Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I would bet a packet that the "supernatural" claim you want to pop in there is God.
I don't think we'd disagree with that, but it really isn't on topic. It is unknowns/ unexplaineds in physics or more probably Bio -physics. You have you own private thread where you can conduct philosophical mind -experiments to try to prove it with analogies. Neither of those topics belong here.
You're posting in the religion and spiritual forum.
Science of the gaps is the belief that because we understand something, therefore there is no God.
Theists believe the underlying mechanisms show how God does it.
thank you for using that phrase. It lead me to a TheraminTrees I hadn't seen. It's deals with pseudoscience.
Edit: dang he just mentioned Feng Shui. I know, I know....
That's a good video to watch, and Jonesey understands "science of the Gaps" though he gets it back to front
(it uses the gaps to put invalid pseudoscience claims in there) and confuses it with"God of the gaps" (where unknowns are used to pop God in there). he gets that back to front, too. And we know why: Theist -thinkers assume god as a given and think that atheism has a responsibility to disprove God. This is classic reversal of the Burden of proof, and is what makes all theist -thinking illogial from the start.
I am confident you know that I do not disagree with anything in that equation or the article. But the author admits it cannot account for DM (or DE) or anything else that cannot be measured. We will need a new breakthrough in mathematics on the level of the calculus and advances in measurement to even TRY to do so. From your article:
"Obviously, observations of the rest of the universe, in particular, those that imply the existence of dark matter, can’t be accounted for in this model. Equally obviously, there’s plenty we don’t know about physics beyond the everyday, e.g. at the origin of the universe. Most blindingly obvious of all, the fact that we know the underlying microphysics doesn’t say anything at all about our knowledge of all the complex collective phenomena of macroscopic reality, so please don’t be the tiresome person who complains that I’m suggesting otherwise.
As physics advances forward, we will add to our understanding. This simple equation, however, will continue to be accurate in the everyday realm. It’s not like the Steady State cosmology or the plum-pudding model of the atom or the Ptolemaic solar system, which were simply incorrect and have been replaced. This theory is correct in its domain of applicability. It’s one of the proudest intellectual accomplishments we human beings can boast of."
Yes, and that is the point Mystic it matters not whether DM or DE is found in the SM since 'the everyday realm', as you highlighted, will not be affected by them - that realm consists of consciousness as Carroll says in next paragraph after your quotes.
Many people resist the implication that this theory is good enough to account for the physics underlying phenomena such as life, or consciousness. They could, in principle, be right, of course; but the only way that could happen is if our understanding of quantum field theory is completely wrong. When deciding between “life and the brain are complicated and I don’t understand them yet, but if we work harder I think we can do it” and “I understand consciousness well enough to conclude that it can’t possibly be explained within known physics,” it’s an easy choice for me.
Nobody; it's just a hypothesis. It isn't proven or disproven yet, and either way does nothing to 'bury'materialism.
That's a good video to watch, and Jonesey understands "science of the Gaps" though he gets it back to front
(it uses the gaps to put invalid pseudoscience claims in there) and confuses it with"God of the gaps" (where unknowns are used to pop God in there). he gets that back to front, too. And we know why: Theist -thinkers assume god as a given and think that atheism has a responsibility to disprove God. This is classic reversal of the Burden of proof, and is what makes all theist -thinking illogial from the start.
What atheists have to prove is that our Reality is NOT God.
What atheists have to prove is that our Reality is NOT God.
Thanks Mystic. We can always rely on you for a perfect example of back to front Theist illogic based on an A priori God -claim...just in case anyone though I'd made it up.
You and I both know that "God" is either a label for natural processes (Physics) or it is intellient and forward -planning. And that's what YOU have to prove, not me disprove it.
I don't know what other people embrace. It is possible for someone to believe in reincarnation an be an atheist, yes. Once again, atheism is a lack of belief in a deity/deities.
Run that up the flag pole over on the atheist forum and see how many atheists believe in reincarnation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
