Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

by **RockOnBrother** on Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:36 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
A “mo’ bettah” comparison is comparing your physicist to Bill Gates, who “thunk” his way to fifty billion buckaroos, give or take. He’s another one that has a type of intelligence that you can detect but that you can’t accurately measure.

Shirina wrote:
The man who "invented" the Pet Rock made millions, too. Was he intelligent? Maybe. Clever, no doubt, but making millions by selling a common driveway stone doesn't indicate intelligence - it wasn't like he invented rocks.

There is the “one-hit-wonder’ who cannot duplicate her/his feats, and there is the genius, whose body of work testifies to her/his genius.

There exist a myriad of adjectives which one can legitimately attach to the noun “genius.” When one’s lack of genius is compellingly evidenced by one’ inability to do much of anything beyond the one success, as is the case with the Pet Rock dude. A few people tried to jump on that train, one with “Send Your Boss a Brick” and another with “The Invisible Dog”, but it seems that train was a short line, and the tracks were ripped out after the Pet Rocks swift but highly profitable journey.

Comparing the Pet Rock one-hit-wonder to Bill Gates, or even to the man with the hammer on his tool belt, is like comparing Vanilla Ice to Prince Rogers Nelson. In both comparisons, the first person got lucky, and the second person has exhibited genius for more than three decades.

And back to my main point, illustrated inadvertently by my addressing your point: How in God’s name would one even begin to attempt to measure Prince Rogers Nelson’s musical intelligence?

Shirina wrote:
I suppose my point, though, is that not all intelligent people choose to become millionaires

And this is a valid point. Also true is that all who choose to “pursue millionaire” do not employ incredible intelligence to do so. Many employ incredible ruthlessness rather than incredible intelligence.

Shirina wrote:
There are some pretty stupid and ignorant people sitting in those plump leather seats upstairs.

There are also some pretty ignorant people whose ignorance stems from their chosen stupidity and pomposity sitting in endowed chairs within the ivy-covered walls of prestigious universities.

Ignorance borne of stupidity and pomposity is an equal opportunity disease.

by oftenwrong on Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:25 am

There is another side to unusually high intelligence. A minority of those who possess it would rather not, and strenuously avoid having to take responsibility for anything. I have met an egg-head who worked as a filing clerk, a Graduate who drove a long-distance lorry, and a Teacher who abandoned that career to work on the counter at B & Q.

The Military have long been conscious that their "Boffins" don't fit well with the traditional Sergeant-Major-led bull of the Regular Service, and have created a separate "Technician" path which has a minimal exposure to Parade-ground duties.

by polyglide on Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:40 pm

The fact is that the manner in which all people initially approach religion depends on where they are born and the feeling of the perents towards religion.

Intelligence has nothing whatsoever to do with it, even at a later stage when perhaps those involved reach an age when they begin to think for themselves and quesion the teaching they have received it is usually the experiences they have had that will detemine their final feelings towards religion and neither intelligence nor social standing will play any part.

Intelligence without common sense can be a handicap rather than an asset, you only have to look at the actions of some considered intelligent, as proof of this, just look at some politicians.

As for religion, anyone who thinks evolution is the answer should consider the fact that for just the eye to develope without the aid of INTELIGENCE of some kind has odds far beyond those accepted as immpossible and that is just one example of thousands that could be quoted.

by gurthbruins on Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:37 am

witchfinder wrote:So ypu want me to be a Christian ? and agree that some bloke 2000 years ago fed 5000 people on a couple of bread loaves and a handful of fish, and that this same geezer walked on water, cured blind people and was concieved from a woman who never had sex.

But then again there is the 1.6 billion people who think that Islam is the only true religion, and they are at odds with the 1 billion Hindus who believe in Gods that are half human and half elephant, monkey, snake and a whole host of other creatures.

AND YOU ASK ME IF ATHIESTS ARE INTELLIGENT ?

dont make me laugh

I often share this type of exasperation. How can so many people be so utterly stupid as to believe in nonsense of these types?
Can they really be so unintelligent, or is it blatant dishonesty or hypocrisy? Knaves or fools?

Alas, though, whether or not everyone chooses to believe, or pretend to believe, in nonsensical notions about God, has no bearing really on whether or not a God, stripped of nonsensical concepts, really exists in any verifiable way.

by oftenwrong on Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:19 am

Does the traditional Aesop Fable about "killing the golden goose" have its origin in religious allegory? Is the story intended to explain that attempts to dissect Religious Belief inevitably destroy all credibility?

by Papaumau on Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:15 pm

polyglide wrote:
The fact is that the manner in which all people initially approach religion depends on where they are born and the feeling of the perents towards religion.

Intelligence has nothing whatsoever to do with it, even at a later stage when perhaps those involved reach an age when they begin to think for themselves and quesion the teaching they have received it is usually the experiences they have had that will detemine their final feelings towards religion and neither intelligence nor social standing will play any part.

Intelligence without common sense can be a handicap rather than an asset, you only have to look at the actions of some considered intelligent, as proof of this, just look at some politicians.

As for religion, anyone who thinks evolution is the answer should consider the fact that for just the eye to develope without the aid of INTELIGENCE of some kind has odds far beyond those accepted as immpossible and that is just one example of thousands that could be quoted.

Hi polyglide...nice to meet you !

I think that while intelligence certainly has something to do with the decisions one makes when one becomes aware of the weaknesses in religious teachings - as I did in my formative years - I agree that the programming that goes on when children and their innocent and wide-open minds are indoctrinated into the family religion or even the accident of the place that any such religion has developed, I think that such indoctrination is very difficult to unlearn once it has been learned. I was lucky enough to possess enough intelligence to actually break away from that trap when I was taken away back to Scotland, ( at nine years of age ), by my widowed mother from the hate-filled part of Northern Ireland which was poisoning my mind to the clear thinking that comes with agnosticism or atheism.

YES....I am now an atheist !

I regularly thank my lucky stars that I DID manage to break those bonds before my mind had been truly destroyed by the bigoted teachings and attitudes in Northern Ireland.

As far as evolution versus creationism is concerned of course I take the opposite view than you do as I can easily see how nature and evolution could - over millennia - develop the human eye and even the many different types of eyes that insects, reptiles and other animals have that suits their environment.

The intelligence that all animals have to any greater or smaller degree was also easily seen to develop via evolution and natural selection as the higher up the evolutionary scale we are the greater is our intelligence. I agree though that just because we are maybe the most intelligent creature on the earth this does not mean that we are guaranteed to be endowed with common-sense.

If we just stop and look around us we see all of the wondrous things that humanity has discovered and invented and manufactured and yet within that same humanity we see cruelty and barbarity that can only come from the inside of the minds of some Homo-Sapiens.

We are not perfect in any way, but we are still wonderful machines that have evolved from the primordial soup, where life - it has been said - first began.

I am sorry, but I see no supernatural hand in any of this and as I am lucky enough to have had the burden of religion lifted from my shoulders and I am no longer a slave to such other-worldly ideas, my mind is now clear and able to marvel at mother nature while I find the religions - ALL of them - just an interesting dead-end and a path that some humans have chosen to take as they go about their business.

Regards.....

Papaumau.

by **AwfulTruth** on Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:32 pm

They are.

by blueturando on Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:20 pm

If you are Religious and Left Wing then you will obviously agree with this view...I am an Atheist and Centre/Right so I obviously disagree.

I have met many intelligent religious people in my time, but being brain washed into blind faith shows a distinct lack of common sense. Most people follow a God or religion passed onto them by their parents, so is the same as supporting the same footy team as your Dad.

If Osama Bin Laden had been born in the US to Christian parents he would have been a fundamentalist Christian...I would bet on it. So it has nothing to do with the truth, but all about belonging to a clan.

As for Leftie being more intelligent....Hmmm well I believe there are intelligent and stupid people on both sides...how can one generalise?

by oftenwrong on Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:34 pm

blueturando wrote:If you are Religious and Left Wing then you will obviously agree with this view...I am an Atheist and Centre/Right so I obviously disagree.

The puzzle is to explain why any sane person earning less than about £25K p.a. should imagine that the Tory Party has even the faintest interest in them beyond their Vote and willingness to work for peanuts?

by blueturando on Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:09 pm

I think the problem is OW that many working class people have come to the conclusion that the last Labour government lost sight of who their core voters were and were more interested in mass immigration and keeping people happy on benefits....Rightly or wrongly that is the perception

Immigration on the scale allowed under the last government effects ordinary people who use local services and who are being pushed out of jobs and down council waiting lists....and the wider perception is that 'Minorities' rights come before theirs.......all too PC

Many working class are unhappy that they work crazy hours every week to feed and clothes their families for less money that someone can get sitting on benefits. It's not their fault, they are claiming what they can get...but the politicians were seriously at fault here and once again the working class got ignored......That's why so many turned away from Labour and voted Tory

Labour lost an estimated 4.9 million voters between 1997 and 2010

Sorry to be so off topic....

by oftenwrong on Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:29 pm

Benefits are simple bribery against Civil War.

by **AwfulTruth** on Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:22 am

oftenwrong wrote:Benefits are simple bribery against Civil War.

Your gem of wisdom: of course they are yet without benefits who could afford to rebel? What a Face

by Papaumau on Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:25 am

Rebellion, ( or even the lesser version of rebellion that is strike action ), always brings with it poverty and suffering and the courageous people who rebel know this only too well.

That aside and back to the topic:

Blueturando said:

If you are Religious and Left Wing then you will obviously agree with this view...I am an Atheist and Centre/Right so I obviously disagree.

There is nothing, in my opinion, as simple as that as far as intelligence and the following of religious habits is concerned !

You did not list the ones who are left-wing and atheist, ( as a lot of them are both ), as it is much easier to be left-wing and atheist than it might be to be right-wing and atheist or even right-wing and religious.

I don't think that anyone in their right mind would try to suggest that any left-wing-leaning has ANYTHING to do with a person's level of intelligence, as intelligence is not equated with any kind of political or religious or class-marked upbringing. Basic intelligence is in the child at birth and everything after that, that makes up the person, is learned.

Regards....

Papaumau.

by trevorw2539 on Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:45 am

Just a thought. A simple, but wise man, well, in my eyes anyway, once said this to me.

It's not the amount of intelligence you HAVE, it's whether you use what you DO have wisely. Smile

by polyglide on Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:45 am

There is one real problem regarding evolution and the lack of belief in a creator which I would like an explanation for in simplistic terms.

It is far too easy to get tied up in a lot of nonsense regarding pools of water and technical terms that many people do not understand, the more understandable a subject is to the majority of people the the more different views can be considered and expressed.

There is no doubt whatsoever that an atom can be split into differernt pieces. There is also no doubt that what can be put into pieces must have been put together in the first place.

Quesion ? who put the atom together and by what means using what.

by blueturando on Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:27 pm

Quesion ? who put the atom together and by what means using what.

Yes Polyglide.....Indeed that is the question? Human nature is a strange creature at times and many people on this planet are afraid of the unknown. They are afraid of not knowing where we came from, how and why. They are afraid of what's going to happen to them after death.

To stop or hold back this fear mankind had to invented God, Gods and Religion....Now they feel through invention of stories, miracles and collectiveness that they now belong to something and are here for a reason. Now that's fine with me if it makes people feel better about themselves, but unfortunately organised religion has used this fear to control the masses for their own idiological reasons and financial gain.

The truth is nobody on this planet truely knows the answers and we probably never will. Religious people will just stick with the collective line and may alter a thing or two for their convenience when Science comes along and proves a religious theory to be wrong.

Science doesn't pretend to have all the answers, but at least Science attemps to seek out the truth. Some theories are proved correct, some are proved false and others remain theories until they can be proved one way or the other.....but the burden is on the proof unlike religion, where you are conned by that word...Faith!

Polyguide.....I do not know if you belong to a particular religion or just believe there must be a creator, but I am happy to discuss with you on either

by **Shirina** on Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:48 pm

Quesion ? who put the atom together and by what means using what.

Hello, polyglide!

The problem with your question is that it presupposes a "who" instead of a "what."

Creationism relies on the existence of a premise that is not accepted in many circles outside of religion: the use of magic. The arcane practice of invocation and evocation is using magic to create something from nothing, and ostensibly that's what a creator does. Unfortunately, there just isn't any evidence of real magic in the universe. There is mystery, there is the unknown, and there is the unexplained. Yet thus far, "magic" had never been used as an official explanation for anything in the modern Western world. One of the problems inherent in believing in Creationism is the need to believe in magic, and it would seem according to religious books that magic was used quite liberally in the past - and then it began to wane. No longer to seas part, winged horses no longer whisk prophets off to Heaven, no longer do might artifacts like the Ark of the Covenant bring down thick walls of stone. Somewhere it all just vanished - including the artifacts!

I know the followers of religion do not like equating the power of God to Merlin or Gandalf casting a spell, but in truth they are essentially the same thing. And while it was once thought Merlin built Stonehenge with magic, we no longer believe that. As our scientific knowledge increased, these incidents of magic use decreased, and there's a pretty good reason why. Science trumps magic each and every time.

by **AwfulTruth** on Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:58 pm

You do not need to be 'religious' to have a moral framework firmly embedded in your life.

To bring children up to treat themselves and all others with respect, dignity and fairness, and to cherish democracy and fair laws, would help a great deal to make the world a much better place. Something religion has sometimes failed to do.

The trouble with some religious people is that, by the nature of their religious tenets, they seek to violate someone else's basic human rights.

The preaching of condemnation on the grounds of, as an example, someone's sexuality is to me a thoroughly uncivilized and abhorrent pursuit.

If only they (these religious knockers) would direct their energy at something positive like knitting or flower arranging, society would be the happier for it.

You can lead a religious fascist to holy water but you can't make them drink it! Basketball

by trevorw2539 on Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:40 pm

You can lead a religious fascist to holy water but you can't make them drink it! Basketball

True. It's meant for sprinkling. Smile

by Papaumau on Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:55 pm

polyglide wrote:There is one real problem regarding evolution and the lack of belief in a creator which I would like an explanation for in simplistic terms.

It is far too easy to get tied up in a lot of nonsense regarding pools of water and technical terms that many people do not understand, the more understandable a subject is to the majority of people the the more different views can be considered and expressed.

There is no doubt whatsoever that an atom can be split into differernt pieces. There is also no doubt that what can be put into pieces must have been put together in the first place.

Quesion ? who put the atom together and by what means using what.

Hi again Polyglide.....

It is terribly difficult to answer that question of all questions without going deeply into science and quantum mechanics, but I will try: ( I don't have that knowledge anyway BTW ).

The main theory, ( as theory it still is ), is that the "Big bang" started everything whereby after a few milliseconds all of the light matter, ( as opposed to the dark-matter that we simply cannot see ), that we will ever need to build a universe was "created". Of course, to some of the religious ones the next question is "who or what lit he touch-paper for that big bang ?"

( It has been suggested that our universe is just one of many such universes that are being created and destroyed as each of them grow to full size or shrink again back to a point of singularity - as seen in any of the black holes that are surmised to be present at the heart of all galaxies - produced over unknown and unimaginable millenia ).

I think that all that scientists can say with any safety is that at the point of the "big bang" the gasses and matter that started to quickly coalesce afterwards provided all of the materials that would be needed to make everything we see today, including the lifeforms that inhabit the planets that can support this direction of nature.

It is much easier and more fulfilling for me to try to understand all of the intricacies that are built into science and mathematics and astronomy and physics than to try to understand how any plenipotentiary God might, with the wave of one supernatural hand, create all that we see and are when one considers how really badly it turned out to be. In other words, Science is full of flaws and mistakes and we must try very hard to find these flaws and mistakes if we are to understand all that is in science, but if all of this was made by some perfect entity and it is imperfect then we have to just accept that this entity is not perfect.

That is not a God or the Godlike productions we might expect.

Regards......

Papaumau.

by **Shirina** on Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:55 pm

Here is a logical conundrum when dealing with Creationism:

The primary argument believers of all faiths use against the Big Bang Theory is: "How can something come from nothing?" Well, an honest answer to that argument is: "We don't know ... YET!"

There are many things that we were once ignorant of but are now common knowledge. We weren't even aware that we existed within a galaxy until the early 1900's. Many believers make the mistake of assuming we know all there is to know about the universe - no new information will be discovered. Therefore, if we don't know how the Big Bang occurred right now, this very moment, then we never will. As such, the only answer must be that a creator made it happen.

But there is a problem inherent in that argument as well - a conundrum embedded within the logic itself, independent of the Big Bang or science.

The unavoidable fact is that, in order for a Creator, no matter how powerful, to create an entire universe complete with all of the intricately planned laws of physics, magic would need to be used. Oh, I know believers don't like to perceive God's power as "magic" ... certainly God is above the level of Harry Potter, yes? But the bottom line is that whatever power a Creator used to construct a universe - perhaps an entire reality - is magic.

"Magic" can be loosely defined as any force or action that is physically impossible - something that bends or defies the known laws of physics. The act of creating something from nothing is actually called Invocation (something from nothing) and Evocation (turning something into nothing) so there is precedent for this in arcane lore. Normally, however, we are conditioned to believe that magic must be cast - like a spell. Therefore, even with magic, there must be a Creator ... right? Nope. The reason is because magic, by its definition, is physically impossible. After all, just what are the "rules" of magic? Does anyone know them? Does it say anywhere that magic must be cast like a spell from a wizard's fingers? Since magic itself encompasses so much and is unfettered by any natural laws, who is to say that magic can't manifest from nothing, all by itself?

So ... if we were to assume that "magic" indeed created the universe - that it just *poofed* into existence - then there is no reason to believe that a Creator or a God was necessary to facilitate this magical creation. Once we bring the supernatural and magic into the equation as possibilities - which believers certainly do - then physical laws no longer apply. Once physical laws no longer apply, then it becomes very possible for something to be created from nothing without the guidance of a Creator.

Unless, of course, we're going to start inventing limitations on how magic works just to keep it within the purview of an intelligent Creator - and that wouldn't be a very good argument.

by oftenwrong on Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:12 pm

Creationism comes quite close to the above definition of Magic, but the reaction from some Scientists has been to make Science into yet another Religion.

by Papaumau on Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:52 pm

As usual Shirina..... an excellent postulation ! Twisted Evil

I can also see just how close "magic" and "religious belief" can be connected as neither of these beliefs need proof to sustain them in our minds.

It has been eminently easy for the ignorant people of yore to put anything they don't understand into one or other of these brackets but since we really started to measure things against scientific fact and started to use empirical knowledge instead of folklore or stories in "magical" or "religious" books to shape our world of understanding we have found that less and less credence is given to supernatural events.

Of course as we strive to understand all of the intricacies of science, mathematics, physics and cosmology we will almost always come up empty as far as empirical proof is concerned over subjects that are simply beyond our ability to acquire this proof.

The big question about "what is the answer to life, the universe and everything", ( discussed in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ), is a question that I do not think we will ever have the answer to as we are just not clever enough or think big enough to be able to ever get even close to that knowledge. In the recognition of this we are probably always going to have to postulate a lot of possible scenarios and these scenarios - being beyond proof - will also include magic, religious faith, and supernatural events as they are reported.

Regards......

Papaumau.

by trevorw2539 on Sat Feb 25, 2012 10:06 pm

Shirina wrote:Here is a logical conundrum when dealing with Creationism:

The primary argument believers of all faiths use against the Big Bang Theory is: "How can something come from nothing?" Well, an honest answer to that argument is: "We don't know ... YET!"

There are many things that we were once ignorant of but are now common knowledge. We weren't even aware that we existed within a galaxy until the early 1900's. Many believers make the mistake of assuming we know all there is to know about the universe - no new information will be discovered. Therefore, if we don't know how the Big Bang occurred right now, this very moment, then we never will. As such, the only answer must be that a creator made it happen.

But there is a problem inherent in that argument as well - a conundrum embedded within the logic itself, independent of the Big Bang or science.

The unavoidable fact is that, in order for a Creator, no matter how powerful, to create an entire universe complete with all of the intricately planned laws of physics, magic would need to be used. Oh, I know believers don't like to perceive God's power as "magic" ... certainly God is above the level of Harry Potter, yes? But the bottom line is that whatever power a Creator used to construct a universe - perhaps an entire reality - is magic.

"Magic" can be loosely defined as any force or action that is physically impossible - something that bends or defies the known laws of physics. The act of creating something from nothing is actually called Invocation (something from nothing) and Evocation (turning something into nothing) so there is precedent for this in arcane lore. Normally, however, we are conditioned to believe that magic must be cast - like a spell. Therefore, even with magic, there must be a Creator ... right? Nope. The reason is because magic, by its definition, is physically impossible. After all, just what are the "rules" of magic? Does anyone know them? Does it say anywhere that magic must be cast like a spell from a wizard's fingers? Since magic itself encompasses so much and is unfettered by any natural laws, who is to say that magic can't manifest from nothing, all by itself?

So ... if we were to assume that "magic" indeed created the universe - that it just *poofed* into existence - then there is no reason to believe that a Creator or a God was necessary to facilitate this magical creation. Once we bring the supernatural and magic into the equation as possibilities - which believers certainly do - then physical laws no longer apply. Once physical laws no longer apply, then it becomes very possible for something to be created from nothing without the guidance of a Creator.

Unless, of course, we're going to start inventing limitations on how magic works just to keep it within the purview of an intelligent Creator - and that wouldn't be a very good argument.

I'm not getting involved in God or magic arguments. I'll leave that to priests and potters (Harry, of course). The truth is 'We don't know -YET'. The truth is we are still 'infants' in understanding ALL things. We just get the hang of something and realise there's more to come.

A leading science fiction writer wrote in one of his stories of a race that had progressed so far they had first transferred their thoughts into artificial beings and left their bodies to corrupt. Then in the next few million years they found a way to transfer their thoughts into 'statices of light' and travelled the Universe in those 'statices' of light. Fantastic story - impossible? As yet and for many millions of years, yes. But in the far distant future?
No one has the answer to the future. We go step by step, mostly forward, but sometimes backward. You and I can only go on what we know today. Let tomorrow take care of itself.
Oh and when I say my prayers tonight I'll say a special one for you all Smile

by **RockOnBrother** on Sat Feb 25, 2012 10:10 pm

Thirteen point six billion years ago, everything exploded into existence from nothing. That’s what the data says. Sounds like magic.

by **Shirina** on Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:52 am

Thirteen point six billion years ago, everything exploded into existence from nothing. That’s what the data says. Sounds like magic.

Scientists are not saying that the universe exploded into existence from nothing. That's a very misleading argument. What scientists are saying is that they don't yet know the mechanism that caused the Big Bang (though some interesting theories are now coming to light). Therefore, science is not claiming a magical First Cause - unlike religion which claims to know for certain how the universe was made, and by whom.

Now, if any one of these creation myths truly stood out, really presented itself as plausible and unique, it would be easier to take it more seriously. However, as it stands, most cultures have their own creation stories always involving gods doing all sorts of things.

The Greek myth of Pandora and Christianity's Eve have had remarkably similar lives, yet many (especially in the US) can somehow dismiss Pandora with a chuckle while believing wholeheartedly that Eve really did eat a forbidden fruit. It's the same thing as believing in Santa Claus while snubbing your nose at St. Nicholas or Kris Kringle. It really doesn't make a lot of sense unless one looks at it from a demographic and geographical point of view. There is no reason ... absolutely NO reason ... to believe Eve was real but regard Pandora as a myth aside from the fact that we are taught these things.

by **RockOnBrother** on Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:51 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Thirteen point six billion years ago, everything exploded into existence from nothing. That’s what the data says. Sounds like magic.

Shirina wrote:
Scientists are not saying that the universe exploded into existence from nothing. That's a very misleading argument.

That’s exactly what scientists are saying that the data says. Empiricism requires that one says what the data says, so any statements to the contrary are conjecture. Moreover, the alternative is some version of Steady State, which also sounds like magic.

Shirina wrote:
What scientists are saying is that they don't yet know the mechanism that caused the Big Bang (though some interesting theories are now coming to light). Therefore, science is not claiming a magical First Cause - unlike religion which claims to know for certain how the universe was made, and by whom.

I’ve mentioned neither “a magical First Cause” nor “religion which claims to know for certain how the universe was made.” I’ve no comment upon that which I’ve not mentioned.

by **Shirina** on Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:05 am

That’s exactly what scientists are saying that the data says.

Nope, they're saying they don't really know. All they have are a few embryonic theories. It stands to reason that they're not going to throw up their hands and proclaim, "Eh, God did it." They will continue to search for the answer, and they will probably find it.

by **RockOnBrother** on Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:08 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
That’s exactly what scientists are saying that the data says.

Shirina wrote:
Nope, they're saying they don't really know.

You’ve got that a bit off, kind of a horse and cart error.

The data says what it says, that everything exploded inti existence from jothing at the singularity, which is but a point that exist at a “time when” (in quotes because time doesn’t yet exist) there is no space/time in which to locate a point and from which everything tht is, i.e., existence, exploded outward.

What the data doesn’t reveal is how this could have happened. In order for what the data says happened to happen, incomprehensible power had to impel everything out from the singularity. What power? Where did it come from? Those, nd a host of other similar quesations, are the unanswered questions.

Meanwhile, the data say what it says.

Shirina wrote:
All they have are a few embryonic theories.

These theories address the unanswered questions, the “hows”, mentioned above. Scientists have got it pretty straight as to “what” happened, backing up time to less than a nanosecond before The Event.

Shirina wrote:
It stands to reason that they're not going to throw up their hands and proclaim, "Eh, God did it."

One physicist that I knew personally didn’t throw his hands up as he stated (not “proclaimed”) that design is inherent within existence; therefore, there is a designer.

Shirina wrote:
They will continue to search for the answer, and they will probably find it.

They’ll continue to search, because that’s what physicists do. What they find I’ll leave to the time that findings are published in non-mathematical terms.

by oftenwrong on Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:12 pm

"They’ll continue to search, because that’s what physicists do. What they find I’ll leave to the time that findings are published in non-mathematical terms."

Which reminds me that there has been a development in the story from CERN that Einstein might have made a mistake about the speed of light being finite.

He didn't.

The CERN scientists found a loose soldered-joint on the apparatus doing the measuring.

We all suspected that the machines were trying to take over.