against it. Ive never seen an atheist who has said that theists cant be scientists and contribute to science, or that all theists are necessarily idiots in all aspects of their life.

There are atheist that claim religious people have offered nothing to science, and that have claimed religion is a sign of low intellect.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 9:45:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 9:31:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
There are atheist that claim religious people have offered nothing to science, and that have claimed religion is a sign of low intellect.

All you have to do is divide religious into two categories: those who believe their religious dogma even if it lies in direct contradiction to reason and science and those who only hold religious beliefs that fall outside the realm of science.

The first group believes things like the universe is 6,000 years old, it was created in 6 literal days, evolution isn't true and does fall in the "offered nothing to science, and that have claimed religion is a sign of low intellect."
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 9:47:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 9:31:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 9:20:15 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/27/2014 8:37:28 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 8:23:46 AM, Envisage wrote:

If you hear an Atheist say a belief in God (these guys were clearly judo-christian) means you are unreasonable and of low intelligence. Tell them to stop spreading lies and STFU.

That was the assertion I made. Your arguments show me a moving of goal past and muddying of the well. Laughable really.

You appear to have causation backwards. Religion does not indicate lower Intelligence, nor does it predicate a lack in scientific contributions. Those were my OP assertions.

The quote I gave from Pasteur is actually quite poignant, in that we see a great mind admonishing current day mentality in the sciences.

Has there ever been any atheist here in Debate.org that has claimed that all scientists are atheists? Has there ever been anyone here that has claimed that there has never been a theist who was a scientist?

I mean, first off, you can be dumb in one area, and smart in another. Im sure there are plenty of scientists who cant fix a car to save their life, including myself. I am clearly dumb with regards to car repair, because i dont understand or know the first thing about it.

But putting that aside, i dont see what the point of this topic, is. You seem to be making up a straw man caricature of an atheist argument and arguing against it. Ive never seen an atheist who has said that theists cant be scientists and contribute to science, or that all theists are necessarily idiots in all aspects of their life.

There are atheist that claim religious people have offered nothing to science, and that have claimed religion is a sign of low intellect.

On this website? Can you post a link to the topic?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 9:49:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 9:45:55 AM, Floid wrote:
At 5/27/2014 9:31:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
There are atheist that claim religious people have offered nothing to science, and that have claimed religion is a sign of low intellect.

All you have to do is divide religious into two categories: those who believe their religious dogma even if it lies in direct contradiction to reason and science and those who only hold religious beliefs that fall outside the realm of science.

The first group believes things like the universe is 6,000 years old, it was created in 6 literal days, evolution isn't true and does fall in the "offered nothing to science, and that have claimed religion is a sign of low intellect."

Newton was young earth creationist.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 10:12:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 9:47:24 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/27/2014 9:31:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 9:20:15 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/27/2014 8:37:28 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 8:23:46 AM, Envisage wrote:

If you hear an Atheist say a belief in God (these guys were clearly judo-christian) means you are unreasonable and of low intelligence. Tell them to stop spreading lies and STFU.

That was the assertion I made. Your arguments show me a moving of goal past and muddying of the well. Laughable really.

You appear to have causation backwards. Religion does not indicate lower Intelligence, nor does it predicate a lack in scientific contributions. Those were my OP assertions.

The quote I gave from Pasteur is actually quite poignant, in that we see a great mind admonishing current day mentality in the sciences.

Has there ever been any atheist here in Debate.org that has claimed that all scientists are atheists? Has there ever been anyone here that has claimed that there has never been a theist who was a scientist?

I mean, first off, you can be dumb in one area, and smart in another. Im sure there are plenty of scientists who cant fix a car to save their life, including myself. I am clearly dumb with regards to car repair, because i dont understand or know the first thing about it.

But putting that aside, i dont see what the point of this topic, is. You seem to be making up a straw man caricature of an atheist argument and arguing against it. Ive never seen an atheist who has said that theists cant be scientists and contribute to science, or that all theists are necessarily idiots in all aspects of their life.

There are atheist that claim religious people have offered nothing to science, and that have claimed religion is a sign of low intellect.

On this website? Can you post a link to the topic?

http://www.debate.org... first post

half this nuts comments http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

I know it is a year old. But I read this very sentiment not too long ago. As soon as I see it again I will message you. Should not be long.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 10:40:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 10:12:25 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 9:47:24 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/27/2014 9:31:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 9:20:15 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/27/2014 8:37:28 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 8:23:46 AM, Envisage wrote:

If you hear an Atheist say a belief in God (these guys were clearly judo-christian) means you are unreasonable and of low intelligence. Tell them to stop spreading lies and STFU.

That was the assertion I made. Your arguments show me a moving of goal past and muddying of the well. Laughable really.

You appear to have causation backwards. Religion does not indicate lower Intelligence, nor does it predicate a lack in scientific contributions. Those were my OP assertions.

The quote I gave from Pasteur is actually quite poignant, in that we see a great mind admonishing current day mentality in the sciences.

Has there ever been any atheist here in Debate.org that has claimed that all scientists are atheists? Has there ever been anyone here that has claimed that there has never been a theist who was a scientist?

I mean, first off, you can be dumb in one area, and smart in another. Im sure there are plenty of scientists who cant fix a car to save their life, including myself. I am clearly dumb with regards to car repair, because i dont understand or know the first thing about it.

But putting that aside, i dont see what the point of this topic, is. You seem to be making up a straw man caricature of an atheist argument and arguing against it. Ive never seen an atheist who has said that theists cant be scientists and contribute to science, or that all theists are necessarily idiots in all aspects of their life.

There are atheist that claim religious people have offered nothing to science, and that have claimed religion is a sign of low intellect.

On this website? Can you post a link to the topic?

http://www.debate.org... first post

He specifically states "Generally speaking". Do you seriously think that if i contacted Wallstreetatheist, and asked him whether there cannot possibly be even a single theits who is smart and has a high IQ, that he would say "Yes, there is not a single one"? Isnt this the difference between "Generally speaking" and "Every theist"?

half this nuts comments http://www.debate.org...

There seems to be a lot there, since it contains a bunch of quotations of previous replies. Can you pick one?

http://www.debate.org...

I know it is a year old. But I read this very sentiment not too long ago. As soon as I see it again I will message you. Should not be long.

are you talking about the question "Why do people with higher IQs tend to be atheist"?

Do you understand what the phrase "Tend to" means?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 10:43:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 10:40:35 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/27/2014 10:12:25 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 9:47:24 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/27/2014 9:31:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 9:20:15 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/27/2014 8:37:28 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 8:23:46 AM, Envisage wrote:

If you hear an Atheist say a belief in God (these guys were clearly judo-christian) means you are unreasonable and of low intelligence. Tell them to stop spreading lies and STFU.

That was the assertion I made. Your arguments show me a moving of goal past and muddying of the well. Laughable really.

You appear to have causation backwards. Religion does not indicate lower Intelligence, nor does it predicate a lack in scientific contributions. Those were my OP assertions.

The quote I gave from Pasteur is actually quite poignant, in that we see a great mind admonishing current day mentality in the sciences.

Has there ever been any atheist here in Debate.org that has claimed that all scientists are atheists? Has there ever been anyone here that has claimed that there has never been a theist who was a scientist?

I mean, first off, you can be dumb in one area, and smart in another. Im sure there are plenty of scientists who cant fix a car to save their life, including myself. I am clearly dumb with regards to car repair, because i dont understand or know the first thing about it.

But putting that aside, i dont see what the point of this topic, is. You seem to be making up a straw man caricature of an atheist argument and arguing against it. Ive never seen an atheist who has said that theists cant be scientists and contribute to science, or that all theists are necessarily idiots in all aspects of their life.

There are atheist that claim religious people have offered nothing to science, and that have claimed religion is a sign of low intellect.

On this website? Can you post a link to the topic?

http://www.debate.org... first post

He specifically states "Generally speaking". Do you seriously think that if i contacted Wallstreetatheist, and asked him whether there cannot possibly be even a single theits who is smart and has a high IQ, that he would say "Yes, there is not a single one"? Isnt this the difference between "Generally speaking" and "Every theist"?

half this nuts comments http://www.debate.org...

There seems to be a lot there, since it contains a bunch of quotations of previous replies. Can you pick one?

http://www.debate.org...

I know it is a year old. But I read this very sentiment not too long ago. As soon as I see it again I will message you. Should not be long.

are you talking about the question "Why do people with higher IQs tend to be atheist"?

Do you understand what the phrase "Tend to" means?

When I see such a statement made again I will alert you.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 10:45:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 10:43:31 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 10:40:35 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/27/2014 10:12:25 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 9:47:24 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/27/2014 9:31:07 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 9:20:15 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/27/2014 8:37:28 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 8:23:46 AM, Envisage wrote:

If you hear an Atheist say a belief in God (these guys were clearly judo-christian) means you are unreasonable and of low intelligence. Tell them to stop spreading lies and STFU.

That was the assertion I made. Your arguments show me a moving of goal past and muddying of the well. Laughable really.

You appear to have causation backwards. Religion does not indicate lower Intelligence, nor does it predicate a lack in scientific contributions. Those were my OP assertions.

The quote I gave from Pasteur is actually quite poignant, in that we see a great mind admonishing current day mentality in the sciences.

Has there ever been any atheist here in Debate.org that has claimed that all scientists are atheists? Has there ever been anyone here that has claimed that there has never been a theist who was a scientist?

I mean, first off, you can be dumb in one area, and smart in another. Im sure there are plenty of scientists who cant fix a car to save their life, including myself. I am clearly dumb with regards to car repair, because i dont understand or know the first thing about it.

But putting that aside, i dont see what the point of this topic, is. You seem to be making up a straw man caricature of an atheist argument and arguing against it. Ive never seen an atheist who has said that theists cant be scientists and contribute to science, or that all theists are necessarily idiots in all aspects of their life.

There are atheist that claim religious people have offered nothing to science, and that have claimed religion is a sign of low intellect.

On this website? Can you post a link to the topic?

http://www.debate.org... first post

He specifically states "Generally speaking". Do you seriously think that if i contacted Wallstreetatheist, and asked him whether there cannot possibly be even a single theits who is smart and has a high IQ, that he would say "Yes, there is not a single one"? Isnt this the difference between "Generally speaking" and "Every theist"?

half this nuts comments http://www.debate.org...

There seems to be a lot there, since it contains a bunch of quotations of previous replies. Can you pick one?

http://www.debate.org...

I know it is a year old. But I read this very sentiment not too long ago. As soon as I see it again I will message you. Should not be long.

are you talking about the question "Why do people with higher IQs tend to be atheist"?

Do you understand what the phrase "Tend to" means?

When I see such a statement made again I will alert you.

Okay.
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 11:58:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 8:20:50 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 8:07:20 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/27/2014 6:03:23 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
List goes on people. If you hear an Atheist say a belief in God (these guys were clearly judo-christian) means you are unreasonable and of low intelligence. Tell them to stop spreading lies and STFU.

1. Only 7% of the leading American scientists believe in a god.

Indoctrination by education system

Really? How so?

2. The Null Hypothesis, which is a scientific and logical tool, supports atheism.

Absence of Evidence is not evidence for absence. And please explain to me how the Null Hypothesis relates to God's existence. I'm interested in hearing that in your own words.

Let's say that I claim I have an Elephant in my garage and a skeptic comes in and takes a look, what does he find? Well, he does not see the Elephant there but that is absence of evidence. He looks around and sees no evidence for or against there being an Elephant in my garage. Is it still proper to claim that an Elephant is in my garage? No, it is not.

The statement is more accurate when said like this, "Absence of Evidence can be Evidence of Absence, but is not Proof of Absence."

You can not prove that the Elephant is not in my garage, but when you looked for evidence you found none. This means that that Absence of Evidence IS Evidence of Absence, even if it is not 100% proof.

So, when is Absence of Evidence Evidence of Absence?

It is important to state that only positive claims can be tested with Evidence of Absence. So, let's get to it.

Well, in order for a claim to be taken seriously it has to be testable and falsifiable. If the claim is not testable and is not falsifiable then the claim can be ignored, the claim cannot be said to be true.

When there exists a positive claim that can be testable and falsifiable then you must look for evidence of that claim. When you actually look for the evidence and find none, absence of evidence, then it becomes Evidence of Absence, but it is not proof of absence.

When evidence is found for the positive claim, and is shown to be real evidence, then the Evidence of Absence no longer exists.

So, what does this type of Evidence of Absence mean?

It means that the negative claim is supported, not proven. The key thing to remember is that this type of Evidence of Absence alone only supports the negative claim, it can never prove it.

3. We have no need for a god to exist for the universe to exist as there are naturalistic explanations that work and are favored by Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor is a heuristic, it is not evidence for anything. Simple solutions tend to be the most elegant is another way of phrasing it. This being the case God is the lowest denominator for the cause of the universe being the way it is.

You would have to assume multiple universes or higher dimensional membranes to account for the same result. Most of which has already been discounted by the BICEPT2 and Planck results.

1. We know that there exists at least 1 universe.
2. We have no evidence or reason to believe there is even 1 God.
3. We have evidence that there could be at least 1 more universe (http://www.dailymail.co.uk......)
4. We do not have evidence that even 1 God exists.

Occam's Razor would support the multiverse, which doesn't even need to exist for our universe to exist, it just makes it more likely for our universe to exist.

"A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God " at a time when 68.5 percent of the general UK population described themselves as believers. A separate poll in the 90s found only seven percent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God."

http://freethinker.co.uk...

"Like most atheists, I do not claim that I know God does not exist. I merely claim that there is not enough evidence to justify belief in God. And the best way to illustrate this claim is through the null hypothesis. This is a statistical concept that is used for hypothesis testing in science."

http://aafwaterloo.wordpress.com...

So, are there some geniuses that believe in a god? Yes, but few. Do atheists make up the majority of the leading scientists? Yes, an overwhelming majority.

When we look at this we see that it is not wrong to say that theists are less intelligent than atheists OVERALL. There are some outliers, there always will be, but that does not mean that the statistics that atheists tend to have higher intellect than theists is wrong, it just means that there are outliers.

If you want to justify your belief in a god, in order to make it a reasonable belief, you must do the following:

1. Provide evidence for the God Hypothesis.
2. Have enough evidence and specific enough evidence that Occam's Razor supports it.
3. Have the evidence be tested (have people attempt to show that it is wrong) and pass (they fail to show it is wrong).

When those 3 steps are accomplished you will have a reasonable belief in a god, but not yet a specific god.

No I disagree. The steps you outline are paraphrasing a scientific method. It is not the only way to prove a reasonable beleif in God. I argue this method is not even how you conduct your day to day business. Nor how you accept half the stuff you have cited here.

1. The null hypothesis is never proved or established, but is possibly disproved, in the course of experimentation.

Correct, that is how the null hypothesis works. You form a hypothesis (The God Hypothesis for example), then you form the null hypothesis (There is an absence of a god), then you attempt to disprove the null hypothesis. If the null hypothesis is not disproven it becomes the logical answer.

2.Occam's Razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.

No, it is not, but it helps find out what is more likely. Theoretical physics works off of Occam's Razor, and when it becomes a science that is testable it moves on past that. That is why the God Hypothesis must include Occam's razor, it is a theoretical hypothesis, it cannot be tested (as far as anyone knows).
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 11:58:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So before you say I have to prove God with steps 1-2-3, maybe you should make sure 1-2-3 apply to your own highly valued explanations.

Okay, let me do that.

1. Evidence. Note, evidence does not have to be empirical evidence, I never said it did.

"I mentioned earlier, we have plenty of evidence that the very basic calculations like the ones required here work beautifully in quantum field theory. The fact that there are quantum fluctuations, with associated energy, is so deeply built into quantum mechanics that to declare it simply to be false requires you to explain a whole library of experimental results for which quantum mechanics gave correct predictions. So as scientists we have no choice but to take our calculation very seriously, and to try to understand it."

http://profmattstrassler.com...

So, quantum fluctuations could produce this universe, even physicists say that is possible.

"In the very weird world of quantum mechanics, which describes action on a subatomic scale, random fluctuations can produce matter and energy out of nothingness. And this can lead to very big things indeed, researchers say.
"Quantum mechanical fluctuations can produce the cosmos," said panelist Seth Shostak, a senior astronomer at the non-profit Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute. "If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way, you might create an entirely new universe. It's not clear you could get into that universe, but you would create it.""

http://www.space.com...

So, evidence for the Quantum Fluctuations.

2. From the same first source it says that either Quantum Fluctuations are true or that we have to "explain a whole library of experimental results for which quantum mechanics gave correct predictions."

So, Occam's Razor says that them happening is likely.

3. As it says, predictions were made that were accurate using Quantum Fluctuations, so it passes this part as well.

Next step!

Theoretical Quantum Physics of Quantum Gravity!

1. Evidence.

"Physicists have found a long-predicted twist in light from the big bang that represents the first image of ripples in the universe called gravitational waves, researchers announced today."

So, we know that gravity did play a role in the beginning of the universe.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

When it comes to Quantum Gravity there are many ideas out there. One example is Primary State Diffusion.

http://arxiv.org...

The ENTIRE section 5 of that paper deals with experiments over time. Many, if not most, Quantum Gravity theories (theoretical theories) allow spacetime to fluctuate, meaning it can pop in and out of existence as well.

2. Occam's Razor.

When it comes to Quantum Gravity theories Occam's Razor is important. So, when we apply Occam's Razor we have to look at which Quantum Gravity theory is most supported. Looking at section 5 of that paper shows quite a bit of support for Primary State Diffusion.

3. Is it falsifiable?

"The theory is falsi@257;able in the laboratory, and critical matter interferometry experiments to distinguish it from ordinary quantum mechanics may be feasible within the next decade."

It is falsifiable, and people are trying to do so. We will be able to have a better understanding of how to falsify it in the (hopefully) near future.

So, spacetime popping in and out of existence, when it is in existence Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations occur to allow the Big Bang.

Now, this means that if Primary State Diffusion, or any number of Quantum Gravity theories, is brought out of theoretical physics and into quantum mechanics, all that needs to happen is for natural laws to exist for the universe to come into existence.

And once it is in existence it can keep acting on the laws and theories of physics.

http://www.haaretz.com...

With just the laws and theories that we know and understand today a universe very similar to ours would arise.

God is less likely than naturalistic explanations.

I am not saying that all theists are dumb, but I am saying that the statistics put atheists as being more intelligent, overall, than theists. This does not mean that every atheist will be more intelligent or that every theist will be less intelligent. It only means that, statistically, atheists make up the majority of the world's intellectuals.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 12:08:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 11:58:12 AM, SNP1 wrote:
So before you say I have to prove God with steps 1-2-3, maybe you should make sure 1-2-3 apply to your own highly valued explanations.

Okay, let me do that.

1. Evidence. Note, evidence does not have to be empirical evidence, I never said it did.

"I mentioned earlier, we have plenty of evidence that the very basic calculations like the ones required here work beautifully in quantum field theory. The fact that there are quantum fluctuations, with associated energy, is so deeply built into quantum mechanics that to declare it simply to be false requires you to explain a whole library of experimental results for which quantum mechanics gave correct predictions. So as scientists we have no choice but to take our calculation very seriously, and to try to understand it."

http://profmattstrassler.com...

So, quantum fluctuations could produce this universe, even physicists say that is possible.

"In the very weird world of quantum mechanics, which describes action on a subatomic scale, random fluctuations can produce matter and energy out of nothingness. And this can lead to very big things indeed, researchers say.
"Quantum mechanical fluctuations can produce the cosmos," said panelist Seth Shostak, a senior astronomer at the non-profit Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute. "If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way, you might create an entirely new universe. It's not clear you could get into that universe, but you would create it.""

http://www.space.com...

So, evidence for the Quantum Fluctuations.

2. From the same first source it says that either Quantum Fluctuations are true or that we have to "explain a whole library of experimental results for which quantum mechanics gave correct predictions."

So, Occam's Razor says that them happening is likely.

3. As it says, predictions were made that were accurate using Quantum Fluctuations, so it passes this part as well.


Next step!

Theoretical Quantum Physics of Quantum Gravity!

1. Evidence.

"Physicists have found a long-predicted twist in light from the big bang that represents the first image of ripples in the universe called gravitational waves, researchers announced today."

So, we know that gravity did play a role in the beginning of the universe.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

When it comes to Quantum Gravity there are many ideas out there. One example is Primary State Diffusion.

http://arxiv.org...

The ENTIRE section 5 of that paper deals with experiments over time. Many, if not most, Quantum Gravity theories (theoretical theories) allow spacetime to fluctuate, meaning it can pop in and out of existence as well.

2. Occam's Razor.

When it comes to Quantum Gravity theories Occam's Razor is important. So, when we apply Occam's Razor we have to look at which Quantum Gravity theory is most supported. Looking at section 5 of that paper shows quite a bit of support for Primary State Diffusion.

3. Is it falsifiable?

"The theory is falsi@257;able in the laboratory, and critical matter interferometry experiments to distinguish it from ordinary quantum mechanics may be feasible within the next decade."

It is falsifiable, and people are trying to do so. We will be able to have a better understanding of how to falsify it in the (hopefully) near future.


So, spacetime popping in and out of existence, when it is in existence Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations occur to allow the Big Bang.


Now, this means that if Primary State Diffusion, or any number of Quantum Gravity theories, is brought out of theoretical physics and into quantum mechanics, all that needs to happen is for natural laws to exist for the universe to come into existence.

And once it is in existence it can keep acting on the laws and theories of physics.

http://www.haaretz.com...

With just the laws and theories that we know and understand today a universe very similar to ours would arise.


God is less likely than naturalistic explanations.

I am not saying that all theists are dumb, but I am saying that the statistics put atheists as being more intelligent, overall, than theists. This does not mean that every atheist will be more intelligent or that every theist will be less intelligent. It only means that, statistically, atheists make up the majority of the world's intellectuals.

An interaction that was a quantum fluctuation was the creative event that spawned this universe. This quantum fluctuation came from God. The evidence you cite for being for another universe is not a universe it is God. A quantum fluctuation in the universe at the singularity would come from where? outside this universe.

I'm a bit tired but I appreciate the work you did SNP1 so instead of leaving you with just that blurb I will respond with more after I am rested. Thank you for you reply I will take it under consideration and scrutiny. I already see one point I will probably concede on.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 12:13:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 9:49:40 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 9:45:55 AM, Floid wrote:
The first group believes things like the universe is 6,000 years old, it was created in 6 literal days, evolution isn't true and does fall in the "offered nothing to science, and that have claimed religion is a sign of low intellect."

Newton was young earth creationist.

Newton also died in 1727 which was:
1.) 130 years before the theory of evolution was proposed
2.) 100 years before thermodynamics would reach maturity and 140 years before William Thomson would use it to calculate the age of the Earth to be at least millions of years old
3.) 180 years before radio metric dating was proposed and 230 years before it could be accurately and consistently carried out
4.) 240 years before the discovery of cosmic background radiation

And on and on...

Newton didn't exactly have a lot to go on in forming his opinion of the age o origin of the Earth.