Mike CT wrote: Mike CT comment
I introduced the idea of Nature as GOD because of the biblical followers that are attacking our political Constitution, our schools, our sciences and our freedoms here in the USA.
These people are fanatics and that is why I want them to get straightend out about the real creator.
Mike CT
Biblical followers are attacking our Constitution? How? Do you see any successful "attack"? I see the secularists' attacking free speech and freedom of worship as far more serious and far more likely to succeed.
Biblical followers are attacking our schools?!? I don't get that one at all. Can you expand, please? Seems that a little morality would be good for our schools.
Biblical followers are attacking our sciences? Sorry, Mike. They are attacking theory being sold as scientific fact. Big difference.
Biblical followers are attacking our freedoms? What freedoms would those be? Are you referring to the freedom to force an employer to insure whomever you choose? The freedom to escape taxation by naming anyone as spouse? The freedom to deny fellow humans the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Are you calling all followers of Biblical teachings fanatics? Because that's what your statement says.
Who is Ted Lang, Mike?
Nature as GOD
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Nature as GOD
Far Rider:-6
"Ya moron" isn't an insult?? LOL
Shalom
Ted:-6
"Ya moron" isn't an insult?? LOL
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Uncle Kram
- Posts: 5991
- Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:34 pm
Nature as GOD
Uncle Kram wrote: If God was the creator, Where did HE come from?
Where did you come from? Are you REALLY here? Were you created by a set of rules and laws or were you just a accident?
If it is a set of laws and rules................ WHO made those rules and laws of nature?
If it was just an accident........... sheesh there were about 400 trillion million accidents before you happened along.
Just some fodder for thought
Where did you come from? Are you REALLY here? Were you created by a set of rules and laws or were you just a accident?
If it is a set of laws and rules................ WHO made those rules and laws of nature?
If it was just an accident........... sheesh there were about 400 trillion million accidents before you happened along.
Just some fodder for thought
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Nature as GOD
Biblical followers are attacking our sciences? Sorry, Mike. They are attacking theory being sold as scientific fact. Big difference.
OK, here we go again. I have to jump to the defence of science again, lets take relativity, OK we all accept that the Laws of Gravity are not theoretical they are real, so if for instance (whether you are a lutheran minister or an atheist) if you jump off the Eiffel Tower you will both fall at a rate that accelerates from zero at 9.81 meters per second sqaured (regardless of your body weight) until you hit the ground on the Champs Du Mars about 950 feet later. This is all based on Newtons inverse sqaure law of gravitation, which we all hold to be true, right, we do don't we (mike)? Well, its not that simple, because through very, very, very, careful experiement we have found that in extreme circumstances such as extremely high velocities and very large gravities that General Relativity makes predictions that more accuractly reflect the results obtained than Newtons laws. Now we know that Newton's laws are sound in most cases, and that they only breaks down in extreme environrments; however, Relativity does not break down under these cumstances but holds, therefore it is considered a superior theory that is very much based on reality i.e. an apple falling on your head.
Whats the point of all that?, well the point is that if you follow General Relaitivity in relation to the creation of the Universe, it becomes plain that it simply does not permit their to have been an eternal and infinite universe (where people like mike come in). This means that the theory that very, very, very accuratly describes why the planets move in their orbits and why happless civilians will hit the ground when thrown from the Eiffel tower at a certain an particular speed (which are not speculations they are simple facts) also implies that the Universe was created at a single point about 14.7 billion years ago in an event that is commonly known as the big bang. It is a theory as has been said, but it a theory that has as its basis the most everyday and common occurences and not just some philosophical speculation. That is why scientists are so adamant that they are not just engaged in a philospophical debate about the nature of the Universe, but are accuratly trying to describe what it is and how it works. I think its hard for people who don't have a scientific background to realize how unphilosopical it is, thats its not like some big debating club, but is very much based on just actual observations. I think the problem is that the level at which we are now able to probe into the nature of reality just leaves people confused as it appears (I suppose) bizzare and almost mystical or religious, but it isn't, its just based on experiements and results, strange as the implications may seem.
It is true that many people (almost always non scientists) will use scietific findings to promote some outlandish theories or knock religious ideas, and the same is happening in reverse as well, but a difference is that what certain religious groups are really doing is trying to discredit science itself, and say that its just another branch of humanism or philosopical speculation or such like, and has no more "proof" of its ideas than the local bible class, but this is just not the case. The whole point of science is that its not based on guys just making things up in their heads in M.I.T. or Cambridge, but is the result of conducting real-world measurable and repeatable experiments on the nature of matter, energy, gravity, space, living organisms etc etc.
OK, here we go again. I have to jump to the defence of science again, lets take relativity, OK we all accept that the Laws of Gravity are not theoretical they are real, so if for instance (whether you are a lutheran minister or an atheist) if you jump off the Eiffel Tower you will both fall at a rate that accelerates from zero at 9.81 meters per second sqaured (regardless of your body weight) until you hit the ground on the Champs Du Mars about 950 feet later. This is all based on Newtons inverse sqaure law of gravitation, which we all hold to be true, right, we do don't we (mike)? Well, its not that simple, because through very, very, very, careful experiement we have found that in extreme circumstances such as extremely high velocities and very large gravities that General Relativity makes predictions that more accuractly reflect the results obtained than Newtons laws. Now we know that Newton's laws are sound in most cases, and that they only breaks down in extreme environrments; however, Relativity does not break down under these cumstances but holds, therefore it is considered a superior theory that is very much based on reality i.e. an apple falling on your head.
Whats the point of all that?, well the point is that if you follow General Relaitivity in relation to the creation of the Universe, it becomes plain that it simply does not permit their to have been an eternal and infinite universe (where people like mike come in). This means that the theory that very, very, very accuratly describes why the planets move in their orbits and why happless civilians will hit the ground when thrown from the Eiffel tower at a certain an particular speed (which are not speculations they are simple facts) also implies that the Universe was created at a single point about 14.7 billion years ago in an event that is commonly known as the big bang. It is a theory as has been said, but it a theory that has as its basis the most everyday and common occurences and not just some philosophical speculation. That is why scientists are so adamant that they are not just engaged in a philospophical debate about the nature of the Universe, but are accuratly trying to describe what it is and how it works. I think its hard for people who don't have a scientific background to realize how unphilosopical it is, thats its not like some big debating club, but is very much based on just actual observations. I think the problem is that the level at which we are now able to probe into the nature of reality just leaves people confused as it appears (I suppose) bizzare and almost mystical or religious, but it isn't, its just based on experiements and results, strange as the implications may seem.
It is true that many people (almost always non scientists) will use scietific findings to promote some outlandish theories or knock religious ideas, and the same is happening in reverse as well, but a difference is that what certain religious groups are really doing is trying to discredit science itself, and say that its just another branch of humanism or philosopical speculation or such like, and has no more "proof" of its ideas than the local bible class, but this is just not the case. The whole point of science is that its not based on guys just making things up in their heads in M.I.T. or Cambridge, but is the result of conducting real-world measurable and repeatable experiments on the nature of matter, energy, gravity, space, living organisms etc etc.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Nature as GOD
In relation to my last post I will say that people who use either Quantum Mechanics, General or Special Relativity, Evolution, String Theory, and all the rest to either "prove" or disprove God, divine intervention, an afterlife, telekinesis, astral projection, lucky numbers, etc, are not correct. None of these theories either prove or disprove God or any of the rest, as all this stuff either doesn't exist or exists in a state that is not materially evident, there is simply no way to investigate these things impirically, so scientists just don't investigate them, because by their very nature they exist in a realm that for better or worse exists outside the one that science can be used to explain (i.e. the material Universe). Science neither provides comfort or dispute to the fundamental ideas of religion because they are by their very nature physically unknowable and science cannot in any meaningful way make any accurate comment on whether they are true or not. This is the principal reason why wise scientists just stay out of religious debates in general (though they will argue against creationism because there is plenty of evidence that the world is not 6,500 years old) because just by being scientists and entering those debates they may give the impression that science has any real clue as to what the answers to such questions are, it doesn't and it doesn't say that it does, that is a matter for the individual, a question of faith, if you want to put it that way.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Nature as GOD
Galbally, if you ever visit the US, you have to give me a call so I can buy you a proper pint. :-6
Nature as GOD
Accountable quote
Are you calling all followers of Biblical teachings fanatics? Because that's what your statement says.
Reply
No, only the ones that are attacking our Constitutional government and accusing the government of trying to suppress their religious aggression which is only right because they are violating the Constitutional mandate of 'separation of church and state'.. They are the aggressors invading the public schools to force public prayer which Christ opposed becaue he considered it a hypocrisy..
Another is the teaching of 'intelligent design' which is purely a subjective idea.
Also, the fiasco in Alabama where the posting of the 'ten commandments' was a publicized issue.
Uncle quote
If God was the creator, Where did HE come from?
Reply
The ‘Creator GOD is a female. All life seems to have derived from the ‘stem cell’. So, the egg came first.
How the stem cell originated is the debatable question.
If it can survive in a dormant state in the space temperature of 3K, than it can have everlasting life with no beginning or end similar to the physical matter content..
Mike CT
Are you calling all followers of Biblical teachings fanatics? Because that's what your statement says.
Reply
No, only the ones that are attacking our Constitutional government and accusing the government of trying to suppress their religious aggression which is only right because they are violating the Constitutional mandate of 'separation of church and state'.. They are the aggressors invading the public schools to force public prayer which Christ opposed becaue he considered it a hypocrisy..
Another is the teaching of 'intelligent design' which is purely a subjective idea.
Also, the fiasco in Alabama where the posting of the 'ten commandments' was a publicized issue.
Uncle quote
If God was the creator, Where did HE come from?
Reply
The ‘Creator GOD is a female. All life seems to have derived from the ‘stem cell’. So, the egg came first.
How the stem cell originated is the debatable question.
If it can survive in a dormant state in the space temperature of 3K, than it can have everlasting life with no beginning or end similar to the physical matter content..
Mike CT
Nature as GOD
To Galbally
I support all researched data such as the gravitational constant, Plancks constant and etc.
I also support observational data but this is open to subjective interpretation of the data.
Since I am a self educated amateur scientist, my thinking is not regimented by the colleges or universities to conform or you do not get a diploma and title.
In other words, I am a free thinker to form my own opinions as to what I read. But I do study the writings of the educated establishment. I just do not have to worry about getting a passing grade.
So, most of my articles are 'new science'.
Mike CT
I support all researched data such as the gravitational constant, Plancks constant and etc.
I also support observational data but this is open to subjective interpretation of the data.
Since I am a self educated amateur scientist, my thinking is not regimented by the colleges or universities to conform or you do not get a diploma and title.
In other words, I am a free thinker to form my own opinions as to what I read. But I do study the writings of the educated establishment. I just do not have to worry about getting a passing grade.
So, most of my articles are 'new science'.
Mike CT
Nature as GOD
Mike CT wrote: To Galbally
I support all researched data such as the gravitational constant, Plancks constant and etc.
I also support observational data but this is open to subjective interpretation of the data.
Since I am a self educated amateur scientist, my thinking is not regimented by the colleges or universities to conform or you do not get a diploma and title.
In other words, I am a free thinker to form my own opinions as to what I read. But I do study the writings of the educated establishment. I just do not have to worry about getting a passing grade.
So, most of my articles are 'new science'.
Mike CT
Yes Mike, thats fine, but I don't agree with any of your conclusions and not many scientists would. That said, you might be right of course, but its very unlikely. Lets take plancks constant, you have said in the past that you accept the Bohr structure of the atom, but that you don't accept further QM interpretations. I do not see how your interpretation can prevent the structural collapse of atoms, the mechamisms you describe are somewhat nebulous, and they have definetly never been confirmed by experiement, this is why I find it hard to take what you are saying seriously. You also have a habit of subjectively picking certain results, igorning others, and developing theories based on one or two results and a lot of guesswork, if you were a professional scientist you wouldn't be able to do that. There is a lot of conervatism in science, thats only natural scientists are people too, but to be fair to scientists they do all the hard slog as well as the fancy stuff. Anyway, you are entitled to make any interpretation of events you like, everyone is, but don't expect them to be widely accepted.
I support all researched data such as the gravitational constant, Plancks constant and etc.
I also support observational data but this is open to subjective interpretation of the data.
Since I am a self educated amateur scientist, my thinking is not regimented by the colleges or universities to conform or you do not get a diploma and title.
In other words, I am a free thinker to form my own opinions as to what I read. But I do study the writings of the educated establishment. I just do not have to worry about getting a passing grade.
So, most of my articles are 'new science'.
Mike CT
Yes Mike, thats fine, but I don't agree with any of your conclusions and not many scientists would. That said, you might be right of course, but its very unlikely. Lets take plancks constant, you have said in the past that you accept the Bohr structure of the atom, but that you don't accept further QM interpretations. I do not see how your interpretation can prevent the structural collapse of atoms, the mechamisms you describe are somewhat nebulous, and they have definetly never been confirmed by experiement, this is why I find it hard to take what you are saying seriously. You also have a habit of subjectively picking certain results, igorning others, and developing theories based on one or two results and a lot of guesswork, if you were a professional scientist you wouldn't be able to do that. There is a lot of conervatism in science, thats only natural scientists are people too, but to be fair to scientists they do all the hard slog as well as the fancy stuff. Anyway, you are entitled to make any interpretation of events you like, everyone is, but don't expect them to be widely accepted.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Nature as GOD
Mike CT wrote: Accountable quote
Are you calling all followers of Biblical teachings fanatics? Because that's what your statement says.
Reply
No, only the ones that are attacking our Constitutional government and accusing the government of trying to suppress their religious aggression which is only right because they are violating the Constitutional mandate of 'separation of church and state'.. They are the aggressors invading the public schools to force public prayer which Christ opposed becaue he considered it a hypocrisy..
Another is the teaching of 'intelligent design' which is purely a subjective idea.
Also, the fiasco in Alabama where the posting of the 'ten commandments' was a publicized issue.
You bore me with your baseless unsupported assertions.
Who is Ted Lang, Mike?
Are you calling all followers of Biblical teachings fanatics? Because that's what your statement says.
Reply
No, only the ones that are attacking our Constitutional government and accusing the government of trying to suppress their religious aggression which is only right because they are violating the Constitutional mandate of 'separation of church and state'.. They are the aggressors invading the public schools to force public prayer which Christ opposed becaue he considered it a hypocrisy..
Another is the teaching of 'intelligent design' which is purely a subjective idea.
Also, the fiasco in Alabama where the posting of the 'ten commandments' was a publicized issue.
You bore me with your baseless unsupported assertions.
Who is Ted Lang, Mike?
Nature as GOD
Galbally
In reply to your last post on this thread, I have decided to post an article as to why visualization can replace QM at times. The post is in the other 'Space and Astronomy' thread entitled 'The Collapse of the HA'.
The collapse of the HA is pointed out to refute the Newtonian mathematics as
applicable to Bohrs planetary model of the HA.
I explain why it does not collapse simply by visualization to give credibility to Bohrs model.
The expansion of the Quantum theory by the Schroedinger equations confirm Bohrs energy levels but then the BM cannot apply to the helium and other more complex elements. I do not dispute the SE but continue to support the HA model as Bohr has shown.
The orbitals derived from the SE do not refute the planetary model necause the electron is still there orbitting the proton and would reveal itself in any 'instant in time' as a point particle.
In close proximaty to other atoms, its orbital imclinations would be continuously changing to give the SE their credibility.
Mike CT
In reply to your last post on this thread, I have decided to post an article as to why visualization can replace QM at times. The post is in the other 'Space and Astronomy' thread entitled 'The Collapse of the HA'.
The collapse of the HA is pointed out to refute the Newtonian mathematics as
applicable to Bohrs planetary model of the HA.
I explain why it does not collapse simply by visualization to give credibility to Bohrs model.
The expansion of the Quantum theory by the Schroedinger equations confirm Bohrs energy levels but then the BM cannot apply to the helium and other more complex elements. I do not dispute the SE but continue to support the HA model as Bohr has shown.
The orbitals derived from the SE do not refute the planetary model necause the electron is still there orbitting the proton and would reveal itself in any 'instant in time' as a point particle.
In close proximaty to other atoms, its orbital imclinations would be continuously changing to give the SE their credibility.
Mike CT