Not of they trip over that bloody black cat they can’t…
2 Likes
Just to point out an indisputable fact here, Sid, old chap,…neither do you know or even have the remotest clue WHY…or you would have demonstrated your solution.
4 Likes
What if there is no WHY?
3 Likes
Aw Sid, Really? You don’t know where the laws of physics come from? They are descriptive observations of the world around us. Don’t you know that? The laws of physics are descriptive observations that have been independently verified throughout our history… well… until very recently anyway.
LOL, Actually a whole lot of 'Why" has been explained. If there is a ‘Why’ that is not explained, then you don’t have an explanation either. What’s your point? We will know when we know and until then, most of us are very comfortable with the response, ‘I don’t know.’ We don’t need to make up stories and pretend we have answers.
4 Likes
But you do! You believe that a sky fairy fucked the universe into existence. You believe that. You and your fellow theists such as the Muslims and Hindus believe their gods did it too. You all have a bullshit answer for EVERYTHING. But fuck Science! Oh no, lets ignore proven facts. Lets ignore all the evidence scientists have gathered and demonstrated. Lets completely ignore it all. Fuck the undeniable facts. Lets open our story books and our imaginations written by idiots. I know! Lets go with the Bhagavad Gita for story time!
Right, let’s take a look at this latest piece of garbage, shall we?
First of all, as Sheldon and I have stated here, modern scientists operate on the basis that the laws of physics are DEscriptive. They regard their various postulates on the matter as DEscribing how the universe and its contents operate, and modify those postulates when new data informs them that this is required. Contrast this with the fatuous course taken by the authors of pre-scientific mythologies, who thought that their various pieces of made up shit dictated how reality behaves, no matter how much reality points and laughs at this hubris. The idea that prescriptive assertions dictate the behaviour of the universe is a non-starter among modern physicists.
Second, the topic of the origin of the laws of physics is, wait for it, an active research topic in the physics community. Instead of tossing diligent pursuit of knowledge into the bin as mythology fanboys do, and resorting to “Magic Man did it”, they seek proper, rigorous reasons why the laws of physics we observe to be applicable came into being. I was recently introduced to a very interesting example of the research in question, which was launched by none other than the late Stephen Hawking, and which is being continued by his colleague Thomas Hertog, covered in more detail in this article by Hertog himself.
Let’s see what Hertog has to say on the subject, shall we? He begins by noting:
After some preamble, he then moves on to:
What is then revealed is the following:
That bolded part is key to what follows, which will make several of the veterans here sit up and take notice:
Now I’m not familiar with the technical details of Hawking’s “sum over histories” cosmology, not least because it involves some fairly esoteric concepts and even more esoteric mathematics, and I don’t claim to possess the skills to understand those technical details, which are probably understood in full by fewer than a dozen people on the entire planet. But since Hertog is one of those fewer than a dozen people on the planet who understands this, because he was a collaborator with Hawking on this work, I regard his reportage on the subject as reliable.Unlike pontifications by mouth on a stick mythology fanboys, who think “Magic Man did it” is a magic spell hand-waving away all the inconvenient data.
Unlike the usual suspects, I don’t pretend to know things I don’t. But what I do claim, is that I’ve paid attention to the thousands of people who performed the hard work of establishing the soundness of the postulates in question. Unlike mythology fanboys.
Meanwhile, Hertog goes further:
In short, we are here because the laws of physics permitted our existence, and the relevant physically permitted interactions took place. And Hertog tells us that according to the work he and Hawking undertook, the laws of physics are the result of shaping by past interactions. I’m really going to enjoy the way this work will lead to nuclear-strength butthurt among creationist morons, because it postulates that the laws of physics themselves were the product of an evolutionary process. That sound you can hear is me laughing at the ramifications of this so loudly that I’m audible on Mars.
I’m also enjoying the final summing up, viz:
Now I suspect even the regulars here weren’t expecting me to unleash this, but they will doubtless enjoy my doing so immensely.
Bullshit. Oh wait, my source for my expositions is peer reviwed scientific papers, written by the people who provided the hard experimental evidence for the requisite postulates. Which doesn’t exist in the ludicrous world of mythology fanboyism.
Except that, wait for it,. chemistry is what keeps you going. Quite simply, if key chemical reactions stop, you fucking DIE. As I expounded in more detail in a post above. But it doesn’t surprise me to see you, as a mythology fanboy, sneer at this demonstrable fact.
And, as I expounded above, if the flatulent nonsense peddled by your ilk was anything other than rectally extruded garbage, the pharmaceutical industry as we know it would not exist. Which on its own provides a refutation of your tedious drivel.
I’ve more of a clue than you, mythology fanboy. And as part of having more of a clue than you, I understand that the tiresome mythology fanboy resort to “why” is nothing more than petulant, childish carping at the people who do the fucking hard work. Something none of your ilk will ever engage in.
Oh, you and your ilk will exert enough effort to post snide, condescending carping, or fabricate ex recto apologetics in a desperate and failed attempt to use said apologetics as magic spells to conjure your fantasies into reality, but the genuine hard work of acquiring substantive knowledge, and backing up the postulates underpinning said knowledge with reliably repeatable experimental data, is a task you and your ilk will avoid the way Kent Hovind avoided paying taxes.
Quite simply, you’re a blowhard, and a particularly low grade one at that. Do you serve fries with that ignorance you’re peddling?
1 Like
Of course they are . IThat’s not the point though is it .It’s not the descriptive observations I am referencing, it’s what the descriptive observations are describing , where did these so called “ laws of physics” originate from ?
Read my post above yours. I’ll enjoy your butthurt when you do.
Ok. You wanna do the appeal to authority road , I’ll call your bet and raise you 10-
Let’s start with chemistry , your favorite bludgeoning tool -
Christian Anfinsen replied: “I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.”
— Christian Anfinsen, winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on ribonuclease.
——–
“If we need an atheist for a debate, we go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn’t much use.”
—Robert Griffiths, winner of the Heinemann Prize in mathematical physics.
My advice is to fold . If you want to continue this line of debate then carry on .
Oh look, the duplicity and stupidity continues.
No, I leave that to idiot mythology fanboys. The ony reason I quoted Hertog was, wait for it, because he was a collaborator on the scientific work in question. Or were you too stupid to understand this, despite me explicitly stating this?
Bring it on, Looby Loo.
Oh look, it’s creationist “quote” time … there are entire websites devoted to the duplicity involved here. But do continue …
Who was also a convert to Judaism, and therefore hardly an unbiased commentator in this regard.
Oh wait, this was the same Anfinsen who wrote this textbook, bearing the title The Molecular Basis of Evolution. Funny how you neglected to mention this, isn’t it, mythology fanboy? Or that your supposed “quote” of his words never appears in his Nobel Lecture?
Got a proper citation for this “quote”? Or is it merely another creationist fabrication, like a good many other “quotes” I’ve had thrown at me by your ilk over the past 14 years?
And of course, someone whose parents were presbyterian missionaries is again hardly likely to be an unbiased commentator. Once again, citation for this “quote”?
Funny how I’m able to provide citations for all the works I reference, isn’t it?
You’re the one that’s losing here. Courtesy of your continued discoursive duplicity.
EDIT: Oh, by the way, in case you failed to recognise this, the reason I present scientific papers, or writings by scientists such the above account by Hertog, isn’t an “appeal to authority”, but I’m used to your ilk lying about this. The reason I cover those works, is because:
[1] The authors of those works present therein, the hard experimental data verifying the relevant postulates, or;
[2] The authors of those works provide illuminating insights into their ideas, as Hertog did in that article.
But do keep lying about my output here, it simply makes my task destroying your garbage easier.
1 Like
Haha, don’t think so . I would suggest sticking to chemicals in the lab and leave them out of the God debate , it’s a losing hand .
You lost from first base the moment you lied about my posting. That you have to lie in order to prop up your attachment to your goat herder mythology and its merely asserted cartoon magic man, merely demonstrates that both are not merely worthless, but an ideological cancer.
I suggest you stick to crayons, they’re closer to your level.
An absolute nonsensical utterance.
3 Likes
Now, now, Cog. Let’s not be too hasty in our judgements. Sid may be on to something here…
@Sid Okay, Sid, I’m gonna go out on a limb here in an effort to help you a bit. Since you are obviously not making yourself understood, I will try to explain your stance to them in a way they might comprehend. Sound fair? (Oh, and please feel free to correct me if I get it wrong.) So, listen up all you heathen doubters…
If I’m understanding Sid correctly, I believe what he is TRYING to say is that his god is responsible for all the scientific evidence scientists are finding that allows the scientists to form all the hypothesis, postulates, theories, and laws we currently know. In other words, were it not for his god, there would be nothing for scientists to find. (Aside from the fact there would be no scientists in the first place. And we wouldn’t even be here to debate all this stuff.) So, sure, we have all these scientific laws and such based on observations and studies and testing done by various curious-minded folks over the centuries. Sid ain’t disputing that. What Sid is TRYING TO say is all your “genius” scientists cannot explain the origin of all the stuff they observed, studied, and tested that allowed them to develop those laws/theories. And, obviously, it was Sid’s god that put all that stuff there. As usual, why do you all have to make things so damn complicated?
(Edit for playing Devil’s Advisor.)
You mean like god putting all those fossils in the ground to make us think the earth is older than the 6000 years we’ve really been here?
That explains everything.
3 Likes
Oh dear…
1 Like
Fuck me, trolltacular?
@Sid why is love sufficient for you to believe a deity exists?
We are still waiting, though not anticipating, an answer, in between your asinine bs about science.
Hahahahahahhahahahah, uh oh, oh oh, irony overload… 
2 Likes
Do the neuroscientists tell you how the brain produces consciousness?
Do they tell you how lifeless inanimate matter produced consciousness ?
Do they tell you why chemicals produce evil and greed ?
Do they tell you WHY a blind indifferent universe with no purpose or meaning would produce life that has a conscience that gives us a sense of guilt ?
- Yes.
- That’s not their specialty.
- That’s not their specialty.
- That’s not their specialty.
1 Like