Science Unspoken Axiom #1: Deities are nonsense

413 posts / 0 new
Last post
sourcecodewizard's picture
Also, do some math. You say

Also, do some math. You say "almost infinite number of locations" when the *science* answer is a number of atoms in the entire universe less than 10^100. Taking into account the plank time unit as the smallest amount of meaningful time, that gives the # of atom, plank time-steps as a number less than 10^200. That is a number that fits on a couple lines of text. Compare that to, say, the number of different images possible on a standard, high res office computer at 10^1000000. Do some math. See the real truth.

Algebe's picture
@sourcecodewizard:

@sourcecodewizard:

Do you understand the meaning of "almost"?

arakish's picture
@ Algebe

@ Algebe

How can he? He does not even understand basic math...

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
Could you cite a single peer

Could you cite a single peer reviewed piece of scientific research where an objective consensus in mainstream science supports it as evidencing any deity or anything supernatural?

Given your vapid rhetoric has failed to demonstrate a single piece of objective evidence for your belief in a bronze age superstition, I think it is a rich vein of irony to see you sententiously lecture others on seeing the truth.

Wake up and smell the coffee, your deity isn't anymore evidenced than all the rest, Thor, Apollo, Zeus, et al...

sourcecodewizard's picture
they do not exist. Why?

they do not exist. Why? Because of Unspoken axiom #1 you silly goose.

I remember when Carl Sagan used to talk about all the billions of galaxies each having billions of stars. All that potential for life. Very convincing. Made for good TV. Helped in funding too.

The problem was that no reputable scientist wanted to address the part of the argument where we consider the probability of life occurring on any given system. Or how about the statistics of very large numbers. Not little tiny numbers like how many atoms are in the observable universe or how old the universe is in plank time units. Those tiny numbers can fit on a couple lines of text. No, I am talking about really big numbers like how complex spaces grow exponentially producing number spaces that take volumes of books to hold. BIG number systems. Like the ones involved in 3D atomic temporal interaction.

Those facts failed to make any headlines. Why? Because facts that do not fit the agenda are not as important as facts that support the agenda.

There are no objective conclusions anywhere in adult human society. There is funding, agendas and reporting the facts that support both.

So I just go to the source and actually USE logic right there in the OP with an argument that is so simple a child could understand it. Unless, of course, they have already made up their minds in which case no amount of reasoning can possibly reach them bringing right back to Axiom #1.

sourcecodewizard's picture
Science accepts Axiom #1

Science accepts Axiom #1 thereby proving my point.

EVIDENCE = brains. dude wake up its in your head. Computers don't build themselves.

You ask for evidence then show how popular opinion validates your accuracy. Shows how you think right there.

Nyarlathotep's picture
sourcecodewizard - when the

sourcecodewizard - when the *science* answer is a number of atoms in the entire universe less than 10^100

That is false. There is no known upper bound on the number of atoms in the entire universe.

sourcecodewizard's picture
True we don't know. Just

True we don't know. Just like we don't know a lot of things that people BELIEVE in and think its science.
That number is the most predominately accepted (actually 10^80) based upon certain models of gravitational attraction according to star motion.

Nyarlathotep's picture
sourcecodewizard - That

sourcecodewizard - That number is the most predominately accepted (actually 10^80) based upon certain models of gravitational attraction according to star motion.

I don't think you understood what I said. I'm saying that is NOT the estimate, there is no estimate. What you have said is not accurate. It seems you have confused the observable universe with the entire universe, a common mistake.

sourcecodewizard's picture
it was not confusion but

it was not confusion but miscommunication. Yes I was referring to the observable universe.

Nyarlathotep's picture
sourcecodewizard - it was not

sourcecodewizard - it was not confusion but miscommunication. Yes I was referring to the observable universe.

So will you be retracting your statements about the comparison of the number of locations in the universe vs the number of was to color the pixels on a computer screen? You know, since you now admit to not knowing how many locations there are in the universe (or atoms, whatever)? Or will you do like most apologists around here and just make up values that match your world view when you don't know the actual value? The choice is yours; I'll hope for the former, and expect the latter.

sourcecodewizard's picture
the logic stands as accurate

the logic stands as accurate given the terminology
It was syntax dude, get over yourself

sourcecodewizard's picture
Oh wait, I stand corrected it

Oh wait, I stand corrected it is not "syntax" as I replied, it is semantics. I am so used to communicating with the logical beings called computers that I sometimes mix terminology. My logic, however stands solid as does all logic based on fact and evidence as opposed to groups based on celebration of poop throwing. Maybe study the difference or write a paper or 2 or 300. Then get your friends to chime in and high five you.

Here's a though. I deal in accuracy. First, foremost and always. Most people deal in association. Like getting high fives to make them feel like they are being logical. I know I am logical because truth does not require an audience or high fives. It protects itself just fine. And I report it.

So yes, ride your awesome victory of my error in terminology. But my facts remain because...well because they are facts. Sticky things for people used to applause.

David Killens's picture
@sourcecodewizard

@sourcecodewizard

"Here's a though. I deal in accuracy."

So what? IMO that is a low bar. As a retired electrician I had to deal with a much higher standard, in being right all the time. If not, people could die.

sourcecodewizard's picture
dealing with accuracy is a

dealing with accuracy is a low bar?
being right all the time seems like the same standard.
The difference is you worked with a set of rules from your trade I apply my trade (software development) to general logic such as here.
I am not right all the time, but strive to be and generally am correct, admitting when I am in error (usually minor) then correcting it to remain correct from then on. Unlike many political "poo throwers" who play politics, throw poo and high five each other with no regard to accuracy ever. Many of those are here, take a look at what they write.

arakish's picture
sourcecodemigraine: "I am not

sourcecodemigraine: "I am not right all the time, but strive to be and generally am correct, admitting when I am in error (usually minor) then correcting it to remain correct from then on."

Wow. Such an egomaniacal and narcissistic braggart. As if we ain't never seen one. In actuality, you have yet to be correct. Everything you have posted has been completely wrong and absolute bollocks. Even when you admit you are wrong, you do nothing but to further exacerbate the problem. Ever heard of the efficacy of throwing gasoline on a fire you want to put out?

As for throwing poo, you have dumped so much bullshit and horse hoowhee it is going to take Tin-Man and I at least a month to clean this mess. Damn!

Please leave before you make a bigger ass of yourself. I don't know if these boards can hold it all.

rmfr

sourcecodewizard's picture
flame, flame, let's see there

flame, flame, let's see there must be a point in there....nope

Do you have any idea how silly you look never making any single logical point?
Just kidding, I know the answer.

arakish's picture
sourcecodemigraine: "Do you

sourcecodemigraine: "Do you have any idea how silly you look never making any single logical point?"

And how come you can't answer this question?

rmfr

arakish's picture
sourcecodemigraine: "My logic

sourcecodemigraine: "My logic, however stands solid as does all logic based on fact and evidence"

And yet you have not provided any. All you have provided is a bunch of inane and asinine statements that are anything but logical. I have yet to see you demonstrate even enough intelligence to even know what "logic" means without copying/pasting the definition from Merriam-Webster's WWW site.

sourcecodemigraine: "Maybe study the difference or write a paper or 2 or 300."

How many have you written? Give us links to your peer-reviewed papers so we can download them, read them, then come back and admit you made us eat crow. Well?

rmfr

sourcecodewizard's picture
evidence = brains do not

evidence = brains do not build themselves

Look. Read. Comprehend.

arakish's picture
sourcecodemigraine: "Look.

sourcecodemigraine: "Look. Read. Comprehend."

Done did. Still see no evidence. Just an irrational sequence of words. Same goes for the post ⇓ there.

rmfr

sourcecodewizard's picture
Brain = evidence

Brain = evidence
Yet you only see an irrational sequence of words.
Hmmm Why do get the impression that no matter what words are in front of you that you always just see an irrational sequence of words? Hey, everyone has their gifts. Some people can comprehend written words, other people are better at making farting noises under their armpit. The world needs all kinds.

Calilasseia's picture
So how does a single cell

So how does a single cell move from being a single cell to a newborn human being, complete with a brain?

You started off as a single cell when daddy's sperm fertilised mummy's ovum. Though some here would probably question your possession of a brain, given some of the drivel you've posted of late.

sourcecodewizard's picture
So life comes from life.

So life comes from life.
Now start with non-living material and explain it to us. Oh wait, you have no clue at all how it began do you? So you muddle. What a joke.

arakish's picture
@ source code that does not

@ source code that does not write anything

So life comes from life.
Now start with non-living material and explain it to us. Oh wait, you have no clue at all how it began do you? So you muddle. What a joke.

Calilasseia has already done this. You just refuse to use your mental capabilities, read it, and understand it.

rmfr

sourcecodewizard's picture
Actually I write software.

Actually I write software. That way, instead of having to jump up and down and throw poo back and forth over the same regurgitated largely irrelevant point to get funding, I just have to let the computer state my accuracy by doing what I tell it to. It is so easy to communicate with computers being logical and all. I feel like a computer trapped in this meat suit down here with all of you, non computers.

arakish's picture
sourcecode: "Actually I write

sourcecode: "Actually I write software."

Must be from mommy's basement since if your software is anything like what you have posted here, then there ain't no way anyone would hire you.

rmfr

sourcecodewizard's picture
Let's have a coding contest,

Let's have a coding contest, clown.

arakish's picture
@ source code that writes

@ source code that writes nothing

Go for it. Bring it on.

rmfr

sourcecodewizard's picture
interesting artwork.

interesting artwork.
I had an intense vision of a prison of Ra about 2 years ago. Like a vivid dream but I was totally awake yet clearly not in control of what I was witnessing. Brought me to a whole new level of fear. Not intense, response based fear but cold, metallic, deeply rooted fear from seeing some of the men that were there. The physical pain was absolutely terrifying and the minimum sentence was 1000 years.

I think that is why they hide these things from us. If we saw them it would mess us up. People think this world is but have no idea how bad some of the other worlds are. I say other worlds rather than other universes because they may be physically reachable from here but this may not be true. I think the entire universe was destroyed and rebuilt 6 or 7 times. The next time is supposed to be the final one.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.