Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

LOL
You're out of your element doing anything but copying RT/Sputnik/Fort-Russ, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla#On_religion
On religion
Tesla was raised an Orthodox Christian. Later in life he did not consider himself to be a "believer in the orthodox sense," said he opposed religious fanaticism, and said "Buddhism and Christianity are the greatest religions both in number of disciples and in importance".[260] He also said "To me, the universe is simply a great machine which never came into being and never will end" and "what we call 'soul' or 'spirit,' is nothing more than the sum of the functionings of the body. When this functioning ceases, the 'soul' or the 'spirit' ceases likewise".[260]
​

There is no 'god' in evidence. Perhaps you can find him in the RT/Sputnik scripture you read/post.

So you are "proud" of .ru - the gas-station-masquerading-as-a-country?

So to be clear..
The Jewish/OT god is evil, but his '!mmaculately-conceived', 'dead-r!sen 'son' (LOL) is good... and credible.
And isn't it "arrogant" to say 75% of the planet has god wrong and you have it right?

USSRidiculous.
+

 

RE: Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
※→ gophangover, et al,

Oh, stop this nonsense; and move-on...

(COMMENT)

Scientific Theories are either in an ongoing process through the Scientific Method, or in the situation that it can never actually prove to be absolutely true, but has never been subject to a valid test that has shown it to be wrong.

Religious Beliefs are held subject to a faith-based system.

Quit trying to support some equivalency between the two. They are not in competition; nor, are Scientific Theories opposing Religious Beliefs. The Gospel Coalition has a much more detailed explanation. Just as Science is defined differently (example: Webster's Dictionary) from Religion; so it is that they are recognized using different criteria; that commonly understood and that which is generally accepted as the definition of Scientific within its community. There is a huge difference in the science that attempts to explain and define the natural laws governing the universe, and the assumption that a some undefined and undetectable deity operating in a superstitious manner.

Because the two concepts (Science and Religion) are "mutually exclusive" not "diametrically opposed," it is possible for a Scientist to be evangelical Christians. Science does not have, as an objective, to break or disprove religions of shadow the belief in a Supreme Being. Put in the context of the religious view, science attempts to better understand the fundamental laws of nature that were established by the Ultimate Cosmic Creator.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Here's an absolute for you. The U.S. has a war based economy. The government spends $600 billion-a trillion dollars a year on war. Without war, our economy goes into recession. Because we don't use up the bullets and bombs, the military contractors don't get to build more. Which means they have to lay off workers that build the war machine.

Trump's generals convinced him that we must put more troops in Afghanistan, even though Trump wanted to quit wasting money on that stupid war. It's scary when Trump actually makes sense.

 

If you had read the link, you would know it's a scientific theory and not nonsense. So you can quit trying to act like you know something.

 

Yes, we need to move away from the military being so influential in our economy - allowing defense policy making that is actually good for the US and the world rather than for weapons manufacturers.

I think there is another Trump mistake w/ Afg, though.

Trump has stated he is not going to do any "nation building". But, the state of that nation is what the war is about.

This Trump idea that we can kill all the bad guys is just plain ridiculous. When there is a government as weak as the one in Afg, when the population sees better options than the existing government, who we kill isn't going to make more than a very short term difference.

 

RE: Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
※→ gophangover, et al,

Just what does the Guardian Article (Will scientists ever prove the existence of dark matter?) have to do with the OP pertaining to "Intelligent Falling."

I'm not sure, but I think that the Theory of Intelligent Falling is a practical joke into the pseudoscientific supernatural explanation off the variant → "Intelligent Design."

(COMMENT)

In reference to the concept of "Dark Matter," ⇒ it is a complete "unknown." It is what we call and "Auxiliary Hypotheses."

While there are a number of scientific explorations and investigations into the characteristics and properties pertaining to "Dark Matter" - and - "Dark Energy," there is nothing yet to substantiate the claim; other than the unexplained observations on such things as gravitational lensing. However It is not so different from the Michelson–Morley (late 1800's) investigation into the luminiferous aether ("aether wind") and the overall examination into the collation of the half-dozen or so various Aether Theories.

However, as I tried to (delacately) present in my Posting #102, there is no real or serious exploratory or investigative effort being placed into "Intelligent Falling."

I did chuckle when you resorted to challenging me, rather than the position I presented. I find these ad Hominem approaches to the discussion quite amusing.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Go ahead and laugh it off, rather than giving it an "investigative effort." That's what all the fanatic believers do to ignore other possibilities of their faith. As long as you hold to your "beliefs" it's impossible to see the truth. Scientists do it just like evangelicals.

 

After investigating gravity for a few hundred years, scientists built the largest and most complex machine ever built by humans to test hypotheses concerning Higgs fields in order to improve understanding of gravity.

And, just recently they built gravitational wave detectors which, in part, test Einstein's theory of relativity, published 100 years ago.

Then you come along and suggest scientists aren't giving an "investigative effort"?

And, when so far you have shown that you haven't bothered to even investigate how scientific method works?

 

No, you aren't giving it an investigative effort, by not reading the link. You just laugh it off....that's not how science works.

 

Is there lead in the water there?

Sorry. And I should not attack the people just because they have a few whacked out ridiculous ideas

But they should not have the ability to impose THIER curriculum on those who do not share thier views. They have ideas not held by the majority -then run thier own schools

 

No, you are wrong about how science works.

Science does not do anything AT ALL when you propose that god did something.

Science has nothing at all to say about god.



Also, I don't believe in your god, but I do not laugh this off.

It's seriously concerning to me that our education system (as well as parents, churches, ignorant local government) is misguiding generations of Americans by assaulting science to the point where so many don't even know what science IS!!!

At the very least, we need our kids to understand what science is. And, your thread is one of the constant threats to that.

 

I agree. Scientists do not consider god at all, for the philosophical materialism which is the philosophical assumption that science has as its foundation denies god, for matter is the fundamental of reality. Yet even when quantum mechanics negated materialism, outside of some of those early scientists involved in QM, scientists remained materialists, ignoring the implications of what was discovered at the quantum level. This is a fact, much talked about and is ignored by novices and scientists alike. For science does not want to move back to what science fought against, this idea of something outside of this universe which has a role in reality. Scientists are human beings, with all of the faults created by human nature.

You would be surprised at the people who use science to foster their metaphysical beliefs, while having no clue of the role philosophical materialism and the big assumption made has played in science. Yet when QM came along and this weird science questioned and then negated materialism at this micro level it led to Feinman to eventually say, forget about trying to understand QM, and just work the equations. Equations by the way which were not materialist Newtonian physics, but used what worked, seeing the quantum level as probability distributions. Anti materialism. Yet perhaps the majority of scientists and academia are still materialists in psyche, and either have ignored the implications revealed, or spent some time in trying to get around the implications of QM. It is not called weird science for naught, but what makes it weird is it does not involved the materialistic paradigm and view of reality.

I believe as hundreds of physicists believe, that there is more to reality than materialism embraces. That there is something outside of this subset we call reality, in the macro, a super set which is involved in the information many physicists agree is present at the quantum level. I also believe as some physicists do, the retired from academia physicists that eventually once we are no longer seeing the world through materialism and what QM implies will be a paradigm shift, that this shift will get rid of the contention between religion and science. But what will get lost is the anthropomorphic gods man's imagination has created and it will be replaced by something much more mysterious, and even greater, which with it will introduce purpose and intelligence back into man's understanding of reality. We can never know of this thing which is outside of this universe, for that would be a logical impossibility, but we will know that there is a source of the information which creates our reality from the bottom up. And this will give the religious credibility again, even if they will not be able to give qualities to this thing which manifests reality, our universe and all that is in it. It will not negate evolution, but will add the missing component which has held back a strict materialistic theory of evolution, and information will be a part of this theory, much to the chagrin of atheists who are strict materialists. This will take time for the shift in paradigm will move at the pace of tombstones, but it is IMO, inevitable, for the science of the quantum level cannot be repressed and just ignored. I can't remember his name but a physicist at one of the ivy league school is saying this.

It is only man's arrogance and the ignorance of his own ignorance that is impeding this in a materialistic academia. Yet this will in no way give any validity to the images man has self created about this thing outside of our universe this horrible god which acts like the worst kind of human being. For logically as I said, what is outside of this universe is unknowable, and all that we can know is that it is the source and origin of information needed for reality to exist in the first place.

So, this new paradigm, based upon science will cause a wailing and gnashing of teeth from both the atheists and the believers in an anthropomorphic image of god. Perhaps both groups will join together in their denial, and at least find some commonality there.

 

Well, what I tried to make clear is that scientific method does not consider god at all, one way or the other.

Scientists have faults like all humans. Scientists are free to consider any religion they want.

But, scientific method does not include ANY tools that would be helpful in differentiating what is and what is not an act of god. There is no way within scientific method to test to see if god did something.

Period.

It may sound sciency - like string theory sounds sciency. But, it isn't scientific method.

Again, scientists are like everyone. They are totally free to have whatever beliefs about religion that they want and they get to their beliefs using any logic they want.

There are no rules for religion. You are totally free to believe what you want.

The basic assumption on which scientific method is founded is that we can observe. The only thing scientific method considers to be a fact is a carefully documented observation. That is a stark contrast with religion, which pretty much ignores observation and considers as fact such things for which there is little in the way of evidence.

Scientific method is designed in full recognition of human ignorance and fallibility. Suggesting that is arrogance seems highly weird to me.

It is the religious realm where humans start declaring absolutes. Science doesn't do that.

 

RE: Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
※→ WillReadmore, et al,

Yes, this is the essence ---.

(COMMENT)

You cannot get any simpler than this.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

You really need to get out more.....or maybe just learn how to Google

http://upliftconnect.com/existence-of-god/

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/756870/proof-of-god-kurt-godel

http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/galleries/how-quantum-physics-proves-gods-existence.aspx

 

But, that is not science. The working out of DNA was science. But, it's not science to then say "We don't know how this could have happened naturally, so it must be that there exists a god".

One way to tell it isn't science is to notice that there is no possibility of testing the proposal.

oh, please.

Again, someone found something that looks hard to explain, so like those of ancient times, they propose it is god.

This is all predicated on the idea that humans are so gosh darn smart that if HUMANS can't figure it out, it must be the gods. It's why Zeus and his wife Hera were so popular. It resulted in civilizations worshiping the sun.

Some of these cites of yours appear to be science, because they involve equations or computers (where we call the workers "computer scientists" even though they are engineers, not scientists) or are in some way related to actual science. But, finding something that is hard to explain does not mean you just proved the existence of god through science. Scientific method can't say ANYTHING about god.

Look on the bright side - science can't prove god DOESN'T exist, either.

 

What you seem to be not understanding is that science is based upon an assumption. That matter is the fundamental of reality. And it is an assumption. This assumes that there is nothing outside of matter, which discards the idea of our reality being a sort of virtual reality created by something outside of the universe. And yet there are a growing number of scientist in diverse fields who are beginning to extort that we indeed live in a virtual reality, created by information. If this is true, there will be a paradigm shift, and it will be tremendous. This will negate much of the conflict between science and religion. But materialists will fight it, tooth and nail, and you are clearly a materialist, as most people are, even when QM, the implications negates the materialism much of science is based on. Matter indeed may not be the fundamental of reality, and more and more people in science are beginning to question this.

 

Well, that's not really the assumption.

The assumption is that we may meaningfully observe.

I'm an advocate of scientific method as a means to explore HOW things work in our universe.

I absolutely do NOT believe that scientific method is going to be replaced by those who stay in the realm of mathematical models.

QM does not invalidate scientific method. QM is a highly useful tool in some fields.

 

Funny how everyone who took basic philosophy knows materialism is based upon that assumption. The other opposing assumption is philosophical idealism if I remember correctly. There is no way to determine if materialism, that matter is fundamental is true. In fact there are many physicists who think the discoveries at the quantum level and the manner of equations that have to be used, which are not materialistic, questions or even negates materialism. You cannot use materialism at the quantum level for it simply does not work. So QM is not materialistic, quite the contrary. If materialism is a fact, instead of an assumption, the materialistic paradigm would work at the quantum level.

But the point I was trying to make was that since most science has been based upon the materialistic view, outside of QM and QP, and this view negates anything outside of matter, of course there is no place for something outside of this universe acting upon the universe, which then has no place for god, or any other thing, for as I said, materialism assumes matter is the fundamental to reality. Yet if this is a virtual reality universe and thousands of scientists are now entertaining that idea, with experiments even inferring it, logically, there will be a paradigm shift from a materialistic view of reality to something quite different. It would change the way we view reality. Yet most of academia is entrenched in a belief of materialism, and so as someone once said, progress moves at the pace of tombstones, the tombstones of the materialists. What is common in QM and QP, is that since Feynman said to forget about understanding QM, for no one can, to just work the equations. But some are trying to understand it and conduct experiments and there is a movement towards reality being a virtual reality, a reality dependent upon information instead of various sized particles. There is of course resistance to this view for materialism is entrenched, even as QM shows at the quantum level materialism cannot explain it.

Scientists are human beings, not Vulcans and are just as subject to human nature and egos as non scientists are. Being materialists, at least in their views of reality, they are also atheists, and an atheist is resistant to having to change their views as the theist is. A virtual reality does not at all infer the existence of the god of the bible. But it does infer, and I am using a metaphor here, something outside of this universe which has something to do with this universe, and its evolution, and even creation. I have never known of an atheist who would accept that, for it means there is an "other". Which is untenable to atheists and materialists.

 

Your problem is you are trying to mix philosophy with science.

 

"Intelligent falling."