I suggest that we call in Torchwood to investigate.

Let me assure you that nothing happens in the multiverse, that should not or must not happen.

If something is happening, that's the way it should be and the only way it can be.

I wish I’d had this information back in grade five.

“Miss Penner my mastery of the recorder is so unacceptable to the universe that I am doomed to fail.”

Is there anything the TOTUS can't do?

Well, I'm a scientist and an engineer and an atheist, but I'll be the first to acknowledge that theoretical physics and intelligent design are kissing cousins, in that they both consist of people who really ought to know better just making crap up.

Theoretical physics is called that because it makes no empirically testable predictions. Much of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity wasn't empirically testable until the 1980's, when strong empirical evidence was produced courtesy of the space program. The whole idea of the Large Hadron Collider was to empirically test some aspects of theoretical particle physics. Which is great, and as it should be, but people like Nielsen trying to explain "most governments don't want to spend billions of dollars on research with no practical value" by invoking Terminator birds from the future are just an embarassment to everyone doing real science at the LHC.

Daniel,

at least science can state there's logic behind theoretical physics. The same cannot be said for "Intelligent Design" propaganda.

And the caption reads...
"When Scientists don't get out enough"

US Democrats the Party of Science

"Bringing science back to it rightful place in society."

When I read the 2005 Piece I wanted to simply replace Intelligent Design with Global Warming, Christian with environmentalist and substitute Obama for Bush.

Party of science my a__!

Whenever I read the words 'intelligent design', I think of the Christians who talk about how their god designed and built this universe as a back-drop for the likes of us. Not a very salable idea in this era of scientific discovery.

However, I don't hear this claim from from the competition. I have never heard anyone talking about how Allah built the universe at all. It seems he is there mainly to dole out imaginary virgins to suckers who bought into the explode your body scam.

Perhaps that is why it is the Christians who invent, create and build everything in the world while the Allah gang tries to blow it all up using Christian ordinance of course since they too are unable to design and build anything.

Sorry to stray a bit off topic .. sort of

“The starter’s gun went off. While Science was fiddling with its shoelaces, Ideology was halfway around the track." - George Jonas

Editor's Note: This post is not intended as invitation for a debate on the merits or lack thereof of evolutionary theory. Thanks.

1000 YBP the concensus was much different...

Cartographers marked their maps with "Here Be Dragons" where previously it was "Mere Incognito".

Now our self appointed wise men mark where they have no knowledge, "HERE BE NO DRAGONS."

Nobody is talking about time travelling birds, except the idiot Time writer. I think he must have gotten the idea from a (much better, btw) NYT article on the same subject, in which the author compares, in principle, the creation of the Higgs boson sending ripples back through time to prevent said creation, to "...a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather." It's just a helpful analogy.

An entertaining, and similar, theory, is that activating the LHC would destroy the universe, past, present, and future. Therefore, the only possible universes are ones in which the collider has never been successsfully activated. Since our universe exists, that means the collider has not and will never work. So we would expect to see an endless series of random events preventing it from ever being turned on.

Kate, ah yes the "pre-emptive" strike. But we can talk about ID all we want correct? Since it is not ID, nor science?

oops, switch ID with evolution in the last sentence.

Right on Daniel Ream, absolutely correct.
The "science" of theoretical physics is no more real than religion.
Even Einstein, the creator of modern physics rejected his own theory of relativity because it does not work, since then the followers of Einstein's unified theory have created fairies to make it work like Neutron Stars, Dark matter, Dark energy and Higgs bosons all of which are no more real than santa clause or the tooth fairy.
The problem with modern science is that it is impossible to throw out the bad science due to political and peer pressure, both of which would look stupid(and lose funding) at this point to admit they have been chasing rainbows for decades with billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars.

WTF are you talking about, Allan? Can you not read?

Aaron: "Let me assure you that nothing happens in the multiverse, that should not or must not happen. If something is happening, that's the way it should be and the only way it can be."

You've accepted MSG then?

Somewhat related to Kate's post (I hope!) is that what troubles me today is that scientific study is being brought into disrepute.

People like Al Gore are shamelessly hijacking science for their own personal gain. And increasingly, universities, were most science is done, are being suffocated by political correctness and left-wing ideology.

You are simply not permitted to be a professor today unless you lean heavily to the left (or remain silent in the face of it all if you wish to hold on to your job).

As a result I fear that the ordinary citizen, who foots the bill for much of this, and who watches from the sidelines, will eventually reject science.

This is a dangerous state of affairs, because if it happens, then we return to the dark ages.

If you think science was hijacked by Al Gore, consider the communication technology that has been hijacked by big corporations who have used that science to create devices that force people (mainly the younger generation) to walk around or sit around like zombies all day and into the night STARING AT THE PALMS OF THEIR HANDS.

Thus, rendering them incapable of functioning in a healthy society and of maturing into responsible citizens.

Although, to be fair, many baby boomer generation failed to mature into responsible citizens too, but for different reasons that they are still smoking.

I might add that none of this has anything to do with any god. Who needs a god, with our welfare programs and a master card!

Are you Daniel Ream?

Durward, you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Einstein never rejected relativity, and he was never successful at developing a unified theory. And the experimental evidence supporting relativity is so massive that to deny that it is either true and at least at excellent approximation to the truth would be perverse.

Pure quack science.

Ian (11:14) suggests; "When Scientists don't get out enough".
Or 'When scientists don't get enough'... ;)

No, I'm Daniel Ream. Who's on first?

To Chris Gordon - yes, I know Nielsen himself didn't invoke the time-traveling birds, but his theory seems to rest largely on the evidence that governments don't want to pour money down the Higgs boson hole. If the universe really is conspiring to prevent the creation of the Higgs boson, then Occam's Razor tells us that the most effective way of having that happen is that when they turn the LHC on, nothing useful happens. Nothing at all. No Higgs boson, no useful data, just nothing interesting happening. If the universe is capable of violating its own causality to drop bread crumbs on the LHC's power supply, surely "Nope, no Higgs bosons here today. Sorry. Maybe next week. Try again next week" is within its grasp.

Next the Times author is going to invoke the "Infinite Probablity Drive".

co2, what kind of nutjob are you?

you won't dare to punch me if you met me, but condemning me to excruciating pain anonymously via Internet is somehow Okay?

No, dude, I am MSG free and living a happy and healthy life. Good luck to you, anonymous moron.

Aaron:

Try not to get upset at plant food.

I AM LOST CAN SOMEONE SIMPLIFY THIS FOR ME ? WHAT IS THE JUXSTAPOSE SAYING ?

Paul in calgary.

If Star Trek's alternate universes have taught me anything....

(joking)

I think there are extreme views on both sides.
Just my thoughts.

Once there are four or five freak accidents in a row, get back to me.

BTW, the bird does not have to travel in time. It could be that there are an infinite number of universes, and that they can only survive as long as the LCH doesn't fire up. We happen to be on a luck streak... Maybe the only universe that does survive is one where the LCH has so many snafus it gets shut down for budget reasons.

How often has science been wrong in the past?
Plate tectonics was suggested 100 years ago and laughed at. It was years before it's became acceptable. What about the Big Bang or the pulsating universe? Again they argued.
Now arguments about Global warming. And scientists with a political bent looking for taxpayers handouts are screaming "the end of the world as we know it."
Science by concensus - what a travesty.

Allan, your comment about "Intelligent Design" propaganda is just secular propaganda passed off as educational enlightenment.

How rational is it to believe everything came from nothing? I contend that your leap of faith is much bigger than those who believe in Intelligent Design.

Here is a poem to help you think.

Big Bang.

From a grain of sand leaps the end of time.
From a speck of dust bursts the conscious mind.
From the emptiness spreads infinity.
From the nothingness blooms all that you see.
From a lifeless void gasps a breath divine.
Your Faith is in Chance, but in God is mind.

DoDoDoDo,DoDoDoDo,DoDoDoDo. Not just a crap commemt but the theme from the Twilight Zone.

It is not possible for anything to come from
nothing. Therefore, since there is something,
there must never have been nothing.

Bingo, Vitruvius! And the measly human mind inside my cranium cannot conceive of nothingness, let alone nothingness without a beginning. No time. no matter to explode at the precise moment of the big bang. No space for the matter to splatter in to. To me, it must mean that time in continually expanding in both directions. Get your minds around that, oh you atheists. By the same token, I cannot fathom what creative force must be the cause of all that, but whatever it is, it has to be the great mystery we call God. And He/She/It is beyond any human created definition, neither the Judeao/Christian version nor any other. I've always liked M Scott Peck's definition of the stages of spiritual growth.

"Stage I is chaotic, disordered, and reckless. Very young children are in Stage I. They tend to defy and disobey, and are unwilling to accept a will greater than their own. Many criminals are people who have never grown out of Stage I.

Stage II is the stage at which a person has blind faith. Once children learn to obey their parents, they reach Stage II. Many so-called religious people are essentially Stage II people, in the sense that they have blind faith in God, and do not question His existence. With blind faith comes humility and a willingness to obey and serve. The majority of good law-abiding citizens never move out of Stage II.

Stage III is the stage of scientific skepticism and inquisitivity. A Stage III person does not accept things on faith but only accepts them if convinced logically. Many people working in scientific and technological research are in Stage III.

Stage IV is the stage where an individual starts enjoying the mystery and beauty of nature. While retaining skepticism, he starts perceiving grand patterns in nature. His religiousness and spirituality differ significantly from that of a Stage II person, in the sense that he does not accept things through blind faith but does so because of genuine belief. Stage IV people are labeled as Mystics."

If one scientist says something stupid, and ten thousand scientists laugh at him, who do you suppose will get interviewed by Time?

Crazy shit sells. Always has, always will. It's dishonest in the extreme for you to suggest that these goofy theories are anything other than either a fun thought-experiment of no scientific value, or the deluded ranting of a quack.

And Stage V is when a larger asteroid than the one that went by just 8700 miles away hits and your mystics along with the rest of us go poof. So much for religiousness and spirituality.

A scientist, physics innovator and university lecturer who attends our church has reached Stage IV.

Ever since I was I child, I have been acutely aware that our teachings are more of the mystical nature, since the very word is used in our hymns.

It is certainly a different understanding than atheists stuck at Stage 1 (I am God of my own universe).

Thanks Louise.

Naw, stage 4 is just a regression to stage 2. It's the natural cycle of life - you're born, you poop yourself, you wear diapers, you think you know everything, you realize how much you don't know ... then you hit midlife, and go through the same steps in reverse order - you think you know everything, you wear diapers, you poop yourself and then you die. Ditto for your idea of "spirituality" - if you've made it to stage 3 and then become "spiritual" again, you're not actually moving to a new stage. It's just your senility beginning to show itself.

Dave:

Death can come at any moment.

Generations of human beings have lived and died without being killed by and asteroid, but many have suffered untimely deaths for their beliefs by control freaks throughout history.

Awe, Alex. You're just not old enough yet. With any luck, you'll reach stage 4 before the asteroid hits and you'll die happy.

You're right Luise, I'm not old enough to be senile yet. Luckily, it doesn't run in my family anyway, so it's extremely unlikely that I'll ever turn to you imaginary friends and your happy-happy-land.

With any luck, we'll find a cure for mental illness in the next decade, and you'll be able to spend your final years alert and rational instead of babbling about angels and demons while simultaneously filling your diapers.

And who would these "imaginary friends" of mine be, Alex? It appears you didn't read that part of my response to Vitruvius that precedes my posting of Peck's thesis.

Funny, I don't remember even thinking about imaginary friends in happy-happy land, or angels and demons let alone mention any in my post. You seem to be stuck at stage 3. Peck does say that not everyone reaches stage 4 in their lifetime, or for that matter, even stage 2. You seem to be currently at stage 3, the stage where it's apparently imperative to lash out at any transcendental philosophy. Good luck with the rest of your journey, which I hope includes becoming a more careful reader.

And by the way, it's Louise, not Luise. But I've been called worse. Some folks have a hard time spelling that name and frequently leave out the "i".

Alex:

The Soviet Union used to deem those who disagreed with them as mentally ill.

That is, if those who deemed those that suffered from the opiate of the masses were not in a position of influence. Among those were scientists, doctors and those whose religion inspired their discoveries and their compassion.

Many thousands of priests, monks and nuns were outright slaughtered for their beliefs. It's all a matter of historical record.

I hope you're not suggesting that part of your final solution would be to institutionalze those whose pursuit of inner peace has reached a higher level than yours.

The difference between your philosophy and mine, I would submit, is that I understand there is a physical realm and a spiritual realm. Two different fields of knowledge.

It never makes a human being smarter when his mind is closed to either important aspect of our existence.

Well said Alex! Written like a true stage I.

Overheard a scientist telling God he can do anything God can do.

So God said, "Can you create man from a lump of dirt?"

The scientist said "Sure! I just have to add some ammonia acids, some proteins, some..."

But God interrupted and said, "first you'll have to get your own dirt."

It was a generalization, Louie, don't get your panties in a knot. If you don't buy into those particular beliefs, good for you; you're way ahead of 99% of the "spiritual people" out there. It doesn't really make a big difference though, since you're still advocating the acceptance of irrational beliefs based solely on mysticism. Not only are you advocating it, but you're actually claiming that belief systems based on unfalsifiable, baseless assumptions are in fact superior to logic, reason, and the scientific method. You pretend that there's a difference between your "actual belief" and "blind faith", which is really just an obvious attempt to make you feel better about your rejection of reason by inventing a distinction which simply doesn't exist. The entire argument is a facade designed to pretty-up the acceptance of irrational beliefs. It's the equivalent of putting makeup on a pig, and just about as effective.

I want to hear Alex's description of what existed the "second" before the big bang. Alex, can you conceive of a "nothingness" in which neither time (even if only a second) nor space with all those quasars and exploding nubulae even existed? That, to me is the Great Mystery that all humans have struggled to explain. Just because their answers come up short, and in many cases are outright wacky, doesn't mean that the big question does not exist nor that the search for answers is extremely awe inspiring.

Alex:

As Bob Dylan once sang:

Don't criticize what you can't understand.

It's obvious you make no effort to understand what millions of people throughout the millenia have come to understand.

Not much has changed in human nature. Lives are played out on different stages, with increasing levels of scientific understanding and technological advance.

Human beings belittling others who have either more money, more knowledge or any type of achievement or understanding is a part of human nature that's well understood in the religious tradition.

Quite honestly, your tactic exposes your level of understanding of human nature ... which is somewhere around zero and which is easily recognizable.

Instead of attempting to equalize yourself by ripping down others (notice that it's not working), it would be better is you attempted to make yourself better. Throwing off the shackles of your self-imposed prison of ignorance would be a good place to start.

Alex, I believe you are confusing "spiritual" people with "religious" people. There is a huge difference between the two, but they are not always mutually exclusive.

Let me get this straight ... you want me to tell you "what existed a second before the big bang" even though you understand that time was created along with the universe?

....

How about you rethink that question and get back to me, k?

Aaron, why blame me? ... "If something is happening, that's the way it should be and the only way it can be."

Moonbats collide: the voodoo priestess and the Bat from the Belfry.

"The Governor General lauded the prince".

The Answer is "ninety-two to be precise"; but, what is The Question?
...-

"Prince Charles spoke fondly of his visit and congratulated Canada for hosting a Winter Olympics in less than 100 days that will be the “green games.” But he also looked beyond 100 days to 100 months.

“I am afraid we now have less than 100 months — ninety-two to be precise — to take the necessary action to limit catastrophic climate change.”

The Governor General lauded the prince for putting his words into action and spoke of an “urgency” to take action on preserving the health of the planet."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2384564/posts

Fair enough Louise - can you explain the difference?

I'll tell you exactly what existed the second before the big
bang. The second before the big bang existed the second
before the big bang.

Alex: "you want me to tell you "what existed a second before the big bang" even though you understand that time was created along with the universe?"

Do you believe that time was created? Sounds like it to me. Who or what created it, then? Does infinity stretch in both directions - into the future and into the past? Face it, Alex, there will always be questions that are unanswered. Every new answer raises more questions. The more we know, the more we understand that we will never know everything. That's the realm of spirituality, which you so arrogantly choose to denigrate. As for me, I have no clear or definitive conception of a Creator or of a creative force. There will always be mystery. Somehow, I don't think you have a grasp on that reality.

So you're saying that "spirituality" is simply unanswered questions? Why in the world would you invent a word to describe unanswered questions?

Anyway, you're wrong. When most people talk about "spirituality", they're referring to answers, not questions. Unfortunately their "answers" are no better than random guesswork. In that respect, you and the theists are identical - you pull "answers" out of thin air, and pretend that they mean something.

Neither you nor I have these answers. The difference is that I'm honest enough to admit it.

The difference between "spirituality" and "religiosity" is a matter of a continuum. At the "religious" extreme are the Bible/Koran etc. thumpers who would like to shove fairy tales down our throats and punish us for not believing in the literal "truth" of it and at the other extreme, that of spirituality, are folks completely immersed in pondering the great mysteries, with or without a set of rigid beliefs.

There is a large space in between where many people, myself among them, recognize that religions offer many answers to life's trials and tribulations without having to believe in all the fairy tales. The fairy tales, like all fairy tales, contribute to understanding our place in the universe and, without the thumping, cause us to recognize there are many truths to be found in religious traditions that have nothing to do with the physical nature of the universe.

It is possible to be grounded in religiously inspire ethics, such as humility, without swallowing the whole fairy tale shebang. That's the realm of spirituality.

The ideology of atheism, btw, is for people who are cocksure they have all the answers, and that ain't for me.

1. Religion doesn't offer any answers to "life's trials and tribulations".
2. Humility isn't religiously inspired.
3. Atheism isn't an ideology, and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with having answers.

This farce has gone long enough. I gave you a chance to explain the difference between theism and "spirituality", and you've done nothing but spout empty platitudes. We're done here.

Gotcha. Not capable of deep thought, are ya sweetie.

Alex:

1) Yes it does. Ignorance of any teaching does not make one wise. It's like saying because I never went to school, what they teach those in school is irrelevant.

2) It is a learned part of human nature.

3) Trust ye not in princes, in the sons of men, in whom there is no salvation.

Who made you God of your own universe? If somebody's answers do not suit you, what is your solution?

You have clearly demonstrated it is by building up walls.

Your last comment is of a condescending nature.

And, if another human being continues to demonstrate to you a belief system that does not agree with your ignorance, you have already stated you would be willing to assign them to a mental institute.

Damn fine thing you're not in charge. But there were those in history who did not even stop at what you suggested. They even went as far as killing.

‘There will come a time when they will kill you and say they did it for God.'

Congratulations, God of your own universe.

"Your last comment is of a condescending nature."

No, it's derisive. Willful ignorance deserves no other response.

"Who made you God of your own universe?"

You're really not getting this whole "no gods" thing, are you? Is there some way I could dumb it down for you?

"And, if another human being continues to demonstrate to you a belief system that does not agree with your ignorance, you have already stated you would be willing to assign them to a mental institute."

Ohhh! An ignorant, arrogant prick, AND a liar! What fun. Doesn't your religion have something to say on the subject of lying?

Alex:

I'm afraid it is you who is speaking from a position of ignorance and hatred.

With any luck, we'll find a cure for mental illness in the next decade, and you'll be able to spend your final years alert and rational instead of babbling about angels and demons while simultaneously filling your diapers.

Posted by: Alex at November 12, 2009 7:35 PM

I suppose anybody reading this blog imagined that you were condescending in your answer and that you likened Louise's search for the truth to ‘mentall illness.'

Look, it's right there in words nine and 10 of your post.

Who's lying again? Who's trying to deny the tone and content of his own writing?

A wise man once said: If you're in a hole, stop digging.

I'd guess you're threatened enough by a consensus of millions of people throughout the ages, since you are only one human being, pleading a case based on ignorance, ciriticizing something you can't understand.

Orwell was correct. Ignorance IS bliss.

Ah, the famous "I know you are, but what am I" response. Very nice. Meanwhile you haven't even bothered to defend your lies. If this is the kind of behavior that Christianity encourages, is it any wonder that more and more people are rejecting it?

Oh, so you ARE going to defend your lies. You just, for some inexplicable reason, decided to do so in a consecutive comment. Alright, what the hell:

"Look, it's right there in words nine and 10 of your post."

No, it's not. Learn to read. The words are "mental illness". Only a fool would take two words and extrapolate an elaborate plot to institutionalize the religious.

"I'd guess you're threatened enough by a consensus of millions of people throughout the ages"

No, the flat-earth consensus doesn't bother me a bit.

"Orwell was correct. Ignorance IS bliss."

Yes, he was.

What lies? Since you made the accusation, the burden of proof goes to you.

Why is it you're so afraid of the truth?

I have clearly demonstrated, given scientific proof if you like, of the words that you yourself wrote.

If you are truly a scientist, as you claim a searcher for proveable truth, then you would provide those readlng this thread with some proof that I have lied in any of my posts.

It should not be that hard for a person of your self-described intellectual superiority.

Alex:

Nice try, but you will be unable to weasel out of this one.

I wish you a long and prosperous life.

Please have the dignity to show tolerance toward others, especially those who have made an effort to understand something you will not even make an effort to understand.

Most real science is a help if not time saving. I have no problem with Theories as long as they stay that way. Better yet provable evidence. Unfortunately in this World science has become a commodity like everything else. Thus its subject to the same evils that plague mankind's soul. Such as greed, lies for glory or money, power, status, social control. Usually of our own making.
We have seen all to much of this. I fear real inquiry will be suspect because of the bogus science passing as reality with no logic.
Like how does any Universe get created a null? How does chaos produce order?
Two laws of the Universe which do repeat & are observable. Without constructs like Uniformity or punctuated, Evolution all built on circular
reasoning taking on Religious conformity if not views.
How to explain away the fact true randomness does not exist. Its all so fun!

Randomness and Mathematical Proof
Scientific American 232
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/sciamer.html

lol

Your arrogance is truly galling :) You REALLY think that you have some special sort of knowledge, don't you? It's as if I'm arguing with a child who insists that I'm ignorant about Santa Claus.

No, thundernuts, I'm not ignorant about your religion. I've read the new testament. I've read a large chunk of the old testament. I've even read the Jefferson Bible. I've perused the Koran and the Torah. I've spoken to priests and rabbis. I've engaged in conversation and debate with theists who, unlike you, actually had an above-room-temperature IQ. I know more about the subject of religion than you do, and I most definitely know more about atheism since you clearly don't even understand what it IS. I make my decisions not from a lack of knowledge, but from an abundance of it. To use Louie's earlier "stages", I'm at level 3 while you, like most people, are stuck on 2. You're simply repeating what you've been told, without bothering to do any research or even trying to think for yourself.

Kate: I'm sorry, I should know better than to engage the microcephalics who infest your comments section. You'll notice that I did try to ignore his earlier comments which were directed at me, but eventually I caved. I apologize for my weakness. I'll try to do better in the future.

If Alex was even half the intellect he claims to be he would be investigating the spiritual not denying it.

Joe:

1. I never claimed to be an intellectual.
2. I have investigated spiritual claim, and have concluded that the vast majority are either mistakes, ignorant assumptions, guesswork, or outright lies and scams. While the possibility remains that some spiritual claims may be true, I have yet to see any evidence of it. I remain open to persuasion, and would be more than happy to review your data.

Poor Alex. He seems oblivious to the fact that he lives in a civilization that has been forged from nearly 3800 years of Judeo-Christian tradition out of which ideas such as humility and principles for dealing with "life's trials and tribulations" were crafted. Like it or not, the poor boy is immersed in these very things. He just hasn't recognized it...yet.

No Alex that would be too easy. The thing about spirituality is you must explore it for yourself. As I have said in the past talking spirituality to an nonspiritual person is like describing the colours of the setting sun to a man born blind.

My point is to show that because you can't see it or understand it does not mean it doesn't exist. To disparage someone else's experiences simply because you have never shared them makes you look like a fool especially if you become adamant about it.

"A fool says in his heart, "There is no God"". Why? Because he is refusing to explore and push the boundary of the reality he does not understand.

Poor Louise. She seems oblivious to the fact that she lives in a civilization that has been forged from hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution, out of which Christianity has emerged as one of the more recent pretenders for origin of morality. Like it or not, the poor girl is immersed in these very things. She just hasn't realized it ... yet.

Alex:

There you go again.

Microcephalics, huh?

Can you explain to me how claiming that somebody's beliefs are an indication of mental incapacity and how that makes you a better person?

It's another sign of your own delusions of grandeur.

If we are to logically follow, via a scientific method, what your through processes would lead to if you were in charge of the world ... I have no doubt that you would have been a good Soviet apparatchik who would throw those who did not agree with you in a mental institution.

Your repeated line argument indicates a disturbing (disturbed?) control-freakish nature, as evidenced by your characterization that those who have found something of value are somehow mentally deficient.

No matter how large your vocabulary, it can never be matched by a small-minded, ignorant and hateful attitude.

"As I have said in the past talking spirituality to an nonspiritual person is like describing the colours of the setting sun to a man born blind."

The difference, of course, being that we have hard data which we can use to prove the existence of colours, even to a blind person. Whereas "spirituality" is just claims without evidence. As soon as you find hard data for your claims, I'll be more than happy to modify my position.

"My point is to show that because you can't see it or understand it does not mean it doesn't exist."

In that case you should have no problem believing that I have an invisible unicorn in my garage.

"A fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'. Why? Because he is refusing to explore and push the boundary of the reality he does not understand."

A fool says in his heart "there is no invisible unicorn in Alex's garage". Why? Because he is refusing to explore the boundary of the reality he does not understand.

Don't you see how silly that type of argument is, Joe? It can be used to justify pretty much ANYTHING. A Scientologist will call you a fool because you do not believe that Xenu is orbiting Pluto in his spaceship. If you accept that line of reasoning then you will believe absolutely anything, and you truly ARE a fool. On the other hand, if you simply parrot those words while simultaneously rejecting the claims of other religions, then you're a hypocrite. Either way, you need to find a better way to support your beliefs.

Not at all Alex. Men and women have been recording their explorations for THOUSANDS of years but because you are too lazy to check it out you dismiss it. I don't believe in Xenu because I have met Someone far greater. I don't accept Allah because I have met Someone far greater.

Why would I look for a localized being when I have met the Infinite being. Why would I look for a being that is all will when I have met a being that is Will, Reason and Manifestation?

That being said what are you looking for? Some plausible excuse to do whatsoever you desire?

Alex:

There's one big difference between you and those you take on here.

If you want to be an atheist, that's fine with me.

Yet, if anybody has found some meaning in mysticism, that does not seem to be OK with you.

On two occasions, you have gone as far as describing certain types of people's beliefs as evidence of mentally deficiency.

I know nothing about you, but I can guarantee you one thing: You are not my superior and even though your characterizations may give you some comfort, they demonstrate a condescending attitude and prove nothing.

Beat your chest all you'd like, Tarzan. You're not the boss of me.

"Not at all Alex. Men and women have been recording their explorations for THOUSANDS of years but because you are too lazy to check it out you dismiss it."

Maybe you missed the part where I detail my adventures in "checking it out". Scroll up.

"I don't believe in Xenu because I have met Someone far greater. I don't accept Allah because I have met Someone far greater."

That's nice. It has nothing to do with your "fool" statement, though, so you're still a hypocrite. Also, maybe you can ask your imaginary friend to come pay me a visit? It certainly doesn't seem fair that the two of you are getting together for tea and crumpets, but he won't even say "hi" to me.

"Why would I look for a localized being when I have met the Infinite being. Why would I look for a being that is all will when I have met a being that is Will, Reason and Manifestation?"

Why would I look for turbulent splines when I've met a purple monkey dishwasher?

"That being said what are you looking for? Some plausible excuse to do whatsoever you desire?"

Evidence. Come talk to me when you have some. Meanwhile, good night!

"How rational is it to believe everything came from nothing? I contend that your leap of faith is much bigger than those who believe in Intelligent Design."

I propose my reasoning is based upon logic and observable truths. Theories are based upon truths. "Intelligent Design" is neither, it is simply religion disguised as "science" so it can be crammed into US schools. Read up on it, the 1987 USSC ruling on "creationism" , Dover school trial(where a conservative judge ruled ID as not science), etc...

The Discovery Institute has even published literature on how to cram "Intelligent Design" into schools, yet also claim out the other side of their mouth that "Intelligent Design" is not about getting creationism, but rather about science.

"Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust - we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper." - Albert Einstein

"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details." - Albert Einstein

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the unlimitable superior who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God." - Albert Einstein

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein

"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." - Albert Einstein

"We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us." - Albert Einstein

"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." - Albert Einstein

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods. - Albert Einstein

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically." - Albert Einstein

The Lord God is subtle, but malicious He is not." - Albert Einstein

"Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God." - Albert Einstein

"It was the experience of mystery-even if mixed with fear-that engendered religion." - Albert Einstein

"That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. - Albert Einstein

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation [and] is but a reflection of human frailty." - Albert Einstein

"I assert that the cosmic religious experience is the strongest and the noblest driving force behind scientific research." - Albert Einstein

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man." - Albert Einstein

"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice." - Albert Einstein

Imagine all that God-talk. Maybe Einstein wasn't such a genius after all.

Oh. And a few more just for you Alex:

"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand." - Albert Einstein

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein

"If A is success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." - Albert Einstein

Oops. Should have put this one in the special "just for Alex". I guess it's never to late:

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein

How come you're still here, Alex? You keep promising to leave. Sheesh.

The Discovery Institute has even published literature on how to cram "Intelligent Design" into schools, yet also claim out the other side of their mouth that "Intelligent Design" is not about getting creationism, but rather about science.
Posted by: allan

You have one point. Its a fact you can only look at it two ways. Either matter & energy created out of Nothing, or there is a Creator.

My point is that science is a process not belief.
I might add its overturned regularly every 50 years. Now there talking about an Electrical Universe. The sun being just a generator with its input from plasma waves. For this theory see the Googles Video Thunderbolt of the gods. Not a Christian or religious vid.

I have my proof. Its the Bible . A fourth dimensional artifact in a third dimensional (Ten hyper spaces as of last count) environment. Unlike Nostradamus its predictions are clear & are fulfilled in order. Thats what makes it an artifact. God knows the beginning from the End. Just read about it.

He also said:

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. ... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong ... have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them."

Revnant Dream, so then who created the creator?

Do you understand how time can be distorted, what if it could be distorted so badly, that at one point there is no "before"? Like say, during a big bang?

allan:

Who created the Creator?

Must have been the Central Committee of human beings.

Could you explain how something could be created from a destructive act (the big bang). Is a ‘bang' and explosion

Creation is dealt with in 1.5 pages of my 1,000-page Bible.

So, we just start out with the scientific fact that we are here and take it from there.

Let there be light? Sounds like quantum physics.

Especially since there was light before the earth and the sun.

For some inexplicable reason, atheists seem to obsess about such a small part of the Bible.

In my church, creation is just an accepted fact and we move on to more important things.

It's more of, now that we're here, why are we here and what are we to make of it?

And, other interesting question such as ... without human beings acting according to the lessons taught and mysteries revealed in the Bible, then what is the Bible but a bunch of random words?

And, if the resurrection of Christ is untrue, then nothing else in the New Testament has any relevance.

Enough of casting peals before swine, though.

There ain't no Loch Ness Monster.

There ain't no Sanity Clause.

There ain't no Higgs Boson either.

I said, way back up there towards the beginning of this thread:

"By the same token, I cannot fathom what creative force must be the cause of all that, but whatever it is, it has to be the great mystery we call God. And He/She/It is beyond any human created definition, neither the Judeao/Christian version nor any other."

According to Allan, Einstein also said:

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

So, I gotta ask, does that make me a genius too?

Louise,

No, it does not.

Louise said: "At the "religious" extreme are the Bible/Koran etc. thumpers who would like to shove fairy tales down our throats"

This is a really retarded suggestion. The Bible [not the Koran] is the oldest written record of man's quest to figure these questions out. It's a history book. There is no other ancient written record of man's continuing quest for answers to the question "Why does mankind behave so badly, and what can be done about it?" Your statement is similar to saying that da Vinci's notes are nothing more than fairy tales, or that Egyptian hieroglyphics are just comic-book cartoons.

Nobody's shoving anything down your throat. It's just free, public history. You can take it or leave it, and nobody will be upset.

Actually, that's not true. The Vedas are older than the Bible.

Besides that, maybe you should read the whole thread to put my words in their proper context. Either that, or take your objections up with Alex.

Louise replied: "that's not true. The Vedas are older than the Bible"

You're continuing to display an awesome lack of understanding of both works. The Vedas are a rag-tag collection of constantly recycled mythologies and endless chants. Wikipedia suggests that they're "concerned with protection against demons and disaster, spells for the healing of diseases . . ."

The Bible, on the other hand, is a meticulously researched & documented written record of man's search for answers to some very difficult questions. It's the record of an immense intellectual quest, verified by centuries of painstaking research. Amongst other things, it's the first written record of the Big Bang theory, and the first description of the solar system. For the philosophers amongst us, it contains the first description of forgiveness. The Vedas, on the other hand, are merely mindless fluff, much like elevator music. The Vedas are REAL fairy tales.

"The Vedas are REAL fairy tales. "

And you believe the bible, everything in it literally, from front to back?

Revnant Dream, so then who created the creator?

Time is an artifact, or to be precise a creation of God.
He has no beginning no end. He lives outside of time. Which is only the 4 th dimension out of 10 that we posit exist. Of which we experience only 4 with our senses. The rest are mental constructs from Math. Its interesting to note light like time seems to be a wave function (theory only). It may well have attributes like light has in time relativity which we haven't a clue about. If indications that the speed of light where many times faster in the past. Six days could create the Earth id light took 6 days to cross the Universe (Its not infinite) but because of time dilation maybe 6 billion pass?
Lots of fun theories.

Much of the scientific establishment says that intelligent design is not a tested scientific theory but a cleverly marketed effort to introduce religious -- especially Christian -- thinking to students.
I would have been inclined to agree with the above until I found a revolutionary hypothesis in Intelligent Design Message from the Designers.Instead of progression of design by nature we have progression of design by advanced science.Much quicker than nature.We can see our scientists becoming creators of life (see Craig Ventner GENESIS II) In the course of time through the progression of design scientists will create more and more complex organisms, until eventually the buckle will be closed and they will become like those whom our ancestors mistook for gods.This is against a backdrop of there having been many human civilisations on this very ancient planet, which have disappeared for the self evident reasons we can understand today. Our humanity as a whole is the test.One looks at the whole of humanity as a growing biological organism, and as such it's progression is PREDICTABLE.If we are not wise with our technology then we will ultimately self-destruct.Science fiction? Well if it is then within the context of the hypothesis, then so are the dangers of nuclear war , over-population and environmental degradation. If this is science fiction it would make a wonderful theme for a movie.

"The Bible, on the other hand, is a meticulously researched & documented written record of man's search for answers to some very difficult questions."

lol

Yes, and Ray "Banana Man" Comfort is the smartest man in the universe :) Congratulations, sir, you win the "funniest quote of the month" award. I'm tempted to start a site just to be able to publicize that sentence.

"Amongst other things, it's the first written record of the Big Bang theory, and the first description of the solar system"

ROFL. Damn, I knew I should have kept reading. This is a parody, isn't it? You're having us on!

I like how this Nielsen can try and sell his crazy cartoon theory with a straight face, yet still feels he has to put the word "God" in inverted commas so as to avoid sounding like a kook.

Of course he has no problem anthropomorphising "nature", but the contortions these atheists will put themselves through in order to keep their little mental universe God-free are truly impressive.

100 comments of troll feeding? Give it a rest people.

Bech Nielsen is trying to explain a -theory- about an effect that occurs in four or five dimensions. Presumably he's done the math. Its an interesting idea from a novelty point of view. Probably wrong, but then most theories are. At least he's thinking.

Phanton:

Wasn't the derivatives market based on faith in a can't-fail mathematical formula?

At least, in the Gospel according to Allan Greenspan.

Phantom, I thought this conversation went pretty well. Yes there was some passive flame-baiting, but full on trolling definitely did not occur.

syf, just because somebody has "done the math" doesn't mean their theory is right. It means they have constructed an argument that is internally consistent.

Then they go measure the thing in question and see if the math matches reality. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. When it does, the bridge stays up, the airplane flies, or the vaccine doesn't kill anybody.

BTW, the derivatives -market- is doing very well. They sell to all sides at a tidy profit. Its derivatives speculators that have taken a kicking of late. And deservedly so, IMHO.

I may yet take a big fat deletion key to this entire thread. What part of "this is not a debating forum" do you people not understand? Go find your own bandwidth.