Atheism is proven irrational by science and mathematics

[cerad]

not using the word ‘proof’ doesnt carry much weight. if you assign a theory such as ‘evolution’, ‘global warming’, ‘abiogenesis’ or variations on ‘string theory’,the same weight as if it were proven, in other words you ridicule, or denigrate those whose opinions at variance with those, then you are giving that theory the weight of proven fact, having never used the term ‘proof’. so it boils down to a 6 of one, half dozen of the other situation.

Actually I was just trying to explain why science doesn’t do proofs to S J Thaikattil. Be assured that no matter how silly your posts are, evolution will never be proved.

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

I really am not worried about what happens 75 trillion years or 4.5 billion years or even one million years hence. Just to remind you though: when we started talking about a cold, dark universe, we were talking about this one in 75 trillion years time - not some other hypothetical new one.

I was talking about multiple serial Big Bangs, the next one happening only after the products of the current Big Bang, to which our planet earth belongs, has disappeared. I understand that some recent scientific theories that “don’t do proof” are claiming that maybe our Big Bang was not the first Big Bang, as many others have already claimed it won’t be the last. The scientists of the multiple serial Big Bang variety are agreed that the earliest we can expect the next Big Bang is in 10 billion years. Now I mentioned the state of human affairs in 75 TRILLION years - well past the date of the second or even fifth Big Bang from now, give or take a few Big Bangs and a few trillion years. I hope you understand I wasn’t talking about this Big Bang at all. I WAS talking about a hypothetical new earth.

guardian.co.uk/science/2006/may/05/spaceexploration.universe

So this is how I understand the scientific theories that don’t do proof (theories that keep changing at regular intervals, sometimes limited only by the imagination of the one bringing forth the theories):

First Cold Dark Nothing — Big Bang — Appear a Universe…Earth etc — Disappear universe…Earth etc — Cold Dark Nothing ---- Second Big Bang — Appear another universe…Earth etc — Disappear Earth etc — Cold Dark Nothing ---- Third Big Bang — and so on until eternity…

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

Well, there are some respectable, but as yet untestable scientific hypotheses which more or less agree with the Buddhist belief as you represent it here.
But the Christian “new universe”, ie new earth and new heaven, is a religious, not a scientific belief, and I don’t expect to be born ever again.

Buddhists don’t believe in the First Big Bang of which we are a product. They believe the present universe always existed; it did not have a beginning.

Buddhists and Hindus believe in reincarnation. Jews, Christians and Muslims don’t.

So if you accept the Buddhist belief, you would have to shed your belief in the First Big Bang, and you’d have to adopt a belief in reincarnation.

At the moment your views disagree with both core Buddhist beliefs.

On a positive note, the Dalai Lama said that he would be willing to readjust the Buddhist belief with regard to a beginning of the universe if the Big Bang theory were proven beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Be assured that no matter how silly your posts are.

exactly how silly are my posts, and can you give specific example of this silliness?

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

Notice that all scientific theories can be disproven therefore science never formally claims to provide absolute proof for anything.

If all scientific theories can be disproven, why is it called science in the first place?

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

oh, sorry, a little culture centric of me. and your welcome.

You don’t have to apologize for not being able to guess my gender with a family name alone.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Buddhists don’t believe in the First Big Bang of which we are a product. They believe the present universe always existed; it did not have a beginning.

Buddhists and Hindus believe in reincarnation. Jews, Christians and Muslims don’t.

So if you accept the Buddhist belief, you would have to shed your belief in the First Big Bang, and you’d have to adopt a belief in reincarnation.

At the moment your views disagree with both core Buddhist beliefs.

On a positive note, the Dalai Lama said that he would be willing to readjust the Buddhist belief with regard to a beginning of the universe if the Big Bang theory were proven beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt!

the cyclic universe theory, as far as i understand it, violates the second law of thermodynamics, systems not in equilibrium, tend toward entropy.

 

[hecd2]

the cyclic universe theory, as far as i understand it, violates the second law of thermodynamics, systems not in equilibrium, tend toward entropy.

I suggest you write to Paul Steinhardt, Professor of Physics at Princeton University and Neil Turok, Professor of Mathematical Physics at the University of Cambridge and explain the Second Law of Thermodynamics to them. I’m sure they’ll be grateful to you for correcting them.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I suggest you write to Paul Steinhardt, Professor of Physics at Princeton University and Neil Turok, Professor of Mathematical Physics at the University of Cambridge and explain the Second Law of Thermodynamics to them. I’m sure they’ll be grateful to you for correcting them.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

yes, well, he has a “theory” of a cyclic universe, we have a “law” of thermodynamics.

i wonder, why would one be just a “theory” but the other be a “law”

oh… wait, i get it,

the “law” is proven, the “theory” is not.

in fact, in 200 years, not one instance has come to life disproving this law

so if one doesn’t mind, i will continue to doubt the good doctors “theory”

at least until such a time as the “law” is repealed

 

[hecd2]

I was talking about multiple serial Big Bangs, the next one happening only after the products of the current Big Bang, to which our planet earth belongs, has disappeared.

Well, no you weren’t actually - you were originally referring to Lawrence Krauss’s speculation that the evidence that we currently see for the Big Bang, and in particular, the expansion of galaxies, will eventually disappear when the expansion has accelerated to the point where we can no longer see other galaxies. You mentioned 75 trillion years - I don’t know where you got that specific number from, but the hypothesis you were referring to then is specifically about evidence for the last Big Bang.

However I am happy to talk about serial universes too if you’d prefer.

I understand that some recent scientific theories that “don’t do proof” are claiming that maybe our Big Bang was not the first Big Bang, as many others have already claimed it won’t be the last. The scientists of the multiple serial Big Bang variety are agreed that the earliest we can expect the next Big Bang is in 10 billion years.

Yes, all this is correct, except for the last statement. The theory that the popular article below refers to does not propose that the cycle will be complete as soon as 10 billion years. The references to the relevant papers are:
Steihardt and Turok, *A Cyclic Model of the Univese, *Science 296, 1436 - 1439 (2002)
Steinhardt and Turok, *Cosmic Evolution in a Cyclic Universe, *arXiv:hep-th/0111098v2
Steinhardt and Turok, *Why the Cosmological Constant is Small and Positive, *Science 312, 1180-1183

In all cases they make it clear that the cycle takes trillions of years. (This is necessarily so as there has to be enough time for matter and radiation to be dissipated and black holes to evaporate)

Now I mentioned the state of human affairs in 75 TRILLION years - well past the date of the second or even fifth Big Bang from now, give or take a few Big Bangs and a few trillion years.

And I pointed out that it is meaningless to talk about human affairs in a million years from now, never mind a trillion or 76 trillion.

I hope you understand I wasn’t talking about this Big Bang at all. I WAS talking about a hypothetical new earth.

Well, not originally, but I am happy to talk about the hypothesis of a cyclic universe now, if you want.

So this is how I understand the scientific theories that don’t do proof (theories that keep changing at regular intervals, sometimes limited only by the imagination of the one bringing forth the theories):

First Cold Dark Nothing — Big Bang — Appear a Universe…Earth etc — Disappear universe…Earth etc — Cold Dark Nothing ---- Second Big Bang — Appear another universe…Earth etc — Disappear Earth etc — Cold Dark Nothing ---- Third Big Bang — and so on until eternity…

Yes this is more or less the Steinhardt-Turok hypothesis. Would you like to discuss it some more?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Buddhists don’t believe in the First Big Bang of which we are a product. They believe the present universe always existed; it did not have a beginning.

So why did you say:

Buddhists believe in cyclical universes - universes that come into existence and disappear again time and again

I took you at your word.

Buddhists and Hindus believe in reincarnation. Jews, Christians and Muslims don’t.

So if you accept the Buddhist belief,

But I don’t

you would have to shed your belief in the First Big Bang, and you’d have to adopt a belief in reincarnation.

At the moment your views disagree with both core Buddhist beliefs.

Apparently so.

On a positive note, the Dalai Lama said that he would be willing to readjust the Buddhist belief with regard to a beginning of the universe if the Big Bang theory were proven beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt!

That’s jolly nice to know.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

             *I suggest you write to Paul Steinhardt, Professor of Physics at Princeton University and Neil Turok, Professor of Mathematical Physics at the University of Cambridge and explain the Second Law of Thermodynamics to them. I'm sure they'll be grateful to you for correcting them.

yes, well, he has a “theory” of a cyclic universe, we have a “law” of thermodynamics.

i wonder, why would one be just a “theory” but the other be a “law”

oh… wait, i get it,

the “law” is proven, the “theory” is not.

in fact, in 200 years, not one instance has come to life disproving this law

so if one doesn’t mind, i will continue to doubt the good doctors “theory”

at least until such a time as the “law” is repealed

Unbelievable nonsense.

Alec

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Unbelievable nonsense.

Alec

oh, please. they are just trying to get around inflation, and still express the observed conditions and to do so they invoke dark matter, that is yet to be found.

they are trying to trade one problematic proposition, with another problematic proposition, in an attempt to circumvent a ‘beginning’

ultimately i interpret that as a childish terror of a Creator G-d, anything but the obvious.

further why is it unbelievable nonsense?

their theory is not widely accepted to my knowledge.
it would seem that the theory is unbelievable to the larger scientific community.

 

[Dameedna]

I suggest you write to Paul Steinhardt, Professor of Physics at Princeton University and Neil Turok, Professor of Mathematical Physics at the University of Cambridge and explain the Second Law of Thermodynamics to them. I’m sure they’ll be grateful to you for correcting them.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

LOL!!

 

[rossum]

exactly how silly are my posts,

Your posts average 14.35 +/- 0.05 sillitrons.

and can you give specific example of this silliness?

Asking exactly how silly your posts are.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Your posts average 14.35 +/- 0.05 sillitrons.

Asking exactly how silly your posts are.

rossum

sillitrons only occur in self annihilating pairs under the planck time threshold. so it would seem that the net average must be zero.

:whacky:

 

[cerad]

If all scientific theories can be disproven, why is it called science in the first place?

Because science is the word they use? Understand that just because a theory can be disproven does not mean it will. It’s possible that the Earth might not in fact be roughly spherical in shape but it’s rather unlikely to be shown otherwise.

The willingness to discard or modify previous theories in the light of new evidence is one of science’s major strengths.

 

[cerad]

exactly how silly are my posts, and can you give specific example of this silliness?

Most of them are very silly. Here is a specific example:

the “law” is proven, the “theory” is not.

In science a “law” merely generalizes a set of observations to which no exceptions have been found. If someone does find an exception then the law is either changed, discarded or perhaps restricted in it’s applicability.

To think that a scientific law is proven and at the same time to claim that one understands the basics of science is silly.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Because science is the word they use? Understand that just because a theory can be disproven does not mean it will.

which goes directly to the point that whether or not one uses the word ‘proof’, the weight a theory is given differs little from the practical application of that concept.

in other words its fallacious word games to simply say that science doesn’t prove things, because it sure behaves in a manner it that does.

Science
Science Sci"ence, n. [F., fr. L. scientia, fr. sciens, -entis,
p. pr. of scire to know. Cf. Conscience, Conscious,
Nice.]

1. Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained
   truth of facts.
   [1913 Webster]
2. Especially, such knowledge when it relates to the physical
   world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and
   forces of matter, the qualities and functions of living
   tissues, etc.; – called also natural science, physical science.
   [1913 Webster]

it would seem that the purpose of science is to ascertain truth or facts. so if it can not do so, what good is it?

 

[cerad]

it would seem that the purpose of science is to ascertain truth or facts. so if it can not do so, what good is it?

Airplanes, the internet, flu vaccines, nuclear power plants and weapons. Just to name a few.

By the way, science is in the business of collecting facts and then attempting to explain them. Truth really does not enter in to it.