Half resembling a logical argument would be much better.
4 Likes
Hello! I like the title of your post.
2 Likes
No one knows who you are talking to Richard. You can deal with this in several ways. Use the ‘@’ symbol and indicate a name. ( @Richard) or you can run your cursor over text, while left clicking the mouse. This highlights the text and creates a ‘copy’ box. You click on the copy box and the text you wish to copy will appear in a text box like this one. Cheers.
1 Like
A little bit of a tangent, since we’re talking about the Universe: An idea just occurred to me out of the clear blue sky. Virtual particles popping into and out of existence is what pulls two metal plates together (the Casimir Effect), so the idea occurs to me to wonder if the expansion of the Universe is, somehow, related to the Casimir effect.
I know that the metal plates have to be polished, in a vacuum, and very close together to see this Casimir Effect . . . but is there any way this infintismal repulsion (outside the plates in the Casimir Effect)adds up over vast distances? And the larger the Universe becomes, the greater the amount of space becomes available for virtual particles? Which would cause the expansion to accellerate? I even wonder if this mechanism might explain cosmic inflation, as the attraction between these two metal plates drops off with distance, so in the early Universe I imagine that this Cosmic Casimir Effect would have more force contained in a smaller volume, if I’m expressing myself well (which I may not be).
This idea could be falsified if I knew how to work out the math of this repulsive force over vast distances, and see if there is a relationship between the Casimir Effect and the Hubble Constant.
This comes from the idea that the reason why the two plates want to come together is because of a force (from the virtual particles) “pushing” on the ouside of the plates.
And is there a relationship between these virtual particles and the dark matter that we can’t see?
Typically the plates are carefully placed very close together to discourage the production of virtual particle between them, but there are far less restrictions on virtual particles on the outside of the plates, leading to more pressure pushing in than pressure pushing out; which appears as net attraction between the plates.
There have been many papers written about basically your exact speculation. This article is basically discussing what you suggested and the current difficulties associated with it:
1 Like
Life is so much easier when you just realize God works in mysterious ways. When you turn things over to God, it frees your mind to think about important things: stopping abortions, banning condoms, banning fetal cell research, teaching the debate in science class, banning gay marriage, and so much more.
4 Likes
You need to use the quote function, or the reply to post function for it to be clear to whom you’re responding. In this instance can we assume you mean the title of this thread? If so what did you like about it, and why?
To me it’s seems trite and cryptic, and possibly redundant, since science has a model of universe, and I should need a very good reason to imagine a stranger on the internet can improve on this. So far that is not the impression given.
1 Like
Just to help things along, since we seem to be waiting in anticipation of this objectively verifiable evidence, and because we always get the same ridiculous response. I’ll shave a few seconds off the process by Googling the words for them:
objectively
adverb
- in a way that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.
- in a way that is not dependent on the mind for existence; actually.
verifiable
adjective
- able to be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified.
evidence
noun
- the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Parenthetically to objective, the word existence of course must by definition reflect objective reality:
Existence
noun
- the fact or state of living or having objective reality.
Hope this helps save some time, as we seem have stalled…
I also think the term empirical is important enough in this context for it to be clarified:
empirical
adjective[usually before noun] (formal)
- based on experiments or experience rather than ideas or theories
(Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries)
empirical
adjective1 : originating in or based on observation or experience
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
4 : of or relating to empiricism
(Some reformatting+editing done for brevity)
1 Like
What’s telling for me is how often people who value subjective religious beliefs either don’t know, or claim not to understand what these terms mean. Of course it may just be obfuscation some of the time, I can’t possibly answer until I know what you mean by objective evidence, then when you post the definitions, it’s always yeah I know what the words mean…duh!
Or my favourite, what do you mean by sufficient, as if they want a quantifiably exact amount or something, it’s just bizarre…
People, if you believe something just fucking tell us why, keep it as brief as you can, and start with the best reason you think you have…how hard is that ffs?
So from what I understand @The Metrologist is no longer making any argument but rather, Sophie, an imaginary girl locked up in an imaginary room has taken over from Metro. Are we seeing the beginnings of a split personality? The only source of light is a window she can’t see out of and so can gain no understanding of what is beyond the window, if anything. But she is going to sit and ponder why the window is light sometimes and dark sometimes. More likely poor Sophie, like anyone and especially a child with no knowledge base to occupy her mind, will go insane and end her days drooling in a corner. But perhaps, as Metro implies, she will, out of her insanity, invent god in the light source. Out of the ravings of madmen come all gods. Cheers
2 Likes
He started this thread to run away from the previous one he started, where he asserted a deity existed that created the universe, and of course that he could demonstrate objectively verifiable evidence for. At first he tried to lie that he hadn’t made any claims about god, but when they were duly quoted back at him, he then waffled and obfuscated, but didn’t recant of course.
Then eventually he started this bs to spin things away, as if science doesn’t already have a model of the universe that doesn’t require vague and cryptic unevidenced arguments of the kind he is invoking here. When this argument was rejected, because it doesn’t remotely evidence his earlier claims, or any extant deity, like the claim in his profile (theism), he started to lose interest, then eventually feigned illness, promising of course to come back.
I will never understand why they try to bluff, and don’t just admit they cannot support their belief a deity exists with any objective evidence. Indeed all they need do is offer the most compelling reason they think there is for any extant deity, right from the start, yet they never do. I mean how likely is it that anything anyone says will ever dent their theistic belief?
Paradoxically I can say there is no belief I would not abandon if the evidence demanded it, and I would accept any claim as true if it could be supported by sufficient objective evidence. I guess that’s why I don’t need to bluff, or run away from debate, I don’t have any emotional investment in any belief, I only care whether it is true, and so what objective evidence supports it.
@TheMetrologist clearly was peddling the same old “get them talking and slowly make them suggestible” routine we see apologists try to use endlessly here and elsewhere of course, often by invoking argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies to try and irrationally reverse the burden of truth. When I pointed out his use of just such a fallacy early on, he resorted to an ad hominem fallacy, attacking me personally rather than attempting addressing his previous fallacy in any honest way.
I bet he’s telling some apologetics forum right now how biased and closed minded we all are, for not accepting his “evidence”, you have to laugh.
1 Like
So can we assume that Metro having been defeated has left the coliseum only to return after being consoled by his mythical fanboy friends. @Calilasseia I hope you don’t mind me using mythical fanboy its just so perfect.
Next, he will give us the story of Mary. A girl who was locked in a room with a book about pianos. (I shalln’t go into the whole thing.)
Is this guys argument supposed to be very similar to:
Ie. “Mary’s Room”???
Can someone fill me in? Is the logical deduction from @TheMetrologist argument that, because she sees a source of light, then there is a source of light?
Can I get the TL:DR footnotes from someone?
She does not see a source for light unless it is light itself or the window. She is locked in a room. How in the hell can she invent an outside? We have not got there yet.
1 Like
The “argument” also seems to be very much akin to/borrow a lot from Plato’s allegory of the cave, which is normally covered by first-year university students.
3 Likes
As I pointed out earlier it seems that the Jesuits also had their version(s) to trap the unbeleivers.
2 Likes