< 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Science and “logic”

 
Egross
 
Avatar
 
 
Egross
Total Posts:  117
Joined  11-02-2013
 
 
 
16 February 2013 19:28
 

The original quote from the beginning of this thread was:

The atheist astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson said that the discovery of dark energy is one of the best arguments someone can use for the existence of an all-powerful creator, since the universe is expanding and accelerating, not slowing down.

I have been googling and have yet to find Dr. Tyson saying that “...dark energy is one of the best arguments someone can use for the existence of an all-powerful creator” - If someone could find that, we can validate or invalidate the thread.

This seems to refute him saying that:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/was-the-universe-intellig_b_10464.html

[ Edited: 16 February 2013 19:32 by Egross]
 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6073
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
16 February 2013 20:59
 

Tyson on Dark Energy and Dark Matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFLW5uxzoKA

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  19412
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
16 February 2013 21:18
 
Jefe - 16 February 2013 07:59 PM

Tyson on Dark Energy and Dark Matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFLW5uxzoKA

Fred & Ethyl. So, if we really only know about 4% of the forces and stuff in the universe, doesn’t that make everyone who is 100% certain that God does not exist sort of irrational?  We don’t know what the “matter” is that is holding starts and galaxies together, and we don’t know what the “energy” is that is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate.  Tyson hypothesizes multi-verses, for which there is no confirmatory evidence. Some of the energy from those universes may seep across into ours. That’s not just a whole lot different that God living in another dimension and occasionally sending messages across the membrane of our world. Religion is looking more and more rational all the time. People who discount the possibility that it is real are irrational, based on the evidence available.  Agnostics like Tyson are not irrational, nor are weak atheists, but strong atheists are.

 
TheBrotherMario
 
Avatar
 
 
TheBrotherMario
Total Posts:  4488
Joined  02-04-2011
 
 
 
16 February 2013 22:06
 

Watch the YouTube video with Tyson “destroying” Bill O’Reilly’s logic for the existence of God. You should find it there.

But, even after you find out that I am telling you the truth about Tyson, it is still very telling that not one of you, NOT ONE OF YOU, “thinkers” has the ability to logically see and admit the simple idea that if a being with omnipotent power was behind the Big Bang this would logically entail an omnipotent thrust of energy, and such a thrust would manifest itself with an expansion that would accelerate without any signs of slowing down.

It’s a simple idea, people. My list above are all simple ideas.

It’s a worthy argument for God’s existence. My list above contains ideas that would have been, if scientifically discovered, worthy arguments against the existence of God.

Your atheism born from your personalities has tied up your minds and won’t let you break free.

And, how do you get around looking at yourselves honestly? By looking for nuances in my posts that can become loopholes for you to squeeze through, that’s how.

What a bunch of fools. You can’t even give God’s existence a hypothetical glance, never mind a serious consideration.

And, this makes your atheism based upon personal biases and a lack of thought, not upon logic and superior thought.

 
 
The Voice of Reason
 
Avatar
 
 
The Voice of Reason
Total Posts:  109
Joined  09-01-2013
 
 
 
16 February 2013 22:09
 
Ecurb Noselrub - 16 February 2013 08:18 PM

So, if we really only know about 4% of the forces and stuff in the universe, doesn’t that make everyone who is 100% certain that God does not exist sort of irrational?  We don’t know what the “matter” is that is holding starts and galaxies together, and we don’t know what the “energy” is that is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate.

That’s the difference between a rational person, and a religious nut.

A rational person reads the above quote, and concludes: “And since we don’t know, it remains unexplained for now.”
A religious nut reads the above quote, and concludes: “And since we don’t know, it must be god/zeus/thor/eric cartman/my little pony.”

 
 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14437
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
16 February 2013 23:12
 
Egross - 16 February 2013 06:28 PM

The original quote from the beginning of this thread was:

The atheist astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson said that the discovery of dark energy is one of the best arguments someone can use for the existence of an all-powerful creator, since the universe is expanding and accelerating, not slowing down.


Is someone under the impression that’s an argument for theism?

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6073
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
16 February 2013 23:38
 
TheBrotherMario - 16 February 2013 09:06 PM

Watch the YouTube video with Tyson “destroying” Bill O’Reilly’s logic for the existence of God. You should find it there..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5dSyT50Cs8

“If that’s the way you want to invoke your evidence for god, then god becomes an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on….That’s just simply the god of the gaps argument.” Neil DeGrasse Tyson.2:10.

“That doesn’t even bother me.  What would bother me is if you’re so content in that answer that you no longer had curiosity to learn how it happened. The day you stop looking because you’re content god did it, I don’t need you in the lab.  You’re useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of the world.” - Neil DeGrasse Tyson. 2:42

 
 
Jeff M
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeff M
Total Posts:  1644
Joined  08-10-2010
 
 
 
17 February 2013 01:41
 
TheBrotherMario - 15 February 2013 09:40 AM

Atheists/materialists arrogantly position themselves at the top of the “logic” chain, and use science as the mane around their heads.

You begin with bluster and give no example.  I for one have never used science as a mane around my head.  Is this something you think about often?

TheBrotherMario - 15 February 2013 09:40 AM

BUT…

When science is seen for what it is—i.e., the HUMAN mind at work—and the scientific method is seen for what it is—i.e., mathematics applied to sensory perception—then “logically” we can conclude that science is thinking as men think and from the bottom looking up.

 

Maybe you conclude that, but leave me out of that we you used.  What the scientific method give us is the ability to discover which of our sensory perceptions (stated as theories) are supported by facts, and which are misperceptions. 

TheBrotherMario - 15 February 2013 09:40 AM

Now, thinking as men think is fine, when done correctly, objectively, honestly, and openly. But it is not fine when done from personality issues or a skeptical mind hell-bent upon an atheist/materialist agenda bordering on “superstition”.

 

Do you know what word salad is?

TheBrotherMario - 15 February 2013 09:40 AM

Project Reason is filled with people who are the opposite of objective or open when faced with scientific facts.

 

Well then, it should not be hard to provide some specific examples.  An no, you can’t use your own or IAMWHOIAM.

TheBrotherMario - 15 February 2013 09:40 AM

The atheist astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson said that the discovery of dark energy is one of the best arguments someone can use for the existence of an all-powerful creator, since the universe is expanding and accelerating, not slowing down.

 

Then it should not be hard to provide a link to his statement.  But even if you did, so what?  Are you arguing he speaks for all of science and atheists?

TheBrotherMario - 15 February 2013 09:40 AM

When I posted this argument (a year before I heard Tyson’s statement) on PR, not one, NOT ONE, poster could get themselves to “logically” admit that a being with omnipotent power would “push” the universe outward at creation in an omnipotent manner—i.e., with a power that would never diminish but actually increase.

 

I can’t speak for the other posters, but if I had read that, I would conclude you are talking about things you have no way of knowing.

TheBrotherMario - 15 February 2013 09:40 AM

There are more scientific facts that point to such a being behind reality and “us”.

 

Let’s be clear here, to this point, you have not presented any scientific facts that point to such a being, so you err with the use of the word more

TheBrotherMario - 15 February 2013 09:40 AM

Let me post the “opposite” of these scientific facts to illustrate my point above.

 

You have presented no scientific facts that support a biblical creator.  There is no ““opposite”” for you to present.

TheBrotherMario - 15 February 2013 09:40 AM

Here is a partial list of scientific discoveries that should have happened for atheism/materialism to be free from superstition and based upon fact:

1) The universe was always here and did not have a beginning from a single point.

2) The universe does not have a boundary and is infinite.

 

I’ll leave these questions to the physicists and astrophysicists.  There are interesting theories being tested, but we do not have enough evidence to know, I think. Tell me how my position is superstition.

TheBrotherMario - 15 February 2013 09:40 AM

3) The universe’s expansion is slowing down.

 

What are you talking about?  The consensus of the scientific community is that it is speeding up, I think.  Whether it is speeding up, or slowing down, provides no proof of a biblical creator anyway.

TheBrotherMario - 15 February 2013 09:40 AM

4) Chaos in the universe succumbs to mere chance.

 

Word salad.

TheBrotherMario - 15 February 2013 09:40 AM

5) Physical matter can account for the physical laws.

 

Generalization.  There is also energy and likely other things we are still learning about.

TheBrotherMario - 15 February 2013 09:40 AM

6) Physical matter can account for the evolution toward complexity.

7) Life evolved from physical matter.

 

We actually have DNA evidence for this, although there is still more to learn.

TheBrotherMario - 15 February 2013 09:40 AM

8) Life is a simple process of chemical reactions that can be duplicated.

 

Remember life had 4 billion years to evolve here, it is a pretty tall order to duplicate it at the moment.  Still, saying “yes, we can’t do that” is not superstition.

TheBrotherMario - 15 February 2013 09:40 AM

9) The human eye evolved from the first ancient protein sensitive to light.

 

Please explain yourself Dr. Mario.

TheBrotherMario - 15 February 2013 09:40 AM

10) Human consciousness evolved from mindless matter.

There is no evidence it happened any other way.

In summary, you made no case why these would have to be true for “atheism/materialism to be free from superstition”.  Most Atheists are happy to reject superstition and sit back and ponder the evidence as it comes in, we are content to live with what we do know, and look forward to the discovery of more evidence.  Can you say the same?

 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
17 February 2013 02:03
 

Dark energy is God
Dark matter is God
The higgs boson is God
Human consciousness is God

Everything currently unexplained or not properly described is God, or leaves the door open for God?

The argument from incredulity, centuries old, still does not hold water and that is why the world as a whole is becoming more nonreligious every year. People are becoming more educated, largely because of the internet, and figuring this out slowly but surely.

We just need to say, as a species, that we do not know, instead of…. God did it.

THAT, is the basis of rational thought. And we are becoming more rational everyday.

 
 
Egross
 
Avatar
 
 
Egross
Total Posts:  117
Joined  11-02-2013
 
 
 
17 February 2013 03:59
 
Jefe - 16 February 2013 07:59 PM

Tyson on Dark Energy and Dark Matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFLW5uxzoKA

My point was, since I already posted this link, is that he never said what the original poster (the mario brother) had claimed, never mentioned god, a creator or anything. Therefore, the thread began with a misrepresentation and a rationalization and not truth.

 
 
Egross
 
Avatar
 
 
Egross
Total Posts:  117
Joined  11-02-2013
 
 
 
17 February 2013 04:11
 
SkepticX - 16 February 2013 10:12 PM
Egross - 16 February 2013 06:28 PM

The original quote from the beginning of this thread was:

The atheist astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson said that the discovery of dark energy is one of the best arguments someone can use for the existence of an all-powerful creator, since the universe is expanding and accelerating, not slowing down.


Is someone under the impression that’s an argument for theism?

No, but since the premis for this thread was based on a lie, I thought it was important to point out that Dr. Tyson never said what he was quoted as saying from the start, unless the mario brother can post a rebuttal link to claim the opposite, which he has yet to do. We see this a lot, quoting half of Darwin, having Dr. Hawkings state a case for a deity, having Einstein believe in an omnipotent, omnibeneficent deity, when he wrote that he considered such things as simply a “sublimination of the old conception of gods”.

In other words, if you find someting in a long list of “proofs” to be made up, then there is no need to adress anything else. By calling people on their BS, you eventually get then to re-present and re-present until all of the falsehoods are removed, and you are either left with the truth or nothing at all.

 
 
dacecain
 
Avatar
 
 
dacecain
Total Posts:  255
Joined  07-10-2012
 
 
 
17 February 2013 08:49
 
TheBrotherMario - 16 February 2013 09:06 PM

Watch the YouTube video with Tyson “destroying” Bill O’Reilly’s logic for the existence of God. You should find it there.
But, even after you find out that I am telling you the truth about Tyson, it is still very telling that not one of you, NOT ONE OF YOU, “thinkers” has the ability to logically see and admit the simple idea that if a being with omnipotent power was behind the Big Bang this would logically entail an omnipotent thrust of energy, and such a thrust would manifest itself with an expansion that would accelerate without any signs of slowing down.

The problem here, Joe, is that according to estimates, the acceleration of the Universe didn’t begin until roughly 5 billion years ago. How does your omnipotent thrust of energy account for roughly 7 billion years of no acceleration and a deceleration?

TheBrotherMario - 16 February 2013 09:06 PM

It’s a simple idea, people. My list above are all simple ideas.
It’s a worthy argument for God’s existence. My list above contains ideas that would have been, if scientifically discovered, worthy arguments against the existence of God.

There are already worthy arguments against the existence of god and you are the one seeking to add him into reality, so I think you should be the one to provide the evidence for it.

TheBrotherMario - 16 February 2013 09:06 PM

Your atheism born from your personalities has tied up your minds and won’t let you break free.

Right back atcha!

TheBrotherMario - 16 February 2013 09:06 PM

And, how do you get around looking at yourselves honestly? By looking for nuances in my posts that can become loopholes for you to squeeze through, that’s how.

I just honestly assume that I don’t know everything about how the world works and that there’s a good chance that the people around thousands of years before me probably knew even less on how it works. What about you?

TheBrotherMario - 16 February 2013 09:06 PM

What a bunch of fools. You can’t even give God’s existence a hypothetical glance, never mind a serious consideration.

Which god again? A supernatural entity creating the Universe is a hypothesis – why should it be given serious consideration until some evidence is present in support. Did people just say to Copernicus “oh, so you think the planets go around the sun? I believe you!”

TheBrotherMario - 16 February 2013 09:06 PM

And, this makes your atheism based upon personal biases and a lack of thought, not upon logic and superior thought.

My lack of belief is based upon much thought and logic. What is your particular brand of theism based upon, Joe? How much personal bias and lack of thought have you applied to creeds opposed to your own?

 
 
TheBrotherMario
 
Avatar
 
 
TheBrotherMario
Total Posts:  4488
Joined  02-04-2011
 
 
 
17 February 2013 14:02
 

Dr. Tyson says it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0nC46ztDzM

He did, of course, as an atheist and a lover of science, add a host of caveats after putting out there that dark energy is a valid argument for the existence of an omnipotent God. He basically gave the atheist answer that it was still a “god of the gaps” argument.

What he failed to do, however, was look at dark energy metaphysically by accepting that this mysterious and unobservable force was possibly an omnipotent force, and then discuss the nature and existence of such an omnipotent force.

He just brushed off dark energy’s unknowns as another quest for the scientific method, and nothing else.

This is a “science of the gaps” argument.

Neither the “god of the gaps” or the “science of the gaps” arguments are the stuff of the truly evolved mind, for both sit in superstition and bias, not on the throne of reason.

As I posted before, only when science combines with metaphysics will such things as dark energy, the emergence of life, the beginning of the universe, and on and on, be understood more fully; for such things as these did not occur through mere physical forces and laws alone, as the scientist maintains, or through a God outside of and not in need of physical forces and laws.

Let me again post the metaphysical principle that scientists adamantly ignore in their materialism, despite the fact that all their scientific roadblocks show this principle to hold true:

No combination of lesser things can account for the creation of a greater thing unless something even greater than this greater thing is added to these lesser things.

If you can, if your personalities allow it, ponder this principle when faced with the truth that scientists, with all their skills and knowledge, have been unable to create a single “greater thing” in their laboratories, but have merely observed the greater things that already exist.

[ Edited: 17 February 2013 14:09 by TheBrotherMario]
 
 
dacecain
 
Avatar
 
 
dacecain
Total Posts:  255
Joined  07-10-2012
 
 
 
17 February 2013 14:52
 
TheBrotherMario - 17 February 2013 01:02 PM

Dr. Tyson says it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0nC46ztDzM

He did, of course, as an atheist and a lover of science, add a host of caveats after putting out there that dark energy is a valid argument for the existence of an omnipotent God. He basically gave the atheist answer that it was still a “god of the gaps” argument.

What he failed to do, however, was look at dark energy metaphysically by accepting that this mysterious and unobservable force was possibly an omnipotent force, and then discuss the nature and existence of such an omnipotent force.

He just brushed off dark energy’s unknowns as another quest for the scientific method, and nothing else.

This is a “science of the gaps” argument.

Neither the “god of the gaps” or the “science of the gaps” arguments are the stuff of the truly evolved mind, for both sit in superstition and bias, not on the throne of reason.

As I posted before, only when science combines with metaphysics will such things as dark energy, the emergence of life, the beginning of the universe, and on and on, be understood more fully; for such things as these did not occur through mere physical forces and laws alone, as the scientist maintains, or through a God outside of and not in need of physical forces and laws.

Let me again post the metaphysical principle that scientists adamantly ignore in their materialism, despite the fact that all their scientific roadblocks show this principle to hold true:

No combination of lesser things can account for the creation of a greater thing unless something even greater than this greater thing is added to these lesser things.

If you can, if your personalities allow it, ponder this principle when faced with the truth that scientists, with all their skills and knowledge, have been unable to create a single “greater thing” in their laboratories, but have merely observed the greater things that already exist.

All I heard him say was that if someone was going to argue god’s existence, it is better to argue using things that are not yet understood by science as opposed to things that are.

How did you get from that to this:

TheBrotherMario - 15 February 2013 09:40 AM

The atheist astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson said that the discovery of dark energy is one of the best arguments someone can use for the existence of an all-powerful creator, since the universe is expanding and accelerating, not slowing down.

I still haven’t worked out how your principle isn’t infinite regression. or how it makes any sense. What do you consider to be a “greater thing” that has yet to be created in a lab?

 
 
Egross
 
Avatar
 
 
Egross
Total Posts:  117
Joined  11-02-2013
 
 
 
17 February 2013 15:01
 

Nope, at no point does he say such a thing in that video either. He never even mentions dark energy or dark matter, as you said in your first post.

And without mentioning dark [anything] he makes an opposite point that you were providing, that to apply god where there is something you don’t understand is stupid, because it stops you from thinking and discovering.

He never says that there is evidence to point to god. Nor does he say that the lack of evidence points to a god, but the opposite.

He was mocking Bill O’reily by saying:

Does it mean that if you don’t understand something and the community of physicist don’t understand something that god did it. Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is here is a list of the things in the past at the time, the physicist didn’t understand and a talk show you might have done 200 years ago might have said [mocking ton] ‘the planets do retrograde? Can’t understand that. Must be a god!’.

[rolling eyes]And we would say ‘You know, you’re right’. And then 10 years later you understand it, so what do you do? So if that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for godthen god is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller, and smaller, and smaller, as time moves on. So just be ready for that to happen.

If that’s how you want to come at the problem.

So that’s simply the “god of the gaps” argument. It’s been around forever.

[interrupts interviewer who was about to speak]And I don’t mind, I don’t even care is someone wants to say ‘You don’t understand that, god did it.’ That doesn’t even bother me. What would bother me is if you were so content with that answer, that you no longer had curiosity to know how it happened. The day you stop looking because you say “Ok, god did it”, I don’t need you in the lab. You’re useless!.On the frontier of understanding the nature of the world.

And if the world had been…[several seconds struggling]...I’m glad…whoever those folks are they aren’t that many of them, because if they dominated the wold, we’d still be in the cave. We would have never left the cave. Because there are mysterious things out there, and you think ‘god is doing that’ and you don’t need to know that ,and don’t even think about it. Where would we be…if their understanding of the world, ruled the world?

So I don’t mind it, just don’t prevent others from conducting that investigation themselves.

[Interviewer]So he could have made a better case if he had an astrophysicist advising him.
[Tyson][laughs] He would have made a different case! He’d find some physics we don’t understand and if he wants to call that god…them you come at him with the god of the gaps argument.

But you can’t pick something we don’t understand, because then you become an object of mockery.

So did you make up the premis of this thread that he said that what we know points to god?

So far it appears so.

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›