|
1 Nerd-It
 
RE: Atheistic Nonsense
|
The ShowcaseNerd-Its Nerd Trends Last Ten
What is OmniNerd?
Voting Booth
2 votes,
0 comments
|
|
1 Nerd-It
RE: Atheistic Nonsense
|
The ShowcaseNerd-Its Nerd Trends Last Ten
What is OmniNerd?
Voting Booth
2 votes,
0 comments
|
a
comment
by 
Email This
Statistics
Another situation your atheistic teachers cannot resolve is; where is the Cause which might enable a perfect vacuum “full” of nothingness to fluctuate.
Yes, and a perfect vacuum as you’ve defined it excludes the possibility of a creator. They are, by necessity, mutually exclusive. As far as having “nothing” to fluctuate, I’ve tried to explain vacuum fluctuations in the past and I won’t try to do so here. Reread my old posts, and see what they say.
I wouldn’t dare suggest that these are not possible in controlled Laboratory conditions
Are you suggesting that laboratory conditions are artificial, in the sense that they require some sort of agency to set them up? In other words, is there a distinction between “naturally occurring” and “laboratory occurring” phenomena?
why I don’t believe the people who taught you what you believe to be true or at least a probability of being true.
I was taught by empiricists, without a hint of any form of theism present. They are interested in demonstrable knowledge, i.e. can you or can’t you repeatedly reproduce your results? Also, can your results be reproduced by someone else on their apparatus. If your results can’t be reproduced by both you and someone else, then either the experiment is flawed, or the theory is flawed. There is no middle ground. Everything I’ve talked about has been held to this high standard. So, yes it is the truth. It may not be the “truth” you are looking for, but that cannot be gained from empirical knowledge.
You often ignore the Kingpin information I’ve proffered & questioned a minor aspect of the point under discussion
That is how arguments are won and lost. The central point of an argument rests on the shoulders of its minor aspects, so if you show that the minor aspects are flawed, then the central point is flawed. This is how rational discourse occurs.
SB: When scientists start talking about a “theory”, they generally intend to mean that it’s an explanation that’s so well established that the possibility of an alternative is too remote to take seriously.
FB: But that is not in any way true.
Yes and no. I have to partially disagree with scott here, in that scientists use the word theory almost like the common usage. It means, simply: an explanation of why something happens. Scientists then make distinctions between whether the theory is good (consistent with experiment) or bad (not consistent with experiment). From there, we make distinctions based upon whether it explains more of the observed phenomena than the other theories. At some point (and usually after some modification), a theory will have beaten the other contenders, and be called established. But, I’ve explained this before.
SB: The “creator option” is a lousy explanation, simply because it doesn’t actually “explain” anything. Or, looked at it another way, it explains entirely too much. For example, it explains why people weigh about 2% less when they’re on consecrated ground.
FB: That is just so, so weird! Where in blue blazes did you find that pure drivel???
Scott was pointing out that there is nothing demonstrable that can be attributed to a creator. If you read the full paragraph, you would understand that.