What would count as proof of God

[bilby]

I trully wanted to learn why you previously claimed no God was possible, If I correctly got your claim right. Don't know if any physicists make that type of claim, taking on the burden of proof

Sean Carroll does, for one.

https://www.preposterousuniverse.co...s-of-everyday-life-are-completely-understood/

The problem here is that your question indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of the topic. Asking what kind of equipment was used is bizarre; Are you really not aware of how we detect photons? One (of many) apparatuses is the human eye. Light is a carrier of the electromagnetic force.

Seriously, I don't have the time, the patience or the desire to give you the several years of physics education you are clearly lacking. Fortunately, there are loads of schools, colleges amd universities that employ people to do exactly that. So if you are genuinely interested, those places are where you need to start.

Right now you are trying to run (a marathon) before you can walk.

There's no shortcut. If you want to understand reality you need to put in at least hundreds, probably thousands, of hours of effort, with the guidance of a good physics teacher.

Asking poorly formed questions (that you don't even recognise as poorly formed) on a discussion board isn't going to cut it.

 

[Jarhyn]

I trully wanted to learn why you previously claimed no God was possible, If I correctly got your claim right. Don't know if any physicists make that type of claim, taking on the burden of proof

Sean Carroll does, for one.

https://www.preposterousuniverse.co...s-of-everyday-life-are-completely-understood/

The problem here is that your question indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of the topic. Asking what kind of equipment was used is bizarre; Are you really not aware of how we detect photons? One (of many) apparatuses is the human eye. Light is a carrier of the electromagnetic force.

Seriously, I don't have the time, the patience or the desire to give you the several years of physics education you are clearly lacking. Fortunately, there are loads of schools, colleges amd universities that employ people to do exactly that. So if you are genuinely interested, those places are where you need to start.

Right now you are trying to run (a marathon) before you can walk.

There's no shortcut. If you want to understand reality you need to put in at least hundreds, probably thousands, of hours of effort, with the guidance of a good physics teacher.

Asking poorly formed questions (that you don't even recognise as poorly formed) on a discussion board isn't going to cut it.

So, I'm more than down to ELI5 Learner, at least to the point where a tantrum is thrown and the conversation quit by the student, as I have encountered from numerous people too long from education and too opinionated around that ignorance.

Then I don't claim no 'god' is possible, merely that no 'god' is present, no 'god' has been presented, and that no 'god' is necessary.

 

[Elixir]

He

@Learner you seem to be betraying your username.
Characterizing bilby’s kind advice as “rhetoric” bespeaks unwillingness and/or inability to learn.

Not at all Elixir, I was intrigued with the post which seemed to me, like responding to my post but not really actually answering the question.

Here's your "ANSWER", Dude:
42
As Douglas Adams so cleverly pointed out, stupid questions beget stupid "answers".
Posing such questions does not entitle you to ignoring given facts that are relevant to your alleged pursuit of truthful answers.
Your deficit in knowledge of physics, cosmology evolution etc. is a central factor in your inability to understand, but you don't want to hear that.
So, for you, "42" is as close to the truth as your method of inquiry is ever going to get.

 

[atrib]

@Learner you seem to be betraying your username.
Characterizing bilby’s kind advice as “rhetoric” bespeaks unwillingness and/or inability to learn.

Not at all Elixir, I was intrigued with the post which seemed to me, like responding to my post but not really actually answering the question.

He did answer your question. He told you that you were not qualified to have a discussion on the subject because you had no knowledge of the subject. Do you disagree with his statement?

He also stated that you could learn about the subject if you wanted to, but that it would take a lot of work on your part, and you would have to be willing to put in the work and the time. Which is something I have told you myself over and over in the past.

So are you qualified to discuss mind-brain dualism, which is what the video was about?

 

[atrib]

You are too poorly educated in the essential skills needed for this discussion to be able to contribute meaningfully to it. That's not a moral failing - I would be equally incapable and incompetent to discuss the finer points of Arabic Literature, not because I am stupid, but because I don't speak Arabic.

To even begin to engage in a conversation about Arabic Literature without appearing to be an arrogant fool, first I would need to spend many years becoming fluent in Arabic. Anyone can do this, but it does take years of effort. It's not something you or I could expect to learn by asking a few Arabic speakers questions on an Internet discussion board.

Your grasp of physics is like my grasp of Arabic. I cannot replace your missing years of education on the subject with a couple of quick responses in this thread.

Your parents and educators have doomed you to a life of never understanding this topic, unless you choose to put in years of hard work; Just as mine doomed me to a life of never understanding Arabic unless I choose to put in years of hard work.

The difference is that I know that I am utterly clueless when it comes to understanding Arabic; While you seem to think that your mere knowledge that physics exists qualifies you to understand how it operates. I know Arabic exists; I can recognise it written down; But I don't pretend to be able to comprehend it, if only those who do speak it would answer a couple of simple questions.

Go away and learn the basics. Or remain ignorant and unable to contribute to (or even glean anything from) discussions between those who have learned them.

There is no reason why you can't learn this stuff. But there are plenty of reasons why it's not possible for you to
learn it in this thread.

Seven paragraphs of the same rhetoric reveals your deep passion for serious discussion (of sorts).

Yes.

It's entertaining and enjoyable to discuss reality in depth.

Yes of course, but I would have thought just one paragraph would be suficient, but I suppose you wanted to make sure, I got it. Or was it something else?

One paragraph is not sufficient to educate you on basic physics and biology, much less cosmology and brain physiology. Ten pages wouldn't be sufficient. This is because you don't seem to have even a high school level education in these subjects and you are unwilling to make the effort to learn..

Lots of people like Arabic Literature, but it's not my thing.

Lots of people like physics, and I am always happy to discuss the subject with them.

I wanted to learn about the apparatus used as detector, if one existed, and not the usual gathering of data by connecting wires to the brain and body, then formulating some theoretical idea from the data gathered etc. & etc.. Which is not like watching actual recorded footage in process, so to speak.

You don't even understand what is being discussed. As usual.

But just as Arabic Literature discussions have no place for people who insist on having strong opinions despite not speaking and refusing to learn Arabic, discussing the nature of reality with people who insist on having strong opinions despite not understanding and refusing to learn physics, is not entertaining.

I trully wanted to learn why you previously claimed no God was possible, If I correctly got your claim right. Don't know if any physicists make that type of claim, taking on the burden of proof. 'We don't know' or 'there's no evidence' is usually the norm I would have thought.

This has been discussed at length in this thread.

Crashing an Arabic Literature club as a loud and proud ignoramus would be recognised by most people as incredibly rude and boorish.

Yet here you are...

Rude, I can learn here. People usuualy learn only the rude words in any language, in Arabic too.

No, you can't learn. Or you won't learn. You have demonstrated that over and over. You have been on this forum for years and you haven't learned a damned thing.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So are you qualified to discuss mind-brain dualism, which is what the video was about?

If I'm watching the right video the Doctor is an accomplished neurosurgeon with wacky ideas about materialism and woo. How does being an accomplished neurosurgeon make him know anything about dualism? He says that mental faculties have nothing to do with physical things. That's pretty wacked for someone who does brain surgery to fix mental faculties. He is another quack ho takes words and objectifies them. He does this with the word "mind."

I watched about a third of the video. It's an interesting interview in that we see how our brains are able to invent woo. I'll watch the rest later. The interviewer seems uncomfortable and incredulous at what he's hearing.

 

[Coleman Smith]

Introduce Big Boy on the 50 yard line in front of 80,000 people on Superball Sunday wearing a jersey with a big 1 on it.

 

[Learner]

So are you qualified to discuss mind-brain dualism, which is what the video was about?

If I'm watching the right video the Doctor is an accomplished neurosurgeon with wacky ideas about materialism and woo. How does being an accomplished neurosurgeon make him know anything about dualism? He says that mental faculties have nothing to do with physical things. That's pretty wacked for someone who does brain surgery to fix mental faculties. He is another quack ho takes words and objectifies them. He does this with the word "mind."

I watched about a third of the video. It's an interesting interview in that we see how our brains are able to invent woo. I'll watch the rest later. The interviewer seems uncomfortable and incredulous at what he's hearing.

Did you get to the bit where he mentions some people don't like doing real science anymore, like ignoring what the neuro-scientists high;light in real experiments.? Denial I think is another term. When it conflicts with the convention, it's a head-ache for the lazy.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Did you get to the bit where he mentions some people don't like doing real science anymore, like ignoring what the neuro-scientists high;light in real experiments.? Denial I think is another term. When it conflicts with the convention, it's a head-ache for the lazy.

I don't recall hearing that. It's striking that he starts with materialism and then moves to non-materialism, whatever that is, and claims that materialism is wrong, and never recognizes his contradiction.

 

[Learner]

@Learner you seem to be betraying your username.
Characterizing bilby’s kind advice as “rhetoric” bespeaks unwillingness and/or inability to learn.

Not at all Elixir, I was intrigued with the post which seemed to me, like responding to my post but not really actually answering the question.

He did answer your question. He told you that you were not qualified to have a discussion on the subject because you had no knowledge of the subject. Do you disagree with his statement?

The question was a simple one, for a not so hard simple answer. Very easy to say there's a 'device' like for example, a hadron colider, which got but a mere snap shot of the goings on in the sub particle universe etc.

Not sure what you're going to get from your statment, clever cloggs. but anyway., IF I know only 2 % knowledge of the subject, even if it's not adequate enough, I would disagree with your statement.

He also stated that you could learn about the subject if you wanted to, but that it would take a lot of work on your part, and you would have to be willing to put in the work and the time. Which is something I have told you myself over and over in the past.

So are you qualified to discuss mind-brain dualism, which is what the video was about?

I am qualified to be rational enough to understand contexts and concepts. Whats the qualification for enaging in the simulation universe, or matrix discussion?

 

[bilby]

The question was a simple one, for a not so hard simple answer.

It wasn't a simple question; It was a simplistic question.

If the answers were simple, humanity would have developed Quantum Field Theory centuries earlier than we did.

The answers are clear, unequivocal, and well demonstrated.

But they're not simple, and so your demand for simple answers is both unreasonable, and a clear demonstration of your lack of knowledge.

To obtain the answers you seek is not an option that is closed to you, but nor is it an easy or quick option.

Learn the basics of physics. Then learn intermediate physics. Then learn advanced physics. You're going to need to learn a fair bit of mathematics too, and likely some chemistry and some other ancillary stuff.

Very easy to say there's a 'device' like for example, a hadron colider, which got but a mere snap shot of the goings on in the sub particle universe etc...

Yeah, but nobody (except you) is saying that there's "a device".

If you want to detect the fundamental forces of reality, there are a whole range of ways to do that. Many require nothing you weren't born with; You are quite capable of detecting light and gravity without anything other than your own eyes and limbs. Some require more complex devices, and typically there are several that will do the job: Magnetic attraction can be detected with a fridge magnet; radioactivity with a photographic film, or a Geiger-Muller tube, or a cloud chamber.

As I said, your question betrays a profound ignorance of the subject. If you want to see as far as others, you need to stop trying to invent all of physics from scratch, and take advantage of the work already done by others - and the way to achieve that is to go to school and learn the easy way what they learned the hard way.

Even Newton stood on the shoulders of giants. You're never going to get anywhere scurrying around under their boots.

 

[Elixir]

IF I know only 2 % knowledge of the subject, even if it's not adequate enough, I would disagree with your statement.

First, I sincerely doubt that you actually understand 0.02% of quantum theory, and second, I would bet my life that you can’t do the math to bear out any of the conclusions you wishfully draw from it. You may have memorized 98% of what is available about it in public media, and what I say is still true.
Yeah, it’s fun to conjecture.
Have fun, dude, it’s important to have fun, even if you don’t contribute to the human knowledge base.

 

[Learner]

Thank you, so no device or monitoring apparatus exists at all, lovely, just what I needed to hear!

 

[bilby]

Thank you, so no device or monitoring apparatus exists at all, lovely, just what I needed to hear!

I have no doubt that that's what you wanted to hear, but it's not what anyone has said.

 

[Learner]

IF I know only 2 % knowledge of the subject, even if it's not adequate enough, I would disagree with your statement.

First, I sincerely doubt that you actually understand 0.02% of quantum theory, and second, I would bet my life that you can’t do the math to bear out any of the conclusions you wishfully draw from it. You may have memorized 98% of what is available about it in public media, and what I say is still true.
Yeah, it’s fun to conjecture.
Have fun, dude, it’s important to have fun, even if you don’t contribute to the human knowledge base.

Thank you Elixir for that, which reminds me of something when you said memorizing 98%.

You reminded me of the analogy, of the two types of educated. Both have accumulated knowledge throughout there time n academia. But there is a difference between the two. When putting both of these fellows out of there environment, an environment where their knowledge is not any use, the difference between these fellows starts to show. Both are very knowledgeable but only one of them is able to adapt to the new environment The other is lost and confusued because , what he was taught he has engraved as the only guidance he goes by in the environment he's accustomed to. He can't get outside that mode, i.e. outsid the box, quite stubborn, has no burden, only repeating and repeating whilst professing to be wise.

The other is course is the analytical thinker, who thinks outside the box. He has imagination.

 

[Learner]

Thank you, so no device or monitoring apparatus exists at all, lovely, just what I needed to hear!

I have no doubt that that's what you wanted to hear, but it's not what anyone has said.

I did, because now I would like to see again how those soul catching monitoring methods, without any specific sensitive device, so to speak were done again.

 

[Elixir]

IF I know only 2 % knowledge of the subject, even if it's not adequate enough, I would disagree with your statement.

First, I sincerely doubt that you actually understand 0.02% of quantum theory, and second, I would bet my life that you can’t do the math to bear out any of the conclusions you wishfully draw from it. You may have memorized 98% of what is available about it in public media, and what I say is still true.
Yeah, it’s fun to conjecture.
Have fun, dude, it’s important to have fun, even if you don’t contribute to the human knowledge base.

Thank you Elixir for that, which reminds me of something when you said memorizing 98%.

You reminded me of the analogy, of the two types of educated. Both have accumulated knowledge throughout there time n academia. But there is a difference between the two. When putting both of these fellows out of there environment, an environment where their knowledge is not any use, the difference between these fellows starts to show. Both are very knowledgeable but only one of them is able to adapt to the new environment The other is lost and confusued because , what he was taught he has engraved as the only guidance he goes by in the environment he's accustomed to. He can't get outside that mode, i.e. outsid the box, quite stubborn, has no burden, only repeating and repeating whilst professing to be wise.

The other is course is the analytical thinker, who thinks outside the box. He has imagination.

Wow, that's a really interesting and novel insight.
I am very curious now, as it seems you have me really well pegged.
Which type am I ?
Which type are you ?

 

[Learner]

IF I know only 2 % knowledge of the subject, even if it's not adequate enough, I would disagree with your statement.

First, I sincerely doubt that you actually understand 0.02% of quantum theory, and second, I would bet my life that you can’t do the math to bear out any of the conclusions you wishfully draw from it. You may have memorized 98% of what is available about it in public media, and what I say is still true.
Yeah, it’s fun to conjecture.
Have fun, dude, it’s important to have fun, even if you don’t contribute to the human knowledge base.

Thank you Elixir for that, which reminds me of something when you said memorizing 98%.

You reminded me of the analogy, of the two types of educated. Both have accumulated knowledge throughout there time n academia. But there is a difference between the two. When putting both of these fellows out of there environment, an environment where their knowledge is not any use, the difference between these fellows starts to show. Both are very knowledgeable but only one of them is able to adapt to the new environment The other is lost and confusued because , what he was taught he has engraved as the only guidance he goes by in the environment he's accustomed to. He can't get outside that mode, i.e. outsid the box, quite stubborn, has no burden, only repeating and repeating whilst professing to be wise.

The other is course is the analytical thinker, who thinks outside the box. He has imagination.

Wow, that's a really interesting and novel insight.
I am very curious now, as it seems you have me really well pegged.
Which type am I ?
Which type are you ?

Educated (which one depends on how you post, I suppose)
Uneducated.

 

[bilby]

Thank you, so no device or monitoring apparatus exists at all, lovely, just what I needed to hear!

I have no doubt that that's what you wanted to hear, but it's not what anyone has said.

I did, because now I would like to see again how those soul catching monitoring methods, without any specific sensitive device, so to speak were done again.

By application of the scientific method, in a bewildering array of different ways by thousands of people over centuries of effort.

You persist in the false assumption that this is simple.

The conclusions are simple. Arriving at them, with the ability to demonstrate complete confidence in every aspect of them, is not.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

IF I know only 2 % knowledge of the subject, even if it's not adequate enough, I would disagree with your statement.

First, I sincerely doubt that you actually understand 0.02% of quantum theory, and second, I would bet my life that you can’t do the math to bear out any of the conclusions you wishfully draw from it. You may have memorized 98% of what is available about it in public media, and what I say is still true.
Yeah, it’s fun to conjecture.
Have fun, dude, it’s important to have fun, even if you don’t contribute to the human knowledge base.

Thank you Elixir for that, which reminds me of something when you said memorizing 98%.

You reminded me of the analogy, of the two types of educated. Both have accumulated knowledge throughout there time n academia. But there is a difference between the two. When putting both of these fellows out of there environment, an environment where their knowledge is not any use, the difference between these fellows starts to show. Both are very knowledgeable but only one of them is able to adapt to the new environment The other is lost and confusued because , what he was taught he has engraved as the only guidance he goes by in the environment he's accustomed to. He can't get outside that mode, i.e. outsid the box, quite stubborn, has no burden, only repeating and repeating whilst professing to be wise.

The other is course is the analytical thinker, who thinks outside the box. He has imagination.

Wow, that's a really interesting and novel insight.
I am very curious now, as it seems you have me really well pegged.
Which type am I ?
Which type are you ?

Educated (which one depends on how you post, I suppose)
Uneducated.

For someone who considers themselves uneducated, you seem to prize your ability to know all the right questions.