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.
I’m not sure what you mean by similarity in this case but we can say with a high degree of certainty that there is a strong relationship between the nature of subatomic particles and the behavior of stars, galaxies and even of the universe itself.
????
Definitely no Einstein, not even anything remotely resembling a physicist, especially a particle physicist or cosmologist. I’m one of those biologists that Lawrence Krauss keeps poking fun at in his talk.
I said Einstein because he had the same ideas you present.
Once Einstein came up with General relativity he spent the rest of his life trying to find a theory that would unify general relativity and the Standard Model of particle physics. He failed every time. It may well be that general relativity has some flaws.
Originally Posted by KaraZetterberg153
I thought this was pretty good. But I'm innocent of physics, despite my extensive collection of Einstein photos of him playing the violin, playing the piano, riding a bicycle at Princeton and at conferences. I don't enjoy reading his prose, either. So I have no idea if there is any sort of similarity between the stars and subatomic particles. Don't suppose there is any cosmological genius who could address the issue?
I didn't think so.
You responded with this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
yeah, kara ... when it doesn't suit your need just ignore it. weather its true or not isn't really a concern to you ... so it seems.
something more, not more gods is clearly the most rational stance. based not only on science but that fact that you have to ignore the science that shows you.
I have tried to make sense of this but have not made any headway. I'm requesting scientific input, yet the truth is not a concern to me?
I don't have any basis to question that Einstein was an important scientist, he just wasn't an engaging writer, IMO.
I have tried to make sense of this but have not made any headway. I'm requesting scientific input, yet the truth is not a concern to me?
I don't have any basis to question that Einstein was an important scientist, he just wasn't an engaging writer, IMO.
afetr reading I don't even know what I meant ...lmao
The only question I have is the truth less important to you than anti-religion?
something more, not more gods" is scientifically the best we have right now. Some People's emotional abuse from religion will not allow some people to admit that. Its something deep rooted in them that, based on being human, probably can't be over come with logic.
personal honesty becomes very important at this point. I don't care about religion (past separation of church and state) and I don't care about god. I am far more interested in how the universe works and teaching it as openly as possible. I have no stake in this debate past "is one using a valid claims to tell others how the universe works when compared to the science we have?"
I’m not sure what you mean by similarity in this case but we can say with a high degree of certainty that there is a strong relationship between the nature of subatomic particles and the behavior of stars, galaxies and even of the universe itself.
yes.
I wonder how much the cosmic web influences subatomic particles?
afetr reading I don't even know what I meant ...lmao
The only question I have is the truth less important to you than anti-religion?
something more, not more gods" is scientifically the best we have right now. Some People's emotional abuse from religion will not allow some people to admit that. Its something deep rooted in them that, based on being human, probably can't be over come with logic.
personal honesty becomes very important at this point. I don't care about religion (past separation of church and state) and I don't care about god. I am far more interested in how the universe works and teaching it as openly as possible. I have no stake in this debate past "is one using a valid claims to tell others how the universe works when compared to the science we have?"
Paragraph 1: No comment, just a smile.
Paragraphs 2 & 3: Ah, in some ways this is the most important question of this entire part of the forum. And I think the issue becomes the difference between fact and faith. Those of us who are more scientifically oriented tend to look at truth as what can be factually proven. Those who are more faith oriented tend to look at faith as truth. I can understand that feeling even while disagreeing with it. As I have said before, there's nothing wrong with faith UNLESS a person can't tell the difference between fact and faith. And that's where, as you say in paragraph 3, personal honesty comes into play. When a christian (or for that matter any religious person of belief system -- including Buddhism) can say, "I know I can't prove my beliefs, but I still have faith in what I believe...", well frankly, I probably won't argue with them. Unfortunately, most of the christians on this forum want to cling to proving biblical facts, whether it be if Nazareth existed at the time of Christ or Noah's Ark, which is a fool's errand since it appears they can prove neither. Instead they should stick to whether the moral teachings are valid, and yet that's the one thing on this forum that they almost never do. And for some of them, they cannot get themselves to the point where they will say that something in the bible was not the moral thing to do (such as baby killing in the case of the first born of Egypt).
Paragraph 3: You post here virtually every day. You cannot say that you do not care about religion. How the universe works is beyond your ken, and -- as stated frequently by our moderators -- beyond the scope of this part of the forum.
Paragraphs 2 & 3: Ah, in some ways this is the most important question of this entire part of the forum. And I think the issue becomes the difference between fact and faith. Those of us who are more scientifically oriented tend to look at truth as what can be factually proven. Those who are more faith oriented tend to look at faith as truth. I can understand that feeling even while disagreeing with it. As I have said before, there's nothing wrong with faith UNLESS a person can't tell the difference between fact and faith. And that's where, as you say in paragraph 3, personal honesty comes into play. When a christian (or for that matter any religious person of belief system -- including Buddhism) can say, "I know I can't prove my beliefs, but I still have faith in what I believe...", well frankly, I probably won't argue with them. Unfortunately, most of the christians on this forum want to cling to proving biblical facts, whether it be if Nazareth existed at the time of Christ or Noah's Ark, which is a fool's errand since it appears they can prove neither. Instead they should stick to whether the moral teachings are valid, and yet that's the one thing on this forum that they almost never do. And for some of them, they cannot get themselves to the point where they will say that something in the bible was not the moral thing to do (such as baby killing in the case of the first born of Egypt).
Paragraph 3: You post here virtually every day. You cannot say that you do not care about religion. How the universe works is beyond your ken, and -- as stated frequently by our moderators -- beyond the scope of this part of the forum.
"something more, not more gods" is the most valid statement we have based solely on the science we have.
Is faith in "deny anything theist can use to make atheism harder to sell." more important than faith in what the science seems to tell us?
is denying something more, not more gods the best we have?
"something more, not more gods" is the most valid statement we have based solely on the science we have.
Is faith in "deny anything theist can use to make atheism harder to sell." more important than faith in what the science seems to tell us?
is denying something more, not more gods the best we have?
Para 1: Yes, I don't disagree with you on this. But I also don't see why you need to repeat this the DOZENS of times that you have thus far in this thread. We understand your position, and many of us are not arguing the point.
Para 2: It's not a black and white issue. I've said more than once that there's nothing wrong faith, providing that the individual knows the difference between faith and fact. Science is based on facts as tested, although we know that science can be wrong based on the interpretation of the facts. Religious faith is not based on any concrete facts.
Para 3: I don't think we can come to a conclusive decision on this. It's a conjecture based on a point of view, often based on personal experiences. Personal experiences, however, have not undergone the rigor of the scientific method.
BTW, just out of curiosity -- you do realize that when people respond to one of your posts it does not necessarily mean that they are arguing against your POV...don't you?
"something more, not more gods" is the most valid statement we have based solely on the science we have.
W
I try to ignore you and your repetitive "catch phrases" but I'm caught in a weak moment here so I will finally ask...…...What atheist is ever denying that there is more to learn? And that is regardless of the ultimate resolution, should there be one.
It's the theists that believe it's all been 'answered'
I do believe, after all this time you should know why most of us add "agnostic" to our designation
I do believe, after all this time you should know why most of us add "agnostic" to our designation
What is relevant is NOT so much what we know but what we accept as the default. That is a better indicia of our state of mind regarding God and the reason we exist.
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.
