All aboard the atheist bus?

Status
Not open for further replies.
what's with this "probably" malarky did the atheists get cold feet or something?

LondonBus-IslamisBollocks%5B6%5D.jpg


now *that's* a bus that will turn heads! They could do a set. "Christianity is Stupid", "Buddha could do with a diet", "Pagans **** livestock" etc etc
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the other debate that took place for a while on ZG, this remark was made, which I do not understand:

The big bang arose from a singularity which had no dimensions.
Click to expand...

Sorry to bring up an old statement, but it is something that has been 'bugging me'.
 
As you think that people who believe in God have a lower intelligence, I was hoping that you, with your higher IQ, would be able to put it into simple terms for me. ;)
 
What sort of simple terms would you like? "The big bang arose from a singularity which had no dimensions." This seems a fairly simple way of stating it.

As you think that people who believe in God have a lower intelligence
Click to expand...

It's not me thinking it. In general, they do.
 
Alright then, I read the links and my impression is that this phrase "a singularity with no dimensions" is really a smokescreen for "we don't know".

The theory certainly has great claims as a wonderful fairy story:

After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory.
Click to expand...

And it seems that the Big Bang theory is not the only theory.
Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observationsââ'¬Â¦.For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observationsââ'¬Â¦.You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."
In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above. Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model. Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950.
Click to expand...

It would also appear that the rejection of the existence of God by some scientists arises from their conscious decision to exclude the possibilty that he exists:
Dr. Richard Lewontin, the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, put it like this: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door" (bold text theirs)
If, on the other hand, I were neutral, and didn't already have an "a priori adherence" to a particular worldview (be it naturalistic or otherwise), the question "does God really exist?" wouldn't be pointless at all. Rather, it would be the first step in an objective and meaningful search for ultimate truth. Our willingness to ask the question with an open mind is fundamental to our ability to discover the truth behind the answer. So first of all, before you even ask the question, decide whether or not you're really willing to accept the answer.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link - it proved very interesting.
 
Untrue bub - current theory is that it arose on a high dimensional manifold. If so the singularity (if it occured) could have 0-3 dimensions depending on the topology of the intersection. Other theories use concepts to avoid the formation of singulairites in a kind of "big bounce" scenario. I suggest you look up brane theory and topology of higher dimensions. Are you an expert on the big bang too just because you have wikied a few pages? I am only a humble theoretical physicist - I am sure you know best as always ;)

Its just a catchy meaningless phrase you tout around to give yourself an air of authority and try to kid yourself and everyone else that you actually know something. You dont. You have just read and poorly understood a couple of popular science books and are just spouting off "down the pub".


The Devil said:
What sort of simple terms would you like? "The big bang arose from a singularity which had no dimensions." This seems a fairly simple way of stating it.



It's not me thinking it. In general, they do.
Click to expand...
 
Czechchris said:
Alright then, I read the links and my impression is that this phrase "a singularity with no dimensions" is really a smokescreen for "we don't know".

The theory certainly has great claims as a wonderful fairy story:



And it seems that the Big Bang theory is not the only theory.


It would also appear that the rejection of the existence of God by some scientists arises from their conscious decision to exclude the possibilty that he exists:


Thanks for the link - it proved very interesting.
Click to expand...

What's interesting is that we don't yet know everything about everything (unless your name is Brizonbiovizier), and that some people feel the need to fill in gaps in our current knowledge with "god".
 
brizonbiovizier said:
Untrue bub - current theory is that it arose on a high dimensional manifold. If so the singularity (if it occured) could have 0-3 dimensions depending on the topology of the intersection. Other theories use concepts to avoid the formation of singulairites in a kind of "big bounce" scenario. I suggest you look up brane theory and topology of higher dimensions. Are you an expert on the big bang too just because you have wikied a few pages? I am only a humble theoretical physicist - I am sure you know best as always ;)

Its just a catchy meaningless phrase you tout around to give yourself an air of authority and try to kid yourself and everyone else that you actually know something. You dont. You have just read and poorly understood a couple of popular science books and are just spouting off "down the pub".
Click to expand...

Hi again. An expert on cosmology as well as evolution? I assume your theoretical physics career encompasses string theory, and look forward to links to your papers on this subject.
 
Its in theoretical physics degree / phd bub - I think thats enough compared with a popular science book you read ;)
 
Really? So you don't actually know anything out of the ordinary about string theory or evolution? You do surprise me.
 
The Devil said:
What's interesting is that we don't yet know everything about everything (unless your name is Brizonbiovizier), and that some people feel the need to fill in gaps in our current knowledge with "god".
Click to expand...

No less interesting is the 'open' scientific mind totally rejecting the possibility of a god and yet keeping many other options open.


Bit of a contradiction really. ;)
 
Seeker_UK said:
No less interesting is the 'open' scientific mind totally rejecting the possibility of a god and yet keeping many other options open.


Bit of a contradiction really. ;)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say one could ever totally reject the possibility of a god. It's about as likely as, say, a pink unicorn or Father Christmas. In the absence of any evidence at all for it's existence, it might be fair to say that we can be fairly certain that it doesn't exist, but never rule it out altogether.

Is that fair?
 
The Devil said:
I wouldn't say one could ever totally reject the possibility of a god. It's about as likely as, say, a pink unicorn or Father Christmas. In the absence of any evidence at all for it's existence, it might be fair to say that we can be fairly certain that it doesn't exist, but never rule it out altogether.

Is that fair?
Click to expand...

I'd say so.:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top