What would count as proof of God

[Learner]

I'm constantly told I'm uneducated, so I've considered the status. "Prize your ability..." - you got something there. For some individuals, no doubt, this is what it's about for them.

 

[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 ?

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

How much education have you had/ been subjected to?

 

[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?

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.

Do you know what the Standard Model of Physics is? No you don't. I bet you don't even remember high school physics - Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity. But you are telling us that you are qualified to discuss the nature of fundamental forces and interactions and how they are quantified by the Standard Model. Look up the Dunning-Kruger Effect on Wiki and you will find a picture of you:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is the cognitive bias whereby people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability.

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?

No, you are not. Because you haven't put in the work to learn the foundational concepts. You can't understand Big Bang Theory without first understanding Newton's Laws. You can't become a brain surgeon without first learning basic chemistry, biology and human physiology. You have to learn to crawl before you learn to run.

 

[atrib]

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

You have no idea what people are talking about, do you?

 

[atrib]

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.

You are no analytical thinker. In order to think outside the box, one has to know where the box is, what it looks like, and what is inside the box. Which you don't. You don't even understand what people are talking about most of the time.

 

[Learner]

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

You have no idea what people are talking about, do you?

I think you have an personal agenda.

 

[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.

You are no analytical thinker. In order to think outside the box, one has to know where the box is, what it looks like, and what is inside the box. Which you don't. You don't even understand what people are talking about most of the time.

Anyone can be an analytical thinker. And you don't have tto be highly educated to be so? I listen... yes I listen to conversations of ordinary people and they seem to know how to run the country so much better than the educated people in politics.

You'll have to understand if I may sound a tad arrogant here, required for incessant responses like yours ... curb your pride!

I've bypassed one of your post because I think I can anwser that later in Bilby's post regarding "all one" of the physicists so far mentioned, that agrees with Bibly's "no Gods exist" claim and there was something about the eyes that see photons - the apparatus for seeing ghosts (I jest)

 

[atrib]

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.

He has no idea what you are talking about. He can spell out words but he can't parse them together to make sense.

 

[atrib]

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

You have no idea what people are talking about, do you?

I think you have an personal agenda.

I think you can't read.

 

[Learner]

Your consistency should be "admired" for all to see ... keep it up.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

You have no idea what people are talking about, do you?

He alternates his persona from Babe in the Woods to a Snippy Mr. Knows Enough quite often.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm constantly told I'm uneducated, so I've considered the status. "Prize your ability..." - you got something there. For some individuals, no doubt, this is what it's about for them.

It is one thing to bullshit on physics with the layman. It is an entirely different thing to bullshit on physics with a physicist.

 

[Elixir]

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

You have no idea what people are talking about, do you?

He alternates his persona from Babe in the Woods to a Snippy Mr. Knows Enough quite often.

Hey, it’s all of no consequence.
So many words, so little meaning. But it’s an entertainment medium, and Learner seems to be amusing himself.

OTOH I am still wondering about his “education”. Seems to have been heavily indoctrinated in the free thinker “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge” school of philosophy.
I’m betting he has more formal education than I do, and it has taught him to pigeonhole me as a hopeless academician.

 

[bilby]

I think I can anwser that later in Bilby's post regarding "all one" of the physicists so far mentioned

One is sufficient to refute the claim of "none".

Moving the goalposts is not a good way to impress people with your intellectual honesty.

And reality isn't a democracy. It's not necessary for an idea to be popular in order for it to be correct. All that is necessary is for it not to be contradicted by observed reality.

Reality is the only authority.

 

[atrib]

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.

You are no analytical thinker. In order to think outside the box, one has to know where the box is, what it looks like, and what is inside the box. Which you don't. You don't even understand what people are talking about most of the time.

Anyone can be an analytical thinker. And you don't have tto be highly educated to be so?

It depends. You need to learn the following foundational items before you can think analytically about the Big Bang Model, for example:

1. Newtonian physics
2. Mathematics
3. Numerical modeling and analysis
4. Foundational cosmology (physics of macro objects)
5. Relativistic physics (general and special relativity and 3D geometry)
6. Astronomy

You also need to know about the vast body of observations that has been collected by scientists over the past two to four hundred years that the Big Bang Theory is based on.

But you don't know any of these things. So when you say things like this:

You'll be surprised to hear that I'm not a proponent of the Big Bang as it may seem to you. Meaning a "beginning" doesn't neccessarilly come from an explosion as conventionally understood - although I do take the side of the BB discussing the universe being estimated to be 14 + billion years old ; having a beginning (the theory) to work with, so to speak.

You look really foolish, because you don't have the education needed to form a valid opinion on the subject of the Big Bang model, much less think analytically about the subject. Heck, you don't even have a layman's understanding of the Big Bang Theory, based on what you wrote.

 

[Learner]

I'm constantly told I'm uneducated, so I've considered the status. "Prize your ability..." - you got something there. For some individuals, no doubt, this is what it's about for them.

It is one thing to bullshit on physics with the layman. It is an entirely different thing to bullshit on physics with a physicist.

The second one is interesting. Which post does that refer to?

 

[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.

You are no analytical thinker. In order to think outside the box, one has to know where the box is, what it looks like, and what is inside the box. Which you don't. You don't even understand what people are talking about most of the time.

Anyone can be an analytical thinker. And you don't have tto be highly educated to be so?

It depends. You need to learn the following foundational items before you can think analytically about the Big Bang Model, for example:

1. Newtonian physics
2. Mathematics
3. Numerical modeling and analysis
4. Foundational cosmology (physics of macro objects)
5. Relativistic physics (general and special relativity and 3D geometry)
6. Astronomy

You also need to know about the vast body of observations that has been collected by scientists over the past two to four hundred years that the Big Bang Theory is based on.

But you don't know any of these things. So when you say things like this:

Really? You can tell all that, just by that sentence in bold? Extremely advanced, psychological profiling?

Yes it does depend - it's purely a philisophical point of view, I was getting at.

You'll be surprised to hear that I'm not a proponent of the Big Bang as it may seem to you. Meaning a "beginning" doesn't neccessarilly come from an explosion as conventionally understood - although I do take the side of the BB discussing the universe being estimated to be 14 + billion years old ; having a beginning (the theory) to work with, so to speak.

You look really foolish, because you don't have the education needed to form a valid opinion on the subject of the Big Bang model, much less think analytically about the subject. Heck, you don't even have a layman's understanding of the Big Bang Theory, based on what you wrote.

Well there's a little more to it than what you quoted. When I was an enthusiastic about learning these things plus other interests, I also came across alternative ideas back then. WHICH MEANS there were a few issues highlighted from other scientists, which seemed valid, regarding the BB theory. Now that does NOT mean I refuted the BB theory at all, back then. It just meant I couldn't be sure who got it right!! ( This was all before I became Christian, seven years now)

 

[Elixir]

I hope becoming a Christian has helped you in other ways. Because it certainly has not been helpful at all to your ability to understand either physics or the limits of your own understanding.

In my years of experience studying religious delusions, I have seen innumerable cases of Christians - most notably new converts - mistaking the peace they feel for a kind of super-comprehension of the world around them that transcends science. Which it might do. But that doesn’t lead to any understanding of science, even though it may seem to, to the “believer”.

 

[Learner]

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.

Yes well it would be nice if you highlighted the section(s) where he doesn't recognize his own contradictions.

 

[Learner]

I hope becoming a Christian has helped you in other ways. Because it certainly has not been helpful at all to your ability to understand either physics or the limits of your own understanding. and that its not

I suppose if nothing else, at least there's something you (plural) can focus your energies on, as your main argument, as evident in the last so many posts.

In my years of experience studying religious delusions, I have seen innumerable cases of Christians - most notably new converts - mistaking the peace they feel for a kind of super-comprehension of the world around them that transcends science. Which it might do. But that doesn’t lead to any understanding of science, even though it may seem to, to the “believer”.

Well we can talk further on it on another thread perhaps. As I think you know... Scientists who are also Christian don't mix prayers with science.