Do you?
Musings about different types of atheist!
by Seraphim23 304 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Seraphim23
Good for you adamah.
-
-
Berengaria
You sound a bit like a previous poster here Seraphim. Do you Wibble?
-
Seraphim23
I’m not sure what you mean? However I’ve not been here before under a different name.
-
Seraphim23
Interesting video adamah.
-
snare&racket
Seraphim, welcome to how science s done, quite different to the hairy fairy nature of religion hey ;P
See, the reason why people here are confused, is you have introduced a whole new realm to the universe never before seen, proven or hypothesised...a 'framework'. Having read much physics I assume this is something you have hypothesised yourself as you have not referenced (quoted) a paper or journal.I appreciate that most people don't kmow how good science is done, it is not their fault, I for example am ignorant in the strategies of baseball.
You are not a scientist obviously, so that is ok, but you are still allowed to have an idea....but it is not really polite or appropriate to simply call people 'blind' for not understanding a concept you have formulated in your mind alone, something you have invented in your mind without said evidence or sceintific reference OR EVEN AN EXPLINATION :) as cofty was requesting.
How can others begin to know what you mean? You have used several phrases not used in the realms of physics that I have never heard before that I assume make sense to you, but we live in 2013 with very specific mathmatics and physics equations and definite definitions for them.
Me personally, I felt you were attempting to define the conditions outside of the known universe. This is being hypothesised by scientists with decades of harcore math and physics around them and they have hypothesised the conditions and state such as one example....'the membrane theory'...membranes of multiple dimensions, but when they suggest such ideas, they only do so with full definitions AND it is based on kilometers and kilometers of math and physics, then modelled in super computers etc.
People can't just say 'in my mind the universe must sit in a framework of energy and a minimum of requirements......and that would require a god to create' (You didnt SAY it but maybe were moving towards implying it, maybe not), firstly because it is not 1765 and we know enough about the universe and it's formation ....and secondly the physics and math we know so well now would have to fit to the realms of reality. Also people who may suggest such a 'framework' are constructing s hypothesis with the NEED for a god beforehand, yet there is no reason to warrant this, in fact this does not simplify the problem as a god will always be more comp,ex than his creation and the idea of a complex god not requiring formation and initiation is far more unintuitive and unscientific and is far less helpful than the real science being done today.
But not knowing your motivation, let me simply put it this way, like you, some people are hypothesising the surroundings of the universe, only unlike you they sre not asking that you simply accept an idea such as 'a framework' without more explination. They go on to specify every detail of what they mean by that, in miles and miles of computed math and physics. Cofty wasn't being difficult, you weren't describing anything complicated to us, you were just saying words and not explaining anything behind your idea.
To give you an idea.....my favourite hypothesis as I said above is 'membrane theory', I just think it is an interesting theory that has made use of string theory and provides a mechanism for the initiation of our universe.
Here is a scientist explaining the concept so others can appreciate it, as cofty was asking you:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ExA4BKgE5wg&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DExA4BKgE5wg
I would suggest books by Lawrence Krauss, his book 'A universe from nothing' explains away the formation of the universe without a 'framework', using modern science snd math.
On the off chance that we have put so much effort into answering you and you won't go and read a book, hear him summarise it here....
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-EilZ4VY5Vs&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D-EilZ4VY5Vs
all the best seraphim, sorry you got frustrated in having your own ideas, but look at the last 150 years and the advancment we have had using the scientific method. Go and get a math qualification, then do higher math and s degree is comological physics, this will give you a simple grasp of the language of physics, do a Phd in some early universe research, then you are now 10 years in and at the starting blocks for your life in the science of Physics... In 20 or 30 years you would be a professor and your theory, if it adds up may be appreciated by all your fellow physics peers when they review it when you publish your data in a journal......then it will excite people like a little physics fan called ...
Snare x
p.s. that is how science is done today....and it works!
-
Seraphim23
Actually I was talking mostly about M theory but in lay terms. I wondered when someone would catch on.
-
latinthunder
Snare, would you say scientists are an authority on reality?
-