The requirement to give equal time to evolution and the theory of intelligent design or creationism is not topical, but it is possible to explain to the students what creationism is and why it is not science
Ehud Amir
Some argue as follows: "Next to the Darwinist view, they will present, in the name of intellectual honesty, the so-called "creationist" view, according to which the world was not created by itself but was created and arranged by a higher power. We will call him God" (Doron Koren, "Evolution, creation and the school: how biology should be taught", Haaretz, 24.12.14). Daniel Willingham of the University of Virginia responded to this recycled claim: "True, teachers should be required to give equal time to evolution studies and creationist theories, just as in literature classes Shakespeare should be taught at the same time as the new play by the principal's son and just as in nature classes equal time should be given to the theory of My uncle, according to which the earth is flat. I think this theory is worth hearing. After all, everyone should be given an equal opportunity, right?"
"No. There are minimum requirements that a theory must meet in order to be eligible to compete for the students' precious time. The theories of creationism and intelligent design of sorts do not meet these requirements and do not deserve to be heard in schools, just as I am not allowed to appear at the Olympic Games and hope that they will let me compete in the XNUMX-meter breaststroke against Michael Phelps. The problem is that if you include such a theory in the curriculum of any school, the student may conclude that it has some validity. Otherwise why does the teacher bother to discuss it?"
The word "fact" refers to an observation, measurement or other form of evidence, but also to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no reason to continue to put it to the test or look for additional examples of its correctness. In this sense, evolution is a fact. Many findings could collapse the theory of evolution: Mendel's laws of inheritance; the discovery of cell division and the role of chromosomes in heredity; formulation of the mathematical theory of population genetics; Deciphering the structure of DNA and the genetic code. The discovery of the double helix of DNA could have collapsed evolution, if the study of the genetic material had proved that man is not close to apes in origin - but it has been proven that man and chimpanzee are identical in more than 98% of their genetic material. This is how our genetic closeness to all animal and plant species has been proven.
Without evolution it is impossible to examine why mutations that reduce the lethality of any disease spread. Leprosy used to kill, and today it is not fatal. The flu killed tens of millions of people at the beginning of the 20th century and today is nothing more than a winter nuisance for most of us. What happened to the flu virus? Mutation of the virus allowed the carrier to live longer and thus the viruses gained a carrier that spreads them for a longer time. It pays for viruses not to kill the carrier. If we assume that God planned the bacteria, as the creationists suggest - what next? How will the explanation of creation - the hand of God - help to understand epidemiological processes and increase the ability to defend against viruses?
Why do we need a new flu shot every year? The answer is - continuous evolution of this virus. Almost half of the inhabitants of the equatorial region of Africa have a mutation that causes sickle cell anemia. How can this be explained? After all, this mutation increases the chance that its carrier will develop sickle cell anemia. But this mutation creates blood cells that the malaria virus has difficulty attaching to and thus protects its carriers from malaria. They might suffer from anemia, which kills at a relatively old age, but not from malaria, which kills suddenly and at a young age. This is how the carriers of this mutation will reproduce and spread among their offspring the version of the gene that is resistant to malaria. Evolution explains this process well, as well as the reasons for it.
How can one explain the changes in the frequency of the mutation that allowed us to digest lactose? Why do 95% of Northern Europeans have this mutation, but only a few percent in Southeast Asia? In the past thousands of years, milk-producing cattle farms developed in Northern Europe, while in Southeast Asia this did not happen, and therefore among residents who lived on dairy farms, a preference was created for those with mutations that allowed milk digestion, and they bequeathed this mutation to their descendants, in an evolutionary process. Evolution explains it. Creationism denies the fact that these mutations happened. Creationism is not a science but a philosophical and religious argument. It is impossible to test the claims of creation with scientific tools. There is no experiment, observation or procedure of drawing scientific conclusions that can be derived from the assumption that there is (or is not) a planner for the world. Such an assumption - creationism - cannot promote scientific research. The position of science, as expressed in scientific publications and according to the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, is that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus regarding the theory of evolution.
But there are places, even in the United States, where the understanding of the essence of science has not yet reached. In 2007, the Louisiana Board of Education introduced a bill that would allow teachers to include religious books in science classes. A year later, the "Louisiana Science Education Act" was passed. Under the auspices of the law, teachers took out the science books and left only the creationism books.
Zach Coughlin was fourteen years old when the decision was made. With the help of Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University, Coughlin contacted Harry Croteau, a Nobel laureate in chemistry. Croteau helped Coughlin compose a letter demanding that the law be repealed and thus keep religious studies out of science classes. From the letter:
"The students in Louisiana are entitled to study science and not religion presented as science. Science offers natural phenomena explanations that can be examined and thus also refuted. ... Science is a process in which information about the physical world is documented and collected, and this information is divided into categories and studied in an effort to deduce from them the principles of nature that best explain the observed phenomena. Science is not equipped with explanations that allow us to evaluate and measure supernatural explanations for our observations; Science does not judge the truth or falsity of supernatural explanations. Science leaves these considerations to the realm of religious belief. The scope of scientific investigation is consciously limited to the search for principles from the field of nature, and therefore science remains free from religious teachings and is, therefore, a field worthy of teaching in public schools."
The letter was signed by 78 Nobel laureates.
In 1987, in the Edwards v. Aguillard case, the United States Supreme Court ruled:
"The raw material of scientific inquiry is an ever-growing body of evidence, a body of evidence that provides information about fundamental 'facts'. Facts are part of the natural phenomena. The application of the scientific method includes a systematic and rigorous examination of principles that may constitute a scientific explanation for these facts. To be a legitimate scientific 'hypothesis', a scientific theory must be consistent with past and present observations, and must stand up to ongoing scrutiny from future observations. A theory that by its very nature cannot be put to the test is outside the realm of science. The process of continuous examination leads scientists to have special respect for those hypotheses that have been particularly supported by observations or experiments. Such a hypothesis is called a "theory". If a theory successfully explains a large body of facts that has diversity, it is a "solid" theory. If it consistently predicts new phenomena that are eventually observed, it is a "reliable" theory. However, even the most solid and reliable theory is temporary. A scientific theory is constantly subject to re-examination.
Science education should accurately describe the current state of essential scientific knowledge. More importantly, science education should accurately describe the basic assumptions of science and its processes. By teaching religious ideas under the false label of science, science education is harmed. Such teaching sets up a false conflict between science and religion, misleads our youth about the nature of scientific inquiry, and thus reduces our ability to respond to problems in an increasingly technological world. Scientific knowledge is essential for life in the 21st century. Evolutionary biology is the foundation of many fields, including biomedical research and agriculture. It helps us to understand, for example, how to fight AIDS and how to grow plants that will survive in different environments. Science plays a significant role in our world and the economic future of our country depends on the United States maintaining its ability to compete in the fields of science. That is why it is essential that students receive an in-depth education regarding main scientific concepts and their applications."
The Louisiana Board of Education was not convinced. A recommendation to repeal the law was rejected twice. Similar laws are being promoted in many other states in the United States. "If students don't understand what the scientific method is, we are hurting their chances of acquiring a scientific education, getting jobs in the field of science and making discoveries that will change the world," said Coughlin. "How many jobs will you find under 'creativity' on the job boards?" The University of Louisiana already has to absorb scientists from other states because Louisiana does not have enough scientists, due to the law.
"In addition to this, there is a violation here of the principle of separation between religion and state," said Coughlin, "studying creation according to the biblical version means promoting one, very specific version of Christianity, and violating the rights of every other American citizen who does not share these beliefs. This tramples on the rights of many Catholics, mainstream Protestants, Buddhists, humanists, Muslims, Hindus and every other religious group in the United States. The creationists would be filled with anxiety if the Hindu version of the creation of the world was taught in religion classes - and rightly so."
Now Suggested by Lane Honey, biology lecturer At McEwan University in Edmonton, Canada, the opposite: on the contrary, they studied creationism in the classrooms. Let students ask questions. This way you can explain to them why creationism is a religion and why there is no connection between creationism and science, even if the creationists claim otherwise. Bottom line, creationists claim that everything was created by God. Whether it is true or not, it is not a scientific theory because it cannot be tested. point. Put the basic assumptions of creationism to scientific criticism. Apply the scientific investigation methods to creationism and check if creationism meets the definition of science.
I sent Zach Coughlin this article. He answered me this way: "This is a dramatic misunderstanding of how creationism is actually taught in the classroom, and it is also unconstitutional. I'm not a supporter of creationism, but the Supreme Court [in the United States] also prohibits attacking religion in public schools, and some people may see the attack on creationism as an attack on religion. It could turn into a lawsuit in court, and that could be damaging.”
An elegant way to solve the dilemma is to say: "Creativity is a religion. I must not teach religion in a science class, otherwise the Supreme Court will determine that I broke the law."
The fight for education continues.
Update: Today (June 24, 2015) Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana and the man who stands behind the "Louisiana Science Education Act" and signed it, announced his entry into the race for the presidency of the United States, as part of the primaries in the Republican Party.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
- About the randomness of evolution, about the lack of planning and the flaws in the human body
- Neil deGrasse Tyson, presenter of the Cosmos series: "If Sagan were alive, he would be most surprised by the fact that we still have to argue that science is important to society."
- Opinion/ In the confrontation between the science journalist who explained evolution and creation, scientific education won
564 תגובות
Science does not contradict belief in God and vice versa. The scientific Torah explains with comprehensive means the reality of the nature of creation, in other words how nature works, since the educational means are limited, proof of this is that the scientific Torah works according to the trial and error method, scientific methods change frequently, and are replaced every time there is a new scientific discovery, until Copernicus believed that the world flat and that the sun revolves around the earth, Einstein in the theory of relativity secretly shattered Newton's theory of physical gravity, while Niels Bohr and other scientists shattered Einstein's theory of relativity in the quantum theory (with regard to particles, uncertainty, etc.) Bohr "God does not play with dice" because he doubted the correctness of the revolutionary discoveries of quantum theory, in response Bohr replied to him "Don't tell God what to do"
In relation to the creator of creation, God, who is eternal in terms of time and infinite in terms of space (concepts that science today is unable to deal with because they are not measurable and cannot be included in a scientific experiment that would confirm them)
The universe as we see it today is actually a divine reduction in the act of creation, scientific theory holds that the universe was created from enormous light (in a process called the "Big Bang", it is quite similar to what is described in the book of Genesis that the beginning of creation was when God said "Let there be light and let there be light", science explains how it works The "mechanism" of the universe through pure physical laws and laws, he does not explain what the purpose of the mechanism is and what it was created for, what is the meaning of life, etc. To answer these questions divine faith enters the picture
Out of the box
I contradict the existence of a wonderful, man-loving, moral, omniscient and omnipotent God in one word. Suffering.
That is, there is a very good reason to believe that God does not exist.
Now let's summarize between asterisks the reasons and the evidence for its existence. Well **.
Feel free to try to contradict me. No long responses. be my business
I agree with the author of the article that creationism is not science. It never was and never will be. Science is a collection of data from a world that already exists and based on this data we reach conclusions and build different theories. The addition of data disclosures will strengthen or weaken or change the theory. Creationism starts from a basic foundation that cannot be measured in any way. And this is a creator who does not have a body and does not have the image of a body. There is no possibility in the human mind to contradict its existence. And as many as try come to a dead end every time. It is about a thing that can be understood by virtue of negating its reality from all the other things we know. And it is a broken creator. And this is fundamental to faith
Raphael
So what was the point of me answering these questions? are you ready to explain
https://www.hayadan.org.il/creationism-in-science-school-1906156/comment-page-20/#comment-648743
Raphael, I would appreciate it if you answered -
How do you explain the existence of dogs? After all, evidence of their existence (fossils) appears only in new layers from 30 years ago at the most from our era, how did they "suddenly" emerge if they did not evolve from wolves and existed from Genesis?
That is, according to the measure you determine.
And what are the proper measurements, if it is possible to ask (and moreover get an answer about them)?
The degree of trolling.
Spring.
In this case I definitely agree with you.
But it is still not clear where the border of freedom of expression passes. Do you block the statements of those who do not recognize the State of Israel, for example? It may be that there was no such statement here on the website, but it is no different from the words of a skeptic - as I understood from your words - who supports intelligent aliens or something similar. After all, in the end, it's about any opinion that isn't also of the delusional kind. The question is what is the line that separates freedom of expression from expression that deserves to be blocked on this site?
He is a troll because he puts the aliens in every article whether it belongs or not, Raphael at least appears only when talking about religion.
ah long
Raphael
Stop humiliating yourself…. Are you trying to catch me at my word? Is this the level you're going down to?
You are a dishonest man, Raphael. Don't throw your shitty nature at me!!!
Raphael
I answered your questions -
https://www.hayadan.org.il/creationism-in-science-school-1906156/comment-page-20/#comment-648743
Now are you ready to explain what the point is that I will answer them?
Raphael
I'd say you're looking for a way to shake off the realization that when you think about the meaning of the phrase 'the fruit of the imagination' you're thinking of something else than Nissis thinks of when he says 'the fruit of the imagination'.
The product of this is that you represent his words before your understanding and not as they are, and are not willing to accept that they mean something else, even when Nissim explains to you in detail what he meant. This is why Nissim tells you that you are acting dishonestly, and he is right.
What Shmulik said
Nissim I would say that you are looking for a way to shake off what you said ("for the millionth time"!) in the clearest way that is not ambiguous.
Raphael
Be a man for once. I answered your every question honestly. You don't answer anything and constantly slander.
I'll say it again - you have no integrity.
Raphael
Are you saying I'm lying?
You're a miracle. Forget about it.
Raphael
Do you think there is something wrong with this method?
Raphael
I don't understand what you want from me 🙂 I will repeat what I said. I look around and see things. I think of an explanation, and try to look for what follows from the explanation. So, I'm trying to find a method to test my explanation. I check - and correct, or cancel, my explanation according to the test results.
Science doesn't always work that way. Sometimes, some crazy idea pops up in my head, which doesn't come from thinking about what I see.
Still - the test method is similar!
Avi,
why did not you say?
We would ask him about the wonderful South Park episode about Scientology.
now seriously
This is of course your right, but what is the fundamental difference between him and Raphael? And if we remove everyone who disagrees and has an agenda, who will we talk to?
Paradox The twin paradox is behind us, isn't it?
The side I took has nothing to do with opinions. but to prevent trolls. When a person is an agent of a cult (in this case Scientology) and confuses the mind without giving proper disclosure and does so in hundreds of comments, it is already excessive. Let him open his own website and write there as much nonsense as he wants.
To the respondents who believe, how do you really explain the existence of dogs? After all, evidence of their existence (fossils) appears only in new layers from 30 years ago at the most from our era, how did they "suddenly" emerge if they did not evolve from wolves and existed from Genesis?
(You cannot say that a wolf and a pinscher dog are the same animal)
Raphael,
Let's try again and I really don't understand why you insist on not answering:
I did not ask you if you can prove or disprove, but on the basis of what knowledge you claim to invalidate Dr. Masini's claim. Do you have an advanced degree in physics?
Do you think that a video depicting people working to investigate what caused the bang and coming up with theories describing why the bang occurred, some of which are based on empirical evidence, supports the claim that there is no way to investigate what caused the bang?
Well, a rival, and that's why I asked him why he was squirming...
I think he answered this before, maybe you missed it:
"I explained that 'in the imagination' means that a hypothesis appeared in the mind of a scientist as a possible explanation for the observations. I explained that based on the hypothesis, we think about which predications arise from the hypothesis, and check the predications, I never said that a scientific theory is imaginary"
Miracles why are you squirming like some poor politician. Did you say it or not:
Raphael
I am ready to say, for the millionth time, that all theories for the formation of the universe, if indeed the universe was formed, including that there was an "intelligent planner" at the time, are the product of imagination.
Avi,
Too bad.
Spring.
I didn't read Skepkin's comments but I assume you deleted them. And without taking any side, neither his nor the other brawlers, I ask you a question: what about freedom of speech?
(I understand that this is a blog and you have the right to set the rules, but you are still one who advocates for freedom of speech, so it is surprising that you chose to block opinions that differ from yours). I would appreciate an answer from you.
my father
May I know which sect?
Please don't answer the skeptics any more with a name that won't fit in (I will already know how to recognize it). The man is blocked, I do not accept cult propaganda on this site.
with gratitude
Avi Blizovsky
No doubt
You are advocating evolution that was intended by many intelligent entities outside the earth. Okay, fine, fine.
The question is, what evidence do you have that supports this point of view?
No doubt
Well, come on. You posted 10 years ago, so even if you can't find a link for some reason, at least now it should be easy for you to explain, right? After all, a theory you've known well for more than a decade.
Always, but always when it comes to Manny Time, we will get an answer of "enough for today" or "that miracles will first explain how..." or "I already explained" (appropriate here. After all, he said intelligent evolution. This is proof, isn't it?) or a link to YouTube...
I really can't understand why the request from someone to flatten his theory, is met with such contempt. You might think I cursed his mother and his children. I didn't even doubt her (because there is no stage yet) but I just asked to know what his academic knowledge is, that's all.
Skeptical, you really don't realize that all your questions about how we were created can also be asked about that first intelligent alien that you claim created all the others? After all, he also had to be created somehow, didn't he?
You just threw the ball somewhere else and absolved yourself of an answer.
How was that first intelligent alien created? And why is it not possible in your opinion that we too were created in the same way?
skeptical
I would be happy to explain to you... And at the same time I would love to hear about your theory. That's how two scientists talk, right?
skeptical,
Don't want, no need. This is not the university.
Explain your idea and get off the defensive
"Do you understand what distance we are talking about?"
Big sentence 🙂
rival
Look at it this way: if the Big Bang had an intelligent designer, then there is no need for him to direct evolution... and certainly no need for the designer to exist today.
How many times to say:
I am not advocating anything. I am not a function.
Second situation, I do not pretend to be a function, unlike others who build an imaginary enemy for them in the form of "the establishment" and when you try to ask those others for details about their claim, you are immediately met with contempt, curses, slander like with Raphael and in the current case, distraction.
Distraction because we didn't hear a positive word due to the theory of the frustrated man on duty, who lacks academic knowledge in biology (by his own admission) but only downs about the current theory, even though he has no theoretical knowledge, according to his own admission.
I will still insist on choosing a lawyer who studied, passed the certification and acquired experience in the field when I sell an apartment. Suri.
skeptical,
How were the rational factors (outside the earth) that created us? Do you think you will just say "they created us" and relieve yourself of the need to explain how they themselves were created?
What do you think if you threw the ball somewhere else you solved the problem?
No doubt
Come on, no excuses. Book and contact please, I want to hear.
skeptical,
What degree do you have in physics?
librarian
skeptical,
Enough whining.
I told you about the bio equivalent of Arvix. Post there. No one will beat you.
No doubt
Seriously, please tell me about your theory.
No doubt
Have you heard of mutations? Have you heard of sexual reproduction? Try to flow with these ideas about populations, instead of imagining that one creature suddenly turns from one species into a creature of a new species (because that's not how it works).
Too bad, if you had a degree in biology maybe you would understand the things you are asking and not talk nonsense about things you don't understand.
Please please tell us about your theory that replaces the "big bang" theory. Seriously, give a link, I want to see her.
skeptical
What is the "scientific establishment"? I read a lot of crazy articles and crazy ideas. No "establishment" blocks a scientist with a revolutionary idea. There are certainly cases where scientists are blocked because of personal intrigues or the fixations of this or that academic establishment.
But - a scientific article cannot contradict observations. Therefore, there are no scientific papers that contradict evolution.
Please, let's focus on evolution - the big bang is a bit big for someone who is not a doctor of physics.
I can't understand something. On the one hand, I understand that you are saying that species cannot evolve, but on the other hand, you are saying that there is intentional evolution.
You don't have to be mad at me. I'm really trying to understand.
Shmulik
He claims that scientists who published articles against evolution by natural selection were banned because of such an article. He doesn't want to be confiscated - legitimately...
I just asked for an example of such a scientist... Does anyone else know?
Miracles,
What does it matter what he claims?
Since when is science a democracy?
I already wrote: if he has a real appeal, he should be honored to write a scientific article and publish it. I understood that a biological equivalent to Ervix called Beurvix was recently opened. Let him upload an article there and send us a link.
will no longer serve its purpose?
skeptical
I don't understand why you ask how a new species is created. Do you not understand the process? Or do you want evidence that it actually happened?
You are basically claiming that all the species today have existed since time immemorial!
skeptical
Please - mention here the name of one scientist in the field of biology who was banned because of an article he published against evolution. If you don't have it - I ask that you retract your statement.
Of course I want to see that there is indeed such an article. And I also expect to see evidence that it was indeed confiscated...
So you have no academic knowledge in the field. Too bad you didn't write earlier. Thanks.
skeptical,
Right. On the science website you will disprove evolution.
Let's take action: write your wisdom in Biarwaikis and let's see how it will be received. Ok?
It will be well received, we will rejoice.
I'll ask you what I asked Raphael:
On the basis of what knowledge did you claim what you claimed. In other words, what advanced degree in biology do you have and where. Sorry to be so petty. When I needed a lawyer (for the sale of an apartment), I insisted that he have a degree from a recognized university and extensive experience. I am like that.
Extinction is not necessary for evolution, a rightly skeptical skeptic.
Here is a somewhat blatant example, and not necessarily correct!!
Look at humans. Poor and stupid people multiply more than rich and smart people (no one will be offended!!!). Suppose the reason for this is hereditary. If the poor marry only among themselves, and the rich also do so - it is possible that in the course of time two types of people will be created.
The example is very abstract, but I know a very similar case in nature. Without any need for extinction, 3 species of a certain bird were created. And there are other cases like salamanders, seagulls and mice - things that are happening now.
Evolution needs a differential reproduction rate, by an inherited trait. Extinction actually slows down evolution!!!
How is a new species created? Read Darwin, he explains it simply.
Flowers produce new species all the time - and even humans have different species 🙂 That's right - there are humans who are genetically different from other humans, and they cannot breed with normal humans. The reason is that, just as we differ from chimpanzees in that we have 23 pairs of chromosomes instead of 24, there are humans who have 22 pairs instead of 23!!!
Skeptical, how do you explain the existence of today's dogs (many types!) Where did they suddenly appear?
indeed,
Skeptic and someone clones appear from time to time but never evolve
I'm trying to explain Shmulik again, what he claims is that those who are not suitable do not survive ("extinct" according to his definition) but those who do survive, will not evolve into another animal.
Extinction does not help those who died, that is clear. Da.
The new conditions that prevail after the event allow new species to thrive. What is unclear here?
Mate I don't think he was talking about mass extinction, he's just talking a bit sloppy like many of his fellow creationists and confusing you all. He meant the less fit animals that fail to survive, he claims that this does not cause development and I would love to hear an explanation as to why.
No doubt
You are wrong. Extinction creates evolutionary pressure.
Try again.
I did not understand,
Mass extinction of dinosaurs does not open a window for other races?
I have no idea if there was such a thing, but suppose a virus that only attacks ____ and therefore allowed other animals to thrive?
Parasites have been effectively manipulated into races that will only reproduce themselves and thus we all enjoy sex?
Disheartened by my satisfaction
Where did you talk about extinction? I can't find this comment...
"How can you close the poor.... And claim that everything was done randomly?"
Skeptical, is "natural selection" which is the cornerstone of the evolution process random? According to your method, does a doe that ran slowly have the same chance of surviving in an environment full of predators as a doe that ran fast?
Regarding the dinosaurs, maybe you can really tell us why they "hid it" for a long time, I've never heard such a thing and I don't know where you got it from.
skeptical
I didn't expect a response. My idea is that an intelligent reader will not be confused by the nonsense you write.
If you want to have a discussion then I'd be happy to. You want to be rude so be healthy - but I will continue to show how dishonest you are.
No doubt
It's nice that you bother to point this out to Nissim all the time, but the truth is that your comments are not appropriate responses as responses to any response, and the truth is that they don't deserve a response either. You don't say anything in them that has any content. Baseless allusions to things you dare not even say (and no one is clear why you are afraid to say what you allude to) is not worth anything.
skeptical
The reason for the amazing variety of species is beautifully described in the "Origin of Species".
Read the book, and if you think there are mistakes there - tell us and we'll talk about them.
Spoiler alert - there are indeed mistakes there.
skeptical
I was taken from school to see dinosaur fossils 50 years ago.
They don't teach about dinosaurs, or about evolution, in dark countries, where the religious establishment is afraid of losing its power. Evolution not only eliminates the special status of man, it completely eliminates the need for an intelligent creator.
someone
Well done, you proved that you know how to make unfounded assumptions and also make logical fallacies, all in 75 words. I was impressed, really.
"How can you close the poor.... And claim that everything was done randomly?"
Skeptical, have you heard of "natural selection" which is the cornerstone of evolution? Do you really think it is a random process?
Regarding the dinosaurs, maybe you can really tell us why they "hid it" for a long time, I don't know about such a thing.
No doubt
I don't know what your claim is based on about the late mention of the "secret" of the dinosaur skeletons in schools, but why don't you tell us the reason for this and what you yourself were afraid of.
No doubt
Before you start repeating things you've already been told in the past again. Can you please tell me what Nissim said and explained to you about the claim "that everything is done randomly" in connection with evolution?
"But we all know that if we leave a room closed for billions of years we won't get any cars when we open it"
do we all know Who are we all and how did you come to the conclusions you came to? If your "huge closed room" is the Earth, then it also happened and not only in theory, the single cells did evolve gradually according to natural selection and some of them eventually became after billions of years a man who built a car.
That your vision is too narrow to understand this is only your problem.
Proof in my opinion that the world needs a designer - according to the atheistic theories, a car can be created in a closed room. how? Simple: if we close a room that is huge in size (let's say even the size of the Earth) and has characteristics that mimic processes that took place on Earth, then the bacteria inside the closed room can in principle gradually develop into a person after billions of years in the closed room, which in turn will create a car. = A car evolved in a closed room.
But we all know that if we leave a room closed for billions of years we won't get any cars when we open it. Interesting argument, isn't it?
Evolution is not random, natural selection is not random, how many times can I explain this to you? Are you hard of understanding?
It's strange for some reason I assume you are not Pezar (my wife does not agree with this assumption)
"By the way, it is accepted here, and in general in any matter related to science, to give automatic "backup" to all theories "adopted" in science on the assumption that the matter is "safe."
Well done. You were able to describe very precisely what is not the case here.
strange
What I wrote about Raphael is supported by a lot of evidence. The guy is not very smart, and lies constantly. He asks questions and ignores the answers. You ask him a question and he doesn't answer at all. He takes quotes out of context. He argues about physics, on subjects he does not understand.
I never said I wasn't stupid. If anyone thinks I'm stupid I'd love to hear why.
I would love for you to contribute something to the discussion. Meanwhile, you're just talking. What is it good for? Are you worried about Rafael? I thought God was taking care of him….
Raphael
Maybe I was wrong and you're just stupid. I explained that the "fruit of the imagination" means that a hypothesis appeared in the mind of a scientist as an explanation as a possible explanation for the observations. I explained that based on the hypothesis, one thinks about which predications arise from the hypothesis, and checks the predications.
I never said that a scientific theory is imaginary.
do you understand me
Shmulik
He has an answer. He realizes he was wrong. He just can't admit it. So he has nothing to do except evade (incite the discussion to other points), ignore and lie, which is exactly what we see him doing here.
Raphael,
Hard, not hard really, I don't care how you treated it. At the end of the day you stand in front of the mirror.
I still don't understand why you don't have an answer:
Let's try again:
I did not ask you if you can prove or disprove but on the basis of what knowledge you claim to invalidate her claim
Do you think that a video depicting people working to investigate what caused the explosion and presenting theories describing why the explosion occurred, some of which are based on empirical evidence, supports the claim that there is no way to investigate what caused the explosion?
Pazar
Go to a linguist, show him my comments and those of all the other commenters that you somehow believe are me and ask him for an analysis of whether it is the same person. At least that way you will confront your beliefs with reality once in a lifetime.
I'm also too lazy to comment under different aliases, and that's also against the comment rules here, which means if I did I'd be blocked.
Shmulik, just look at the curses I received from Nisim the naughty boy just because I quoted him:
Raphael
I am ready to say, for the millionth time, that all theories for the formation of the universe, if indeed the universe was formed, including that there was an "intelligent planner" at the time, are the product of imagination.
Raphael
Oh, I went back to your previous comment and understood. You live in some kind of illusion that we are, as you said, fighting fiercely, for some theory.
What exactly are you basing this delusion on?
If I don't understand this theory does it mean something (except that I don't understand the theory)?
Did I say somewhere that this theory is an indisputable truth?
Did I say anything about this theory anywhere?
Pazar
Can you just clarify for me or point out one thing that Raphael explained to someone here?
You have to understand something, I have no problem answering any question, so you can't put me in a corner. Unlike some people I have no problem saying I don't know something when I don't know it. Some other people here are unable to admit that they don't know something, which everyone obviously doesn't know, and then they are the ones who are in the corner, and you see them constantly avoiding, ignoring and lying to try, unsuccessfully, to get out of it.
Raphael
I don't understand why you need me to answer these questions but so be it.
"What did you understand about Messini's proposed theory?"
Maybe a general concept, nothing at all, what do you think can be understood from 4 minutes in a comprehensive review program on the BBC that does not go into the depth of anything. It is likely that in my current situation, in order to understand what her theory says, I would have to spend at least a few years studying. It would be really funny if someone thought they really understood something from watching this show or a clip from it.
"Why doesn't this theory require preconditions?"
Do not know. How am I supposed to know when I don't understand her? Honestly, I don't even understand the question, and I'm not even sure it's true. What is meant by prerequisites?
"What are the parallel universes doing here and how did they affect the Big Bang?"
what is it here and don't know It's like you really expected me to know the answer to this from 4 minutes of not talking about it?
"Where are the parallel universes?"
Do not know.
"Is it within our universe or within a time space that includes all universes together?"
As well.
"What does she mean when she talks about a pre-big bang and a late bang?"
Where is it even said? I'm pretty sure nothing like that was said, and she didn't talk about anything like that.
Well, then what does it matter?
Raphael
Your groupie is right this time. We are idiots because we relate to your nonsense.
You will want to learn what people who are different from you think, so respect them as human beings.
And come on, that's how the catalog is from here. Someone might accidentally step on it.
Raphael
It's amazing that you still keep explaining to these idiots.. what do you care that they are idiots?
If there were other readers who were convinced by the nonsense of this mob they would also respond, I'm sure. For now, all who respond to you are 3-4 people who don't understand their own lives and another one who changes the nickname all the time (wd/rival/one, etc.).
You put them in a corner and this is their way of trying to get out of there... Leave these idiots alone or they will continue to flood the site with garbage comments.
Raphael
You are an arrogant idiot, a wretched liar and an idolater.
And if you continue to quote me falsely, I will say things about you that are definitely not nice.
WD these questions:
Shmulik, in order for Nisim to be able to answer you, maybe you should explain to him first in your own words what you understood about the theory proposed by Messini? Why does this theory not require preconditions? What are the parallel universes doing here and how did they affect the big bang? Where are the parallel universes? Is it within our universe or within a space of time that includes all universes together? What does she mean when she talks about a pre-big bang and a late bang?
WD these questions:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/creationism-in-science-school-1906156#comments
Shmulik, you're right, I was a little hard on you, but I won't answer your questions because there are several commenters here, including you, who only ask to tease. See the last question an opponent asked and begged me to answer him and what I answered him and what came out of it. Instead of having a substantive discussion, you use what I said to make a circus out of it. Of course, the clowns in this circus are you, the Torah calls you "the clowns of the generation". Google it if you don't know what it is.
Raphael
1) I thought you said you were going. What happened to it?
2) It is not clear to me what questions you want me to answer. From what I noticed the last question you asked Shmulik is if he's mad at you, and I can't answer that considering I'm not Shmulik.
3) What question exactly did you not get an answer to here in my previous comments here that you ignored?
4) Why are you unable to even answer the question of which creator are you talking about at all? Why are you unable to define what you are talking about? (By the way, I know the answer to this, but maybe you should answer it for yourself)
5) Why do you think we constantly have to answer questions for you while you don't bother trying to understand the answers? (I already understood that you are not able to answer any question that is asked of you, so I am not really asking you for an answer)
6) If you are asking about whether all theories are figments of imagination, then please define that first because you think figment of imagination is one thing and the people answering you think it is something else. It can be said that the theory of gravitation is a figment of the imagination, we have great confidence in it because our measurements verify it to a certain level of accuracy. The problem is that this is only true for certain definitions of the term figment of imagination, and it may also be incorrect to say so for certain other definitions of figment of imagination.
By the way, have you already decided if you are difficult to understand on levels that are hard to imagine or if you are lying?
Raphael
1) I thought you said you were going. What happened to it?
2) It is not clear to me what questions you want me to answer. From what I noticed the last question you asked Shmulik is if he's mad at you, and I can't answer that considering I'm not Shmulik.
3) Which question exactly did you not get an answer to here - https://www.hayadan.org.il/creationism-in-science-school-1906156/comment-page-16/#comment-648056 – or here – https://www.hayadan.org.il/creationism-in-science-school-1906156/comment-page-16/#comment-648051 – or here – https://www.hayadan.org.il/creationism-in-science-school-1906156/comment-page-9/#comment-647507 – or here – https://www.hayadan.org.il/creationism-in-science-school-1906156/comment-page-3/#comment-647164
4) Why are you unable to even answer the question of which creator are you talking about at all? Why are you unable to define what you are talking about? (By the way, I know the answer to this, but maybe you should answer it for yourself)
5) Why do you think we constantly have to answer questions for you while you don't bother trying to understand the answers? (I already understood that you are not able to answer any question that is asked of you, so I am not really asking you for an answer)
6) If you are asking about whether all theories are figments of imagination, then please define that first because you think figment of imagination is one thing and the people answering you think it is something else. It can be said that the theory of gravitation is a figment of the imagination, we have great confidence in it because our measurements verify it to a certain level of accuracy. The problem is that this is only true for certain definitions of the term figment of imagination, and it may also be incorrect to say so for certain other definitions of figment of imagination.
By the way, have you already decided if you are difficult to understand on levels that are hard to imagine or if you are lying?
(ie a strong negative correlation, the studies show that generally low intelligence will lead to stronger faith, and vice versa)
Last but not least:
http://secularisrael.blogspot.co.il/2010/09/blog-post_06.html
And another one:
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/55/ART1/748/479.html
These studies usually check the level of intelligence and its correlation with belief in God, and indeed there is a strong correlation...
http://www.holesinthenet.co.il/holesinthenet-media-story-3978
These studies usually check the level of intelligence and its correlation with belief in God, and indeed there is a strong correlation...
http://www.holesinthenet.co.il/holesinthenet-media-story-3978
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/55/ART1/748/479.html
http://secularisrael.blogspot.co.il/2010/09/blog-post_06.html
someone
It is not clear to me who said anything about the number of academics who believe or not in whatever, but what does it matter anyway, since when is someone's belief in something relevant to what the truth is? Since when is the truth affected by what the majority thinks?
Raphael,
You called me zero and shame and in about every second comment you curse me. so be it.
Let's try again:
I did not ask you if you can prove or disprove but on the basis of what knowledge you claim to invalidate her claim
Do you think that a video depicting people working to investigate what caused the explosion and presenting theories describing why the explosion occurred, some of which are based on empirical evidence, supports the claim that there is no way to investigate what caused the explosion?
rudeness? Come on?!
You understand Raphael, I don't pretend to say that I understand more than I do.
you are
Raphael, let's try again:
I did not ask you if you can prove or disprove but on the basis of what knowledge you claim to invalidate her claim
Do you think that a video depicting people working to investigate what caused the explosion and presenting theories describing why the explosion occurred, some of which are based on empirical evidence, supports the claim that there is no way to investigate what caused the explosion?
But I don't pretend to understand more than I really do. I didn't ask you to explain it to me either. No.
Read carefully what I am asking
I never thought that modesty was a particularly worthy value and neither was arrogance. A much more important value is solidarity.
Rudeness is also worthless. And all your recent comments are disgusting and reek of rudeness.
Shmulik, why are you confusing everyone's brains? Look how much you fight for Marsini's theory that you have no idea about. You don't even know how to ask the right questions. Something in the middle between Tam and not knowing how to ask
Raphael,
Do you have children? The most beautiful things my children build from Lego, Kinks come from imagination. Their most beautiful paintings come from the imagination. I don't understand what's wrong with that?
All the theories from the video you brought invite their refutation. They are grounded in physics and agree with the evidence so far. They are scientific in that sense.
Is it hard for you to understand the difference between a figment of your imagination and an imaginary friend?
Anonymous I'm sorry to inform you that modesty and humility is not the strong point of these lovers.
Raphael,
Not fighting for any theory. This is nonsense of course. I would be happy to have a better theory than relativity/quantum mechanics/evolution, fun. As long as she explains better and gives more accurate prophecies, all the best.
what about you Why is it difficult?
Let's try again:
I did not ask you if you can prove or disprove but on the basis of what knowledge you claim to invalidate her claim
Do you think that a video depicting people working to investigate what caused the explosion and presenting theories describing why the explosion occurred, some of which are based on empirical evidence, supports the claim that there is no way to investigate what caused the explosion?
Raphael, they at least have enough modesty and humility to say "we don't know, and are trying to find out the answers", you, on the other hand, despite zero evidence decided - it's "God".
Learn from miracles He was already convinced that all these theories were a figment of imagination. Miracles right?
Wd maybe you answer the questions I asked Shmulik? You claim that we follow the rabbis with our eyes closed and here you are fighting together for a theory that you have no idea about. Hahahaha... just like a herd of stupid sheep.
By the way, among academics - probably most academics in Israel are people of faith. Because according to a study by the oecd from 2012, almost half of the population in Israel has an academic degree (46%). Since according to the polls about 80% of the public in Israel are believers, it turns out that the majority of academics in Israel are believers. That is, there is a correlation in Israel between faith and higher education. Just the opposite of what Dawkins claims.
Regarding faith versus intelligence. In fact, I think there are more scientists who believe in a higher power than in a natural explanation for the formation of the universe. Or at most there is an equal amount between theistic and atheist scientists. Regarding the general public (including the USA, which is of course considered a superpower), the tendency is clear to believe in a planner.
rival
He is unable to answer you because he has no knowledge period. Don't expect an answer. He simply doesn't have an answer, so he tries to hide it with more talk, evasions and evasions. His only answer is that he believes, and he thinks that is sufficient. He is unable to understand that just because he prefers something to be the way he wants it to be, does not mean that it is really so in reality. Yes, just like a little boy.
His message to the people here is:
I have no knowledge and you are also welcome to be ignorant by going through the brainwashing I went through.
The sad thing is that he can't see any of it, so he probably has no hope of growing up.
Raphael,
Did you get this wrong too? Doesn't it annoy you to be wrong all the time?
Let's try again:
I did not ask you if you can prove or disprove but on the basis of what knowledge you claim to invalidate her claim
Do you think that a video depicting people working to investigate what caused the explosion and presenting theories describing why the explosion occurred, some of which are based on empirical evidence, supports the claim that there is no way to investigate what caused the explosion?
Wrong opponent. I meant Shmulik.
You are a zero opponent.
Wow, this is from 2002, I imagine that since then more studies have been done on the subject (as he himself requests in the lecture to do).
If so, then give the version with the Hebrew translation:
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism?language=he
Miracles,
Richard Dawkins in Ted, describes some studies done on intelligence and faith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoJyONmcGbM
Miracles,
I liked
Raphael
Don't panic - "Zeus" is me...
Zeus,
A large!
Raphael,
what is enough Why are you unable to answer?
I did not ask you if you can prove or disprove but on the basis of what knowledge you claim to invalidate her claim
Do you think that a video depicting people working to investigate what caused the bang, who come up with theories describing why the bang occurred and some of which are based on empirical evidence, supports the claim that there is no way to investigate what caused the bang?
rival
Hmmm... how do we decide? Raphael - When we have two explanations for the phenomenon, how do we know which one is more correct?
Look... I'm quite busy... I also have to take care of the strong and electromagnetic force and gravity... . And also to deal with all kinds of worshipers of God who do not believe in me and my extensive family...
I actually don't agree with you, I think it's the spaghetti monster.
Raphael
The one who makes sure that the weak power is preserved is Zeus.
What's the next question?
Albenzo/Shamulik/Yariv/Zeus - do you agree?
Raphael I don't know and I guess no scientist in the world knows, how do you come to the conclusion that there is a God who controls this?
Shmulik is enough!
Rival Don't Dodge Suppose there was a different universe, but that's not the point. Where does the weak nuclear force get the "power" to continue without a break?
Raphael,
On the contrary, it is easier to copy and paste.
You did not answer the first question:
I did not ask you if you can prove or disprove but on the basis of what knowledge you claim to invalidate her claim
And you think that a video depicting people working to investigate what caused the explosion, who present theories describing why the explosion occurred and some of which are based on empirical evidence, supports the claim that there is no way to investigate what caused the explosion?
Shmulik are you mad at me? You know I'm sensitive, right?
Tell me where you got the patience to copy and paste and ask the same question over and over again?
Like, don't you have anything to do? Are you unemployed or something?
Well, if you've read this far then you deserve an answer.
A. I have a tenth degree in the Faculty of Life Sciences at YOH University
B. supporter
Come on now get off me.
Raphael
We do not deeply understand these forces. Maybe the power weakens over time and will eventually disappear.
who knows?
Rafael, if the laws were different, maybe the weak nuclear force would be stronger or weaker than it is today, then we would have a different universe, who told you that such a universe does not allow life? Is this a guess? Based on research?
Raphael,
Come on,
I did not ask you if you can prove or disprove but on the basis of what knowledge you claim to invalidate her claim. In addition, I also asked whether you think that the YouTube you brought supports the claim that there is no way to investigate what caused the explosion or does not support the claim.
that's it. so simple
Rival, what do you think would happen if the nuclear force were to weaken and stop functioning, and what makes this force "have the power" to continue?
Rafael, is there any point in waiting for your answer?
Raphael
stop lying.
Shmulik will see how Nissim constantly hurts my soul. Tell him to stop.
Raphael,
For example: "I hold a PhD in physics from MT University."
For example: "I am a physicist who works at Intel..."
For example: "I am currently studying for a master's degree. I published articles…”
complicated?
Chutsamza, can't understand your extremism. Are you writing now that I will reach out to my soul, because of words here? Stop being obnoxiously condescending and just answer. Don't worry if I understand or not. Just answer:
I did not ask you if you can prove or disprove but on the basis of what knowledge you claim to invalidate her claim. In addition, I also asked whether you think that the YouTube you brought supports the claim that there is no way to investigate what caused the explosion or does not support the claim.
that's it. so simple
Raphael
You caused them to despise you. Am I surprised by this?
Raphael
what are you lying A theory is an invention, something that pops up in a person's mind. After that, compatibility with reality is checked.
Unlike your stupid invention of God, also a figment of the imagination, which does not correspond to reality at all.
You are so poor…
Shmulik, how do you want me to explain to you on what basis I cancel her claim if you don't understand what her claim is?
And one more thing - do you have a hard time with disrespect? If you were attacked and belittled a tenth of what they do to me here, I'm afraid you might consider giving a hand with your soul 🙂
Raphael,
Do you really not understand the difference between "imagination" and "imaginary theories"?
There is nothing more powerful than imagination! A huge part of my conduct as a father is to ask my children to imagine.
I really feel sorry for those who give up their imagination.
By the way, this reminds me that you did not understand the difference between "faith in God" and "I believe that I have reached the right solution"
Regarding Hawking's words
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html
Raphael,
Look how I'm walking towards you, everyone here has been discussing the creation of the universe for a week and it's not progressing anywhere, I give God credit and am ready to accept that he created the big bang and the properties of matter, but what's next? What convinced you that after he created the big bang he still continued or continues to interfere in the universe and in our personal lives?
Convince me, I'm willing to listen.
albentezo,
Thanks for the previous answer.
Is this new article groundbreaking or is it still too early to understand the implications?
Raphael,
What does it matter what I understand or not. There are other readers who also call it basic etiquette.
Let's try again:
I did not ask you if you can prove or disprove but on the basis of what knowledge you claim to invalidate her claim. In addition, I also asked whether you think that the YouTube you brought supports the claim that there is no way to investigate what caused the explosion or does not support the claim.
that's it. so simple
albentezo,
Right, but I have a hard time with the huge disdain he shows.
Or rather Raphael, what was the thing that most convinced you that he continued to act and initiate and influence after he had already created the big bang and the matter in the universe.
(Let's say he really did this, just for the sake of discussion)
Raphael, according to what I understood from you, the laws of nature are what convinced you that an intelligent person created the universe, and the studies of the Torah and the Gemara convinced you that even after that he continued and still continues to influence what happens here.
Could you give an example or two of things that convinced you about his intervention in our world today?
(Let's assume for now that he really did create the big bang)
Someone read my recommendation for miracles on the previous page how to release the comment.
ALBENZO Maybe you didn't notice or maybe you chose not to answer: that field called inflaton is it inside the universe?
Shmulik why should I explain to you if you don't even know what you are asking?
My response is awaiting confirmation.
Miracles why are you rambling? Are you now denying that you said the theories were imaginary?
Miracles. Black on white:
Leonardo studied bird flight, analyzing it and anticipating many principles of aerodynamics. He did at least understand that "An object offers as much resistance to the air as the air does to the object." [21] Newton would not publish the Third law of motion until 1687.
That is, humans have studied the flight mechanisms of birds since ancient times, in order to apply and learn the mechanics of flight.
Rival, the eyes are not damaged. It is a fact that you can see with them very well and far away. In fact, today's televisions are only beginning to approach the sharpness of the image that the eye can see. And of course, still in two dimensions and not in three dimensions like the real eye. And does not include self-cleaning mechanisms, and other patents in sight.
lol Yes you are right.
okay, well. What does it matter what the man quotes? After all, a normal person with the ability to think sees beyond the quote: he looks at the full words that were said, and understands the ideas that the words represent. Just as all the commenters here saw the BBC video and focused on the great efforts and our rather amazing ability to study the early universe (with empirical predictions and measuring devices, parallel to the theoretical effort) and Raphael failed to see anything beyond the fact that someone said there his personal opinion about type Very particular of theories. Does it matter what Raphael quotes from the movie of the hour..?
Just leave him. All in all, poor man.
Albanzo
From everything you've ever written - Raphael will quote "Pay attention to the questions Raphael asks." They are good questions"…
Received = Encountered.
Shmulik,
1. Yes, it can certainly be said that additional and minimal dimensions are a predication of the theory of dimensions. Depending on how small they are, it may or may not be possible to detect them in accelerator scattering experiments. I don't understand much about the technical aspects of the detectors' capabilities, so I don't want to say how much it is really expected (although the discovery of additional dimensions was definitely one of the goals of the LHC, I'm not sure how realistic the expectation was).
2. I guess Sean Carroll talked about this:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.04087
What do you call such a thing? First of all, remember that this is intended for people who are professionals and are from the field, not for the general public and not even for physicists who are not from this specific field. We are used to reading long things, not necessarily in a day or two. Besides, you usually don't come to an article like this with 0 knowledge. People who read it and are interested in it, have probably heard the ideas it contains before from one of the writers, or are familiar with the ideas from which the ideas in the article were born, and this makes it very easy to read quickly. Besides, when you read articles and books from morning to night you learn to skip, locate the things that are interesting or important to you, and go back to gather all the background needed to assimilate them. I have in the library not one, not two, not three books that I know about mullets, I read them cover to cover - but not from beginning to end in the correct order. Here is a chapter, there is a chapter, here we go back, here we skip. I don't think any of the authors expected us all to sit down and spend a week reading the 450 pages of the article.
3. Pay attention to the questions Raphael asks. They are good questions. Of course, the question arises, if Raphael does not understand at all, "Why does this theory not require preconditions? What are the parallel universes doing here and how did they affect the big bang? Where are the parallel universes? Is it within our universe or within a space of time that includes all universes together? What does she mean when she talks about an early big bang and a late bang?", so why even listen to him when he talks about her?
This is of course true of everything he has ever said. When a man proves to you with all his might, time after time, that he is stupid, lazy, a coward and that he talks about things he does not understand at all - Rabak, just ignore him. The limit of "making any innocent reader who happens to be in this discussion understand that it is forbidden to listen to Raphael and his ilk" has long been passed. Now it's just baiting trolls.
Raphael,
Do not want.
I did not ask you if you can prove or disprove but on the basis of what knowledge you claim to invalidate her claim. In addition, I also asked whether you think that the YouTube you brought supports the claim that there is no way to investigate what caused the explosion or does not support the claim.
that's it. so simple
Raphael
Shmulik doesn't have to answer me. I don't have a great understanding of physics, but experience has proven to me that, in general, physicists, as well as other scientists, are learned and wise people, who speak the truth.
The discussion with you and other believers here has taught me that many religious people are neither learned nor honest.
Your poor attempts at gossip only reinforce my feeling. Every time you don't like the question, you do one of the following:
Happens to a stupid questioner
Does not answer "for the reasons reserved with me"
derisive
Quoting parts of sentences that you do not understand at all
"I'm busy calling Albanzo a fool and a liar"
Raphael - Maybe one day you will answer a question honestly?
albentezo,
Can it actually be said that one of the perditions of string theory is these extra dimensions?
Any ideas within the current technology to locate them? I read Hawking's speech talking about a particle accelerator the size of the Milky Way to try to prove the M Theory
is that so?
Another annoying question:
Shane Carroll's Facebook described an article, the size of a book that Ed Wheaton together with two other authors released for Arvix, very recently, which also includes a 45-page summary article. How do you approach reading something like this? After all, you have to be critical on every page, don't you?
Shmulik, in order for Nisim to be able to answer you, maybe you should explain to him first in your own words what you understood about the theory proposed by Messini? Why does this theory not require preconditions? What are the parallel universes doing here and how did they affect the big bang? Where are the parallel universes? Is it within our universe or within a space of time that includes all universes together? What does she mean when she talks about a pre-big bang and a late bang?
Raphael,
I really can not understand what is difficult to answer a direct answer?
Reporter:
"Yariv will content himself for the moment with the fact that from a scientific point of view there is no priority to any scientific explanation of how the world was created than to the assumption that it was created by the Creator"
You also wrote that there is no way to investigate what caused the big bang.
But, in the video you brought yourself, because you thought it would help your arguments, Prof. Messini proposed a theory supported by undisclosed evidence that allows a glimpse of what created the world. Minute 48, remember? Remember also that it was said that her solution does not play with parameters outside the model but that everything stems from her assumptions?
Do you agree that this completely contradicts your claim?
If you disagree with her, based on what knowledge, can you dismiss her claim?
What is difficult to answer?
Miracles, there is a problem with the filtering mechanism here, they probably made changes to it, I encountered it too. The solution - go to the remote article here in the science and try to send your message piece by piece, until you find out which part of the message causes the block and change it so that it sends.
The blocking mechanism looks for certain words (which can be part of an innocent word or a combination of two separate words) and if it finds it, it blocks the message.
Try it and tell me if it works.
Why are comments blocked?
Raphael
I will explain again, but the explanation is for the intelligent reader, the one who is ready to listen:
In orderly science, we look at the world, "imagine" explanations and think about how to test the explanation. Every good explanation predicts something, in addition to the fact that it describes a void from the world, and the way to test the explanation is to test the predictions.
That's what was said in the movie, and that's what Albenzo, Yariv, Shmulik, wd and I tell you all the time.
Raphael, in science it is allowed to "invent" an explanation regardless of observations, and science does not always work in an orderly manner (read Paul Pirband for example). But - even such an explanation should match all the observations. And of course - he should give predictions that can be tested. The explanation of an intelligent creator is like this (a figment of the imagination, regardless of observations) but, this explanation does not give any prediction!!!
Did you understand that, Baruch?
Rafael, what can you show me in a private lesson that you can't show here and now? what are you afraid of
I would be happy if you would give one or two examples of things you learned that convinced you so much about the existence of a Creator. Teach me, I really want to know.
Miracles, why should I answer Shmulik? You answer him, after all you also said that all theories about the creation of the universe are a figment of imagination. But if you need help then tell me.
From the birds we mainly got the inspiration regarding the ability to fly, but the connection between the flapping wings of birds with feathers and the wings of a modern airplane is quite loose.
Our eyes are flawed, take it human.
someone
What is the connection between da Vinci's wings and a modern wing? Do you even know what an ultrasonic profile looks like?
The first wing to be built is probably the boomerang - do you think there is a connection between the flight of a boomerang and the flight of a bird? Hint: the answer is no.
Please - enough with the nonsense.
Raphael
I would love to read your answer to Shmulik.
Raphael, why is the video you brought so dark? Really depressing to see him
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os6ieSdbyZ8)
Maybe it's the darkness of religion.
I made a bookmark now in a few months I will be able to just copy paste
How many of you google chrome programmers (that's what they say?)
Raphael
Did you check in the dictionary what integrity is? Maybe you should actually ask the rabbi? actually... leave...
Raphael El El El, before you leave Zev Zev (Snout)
What is difficult to answer directly?
Reporter:
"Yariv will content himself for the moment with the fact that from a scientific point of view there is no priority to any scientific explanation of how the world was created than to the assumption that it was created by the Creator"
But, in the video you brought, Prof. Messini proposed a theory supported by undisclosed evidence that allows a glimpse of what created the world. Minute 48, remember? Remember also that it was said that her solution does not play with parameters outside the model but that everything stems from her assumptions?
Do you agree that this completely contradicts your claim?
If you disagree with her, based on what knowledge, can you dismiss her claim?
What is difficult to answer?
Raphael
Does this mean that in the next discussion I can remind you of all this and you won't act as if you haven't been told this already like you did this time?
Except that I don't understand what you think I said that I never dreamed of saying (unless you mean it literally, because I really don't get to talk in my dreams), considering that from my first response to the last I tell you the same thing and try to explain to you the The same things, so I must point out that it sounds like: 'Oh oh oh they exposed all my lies and nonsense for what they are, and it turns out that I'm completely wrong, and I have no other way out than to imagine that it was all a bad dream and that in fact something completely different and wonderful happened here as if I live in a Disney movie (doesn't count Marvel). Now how do I escape this "great success" exactly?'
Friends, I really enjoy reading your last comments, it gives me an indication that, God willing, I was able to get out of you what you never dreamed of saying. Of course I will mention it and will also mention it in the following discussions. chow
Raphael
"From a scientific point of view, there is no priority to any scientific explanation of how the world was created than to the assumption that it was created by the Creator"
You really don't understand. From a scientific point of view, any scientific explanation will always have priority over the assumption that it was created by a creator. The reason for this is that the options for the description of how the world was created will always be:
1) An option that will include only what the scientific explanation includes.
2) An option that would include what the scientific explanation includes and in addition the assumption of the creator.
And do thanks to your familiarity with this thing - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor – It is clear why you are wrong here.
"Yes, we do not give the possibility that the world was created by the Creator."
I assume you meant that the possibility that the world was created by a creator cannot be ruled out. I have already explained (as well as others) that it is not possible to rule out the possibility that there is something that you have not defined in any way. It just doesn't mean anything.
Your sentence is in fact the possibility that there is something that I have not defined cannot be ruled out.
It is clear how you can disqualify something that has not been defined in any way, how can you test something if its definition is that it is something for which nothing can be tested. It just doesn't mean anything.
"As far as I'm concerned, there is certainly a clear and absolute priority for the explanation that the world was created by the Creator, but I will not go into it here since it involves religious belief and this website is not intended for that."
who cares. so you prefer There is no connection between what you prefer and reality. My children prefer the world to consist of sweets and that eating them without a break will not cause them any health problems. Does it help them in any way? Does it change anything about the truth in the real world?
I'd rather be able to just teleport from place to place and never die while my body maintains its state from age 28 without having to eat or breathe. The world does not behave according to how we prefer things. you are not a child Grow up already.
Raphael El El El
What is difficult to answer is a direct answer, not through miracles.
Reporter:
"Yariv will content himself for the moment with the fact that from a scientific point of view there is no priority to any scientific explanation of how the world was created than to the assumption that it was created by the Creator"
But, in the video you brought, Prof. Messini proposed a theory supported by undisclosed evidence that allows a glimpse of what created the world. Minute 48, remember? Remember also that it was said that her solution does not play with parameters outside the model but that everything stems from her assumptions?
Do you agree that this completely contradicts your claim?
If you disagree with her, based on what knowledge, can you dismiss her claim?
What is difficult to answer?
I believe that there is a purpose and an end to an act in the first thought.
Call it whatever you want
Oh, and thanks…
Raphael
Let's summarize your words clearly. I have knowledge that you do not have. I am not able to explain this knowledge to you in any way (or in other words I actually have no knowledge). In order for you too to have this knowledge, you must go through the same brainwashing that I went through and then you too will have this knowledge.
Or in one sentence:
I have no knowledge and you are also welcome to be ignorant by going through the brainwashing I went through.
Raphael
I mean - you read some book that is full of lies, nonsense and scumbags, and you decided that it was true.
Albanzo researched and studied and "imagined" explanations and tested them, and you decided he was an idiot.
Understand Raphael, you are comparing yourself to the scientists who put a man on the moon, cracked the genetic code, discovered the secrets of evolution and continental drift, tripled (!!!) life expectancy, and today are discovering things about the universe that surpass all imagination.
I asked you simple questions, none of which you answered. You just mocked and belittled.
And I bet you have no idea what I'm talking about. Besides spreading filth about science - what else did you contribute to "Yaden"? What else did you contribute anyway?
Dory
And what about the force of a comet that collides with the earth? How many times more powerful than any hydrogen bomb and very visible...
Is man the cause of earthquakes? What about earthquakes on the moon? Also the work of man?
Leave - when I read "You will teach us how to ascend to additional dimensions in our inner correction." I realized there was no one to talk to.
Bye
Thanks for your answer
Albenzo and Shmulik, for your information Nissim also thinks that all theories about the creation of the universe are a figment of imagination and unfortunately he does not believe in a Creator
Miracles Now to your question why I don't think that the reality of the Creator is not a figment of imagination - I came to this conclusion while studying Torah in combination with observing nature. For me, this topic is an absolute reality, but I can understand that those who have not studied Torah for him can consider it as imagination. And when I say learning Torah, I mean all four parts of it - a simple hint, a sermon, and a secret.
All the best
Wow, Dori, what a scroll full of nonsense you wrote, congratulations.
Say do you believe in God?
Miracles,
The more hidden a force is, the more powerful it is
This sentence is meaningless. It is not based on anything. There is no concept of "power" when comparing forces of different types. There is also no basis for this argument - after all, we have no experience with "hidden power". - Of course it is, for example I see a huge elephant exerting force X, compared to the invisible force found in an atomic or hydrogen bomb.
2. Everything we see in the world and treat as causal is a result because thoughts and desires are the antecedents of every action.
Not true - an earthquake is the result of the movement of tectonic plates and there is no meaning here for thoughts or desires. - is that so??? And what caused that shift of tectonic plates, and what caused what caused it... and the more we go back to the source and the root of the result, the more we understand that there is another parameter here. What is that parameter? The person/the person/the person/the person (we'll check this answer in 10 years....)
3. The object of the investigation will go from investigating external things to investigating the person, his abilities and the possibility of upgrading him
A meaningless sentence. How do you know what will happen??? - You are right, the future will reveal who is right
4. Nothing is random, so is the negative attitude of the world towards us (only that today we lack knowledge of what is driving the attitude)
That is not true at all. There are random physical phenomena, such as radioactive decay. - The fact that you did not find the source of those phenomena does not invalidate your hypothesis. Development shows that occurrences for which we could not give a reason and were considered "miracles" today turn out to be laws.
5. Just as behind a knitted picture are hidden the hidden ties that hold it together, so every object has properties that make it up but are unperceivable by the 5 senses with which we were born.
A meaningless sentence. Speaking of which, we have a lot more than 5 senses. In any case - what is it based on? Without substantiation - it's just a jumble of words. - It's true that we have more than 5 senses, but that's not what I'm talking about. Am I basing something? Yes, about changing the inside of the person that affects his world view. Who discovered it? The person performing the experiment on himself. Why is it even more objective than an experiment done with the scientific tools we know? Because if I have obtained an instrument of inquiry independent of my ego, I am nearer to the root from which dangle the results and items of what I call this world. (Yes...complicated....complex...and I didn't think anyone would identify with it)
6. We experience our life in only one "mode" which is to want to accept everything for our own good, this is how our desire works, it is not bad or good but accordingly our level of perception is also calibrated. If we were able to change the will, our perception system would change.
Two meaningless sentences. Since when is "for our benefit" related to the matter we are talking about?
- Nissim I understand a million percent your claim which is true and right from your point of view, but I will argue again: that there is a connection that we have not yet been exposed to between the form/structure in which our electrons/separates are arranged which is the result of my intention, and my ability to perceive my world.
Miracles, I'm really not trying to fight, I really don't think that now anyone will understand me or accept what I wrote.
I don't need to get feedback on what I posted
I'm just saying one thing. We will wait a few years and see where the science is headed.
Science is limited by its own touchstones for a scientific experiment - which is right and true.
At the same time, we will have to arrive at a method that will still remain under scientific scrutiny but will also teach us how to ascend to additional dimensions in our internal correction.
What will we find out? rules. Yes, additional laws that will be related to the relationship of man to the surrounding nature.
As I said - a collection of meaningless sentences at best, and wrong at worst.
June 23rd, 2015
Miracles, you are wrong. The first wings were designed based on the existing design in birds:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aviation
Leonardo studied bird flight, analyzing it and anticipating many principles of aerodynamics. He did at least understand that "An object offers as much resistance to the air as the air does to the object." [21] Newton would not publish the Third law of motion until 1687.
"Most of the systems in nature are much more sophisticated and optimal than systems designed by human engineering" - nonsense.
It's not bullshit at all, it's a fact. I gave you an excellent example from a humanoid robot. There is no robot in the world that can come close to what a human can do. Certainly not to do more complex things like playing against Barcelona. You claim that there are machines stronger than us. Right. But again, it's about limitations like a Ferrari has (you can argue the same weight why we don't have wings and radio reception in our ears). This has nothing to do with poor or inferior design.
"The whole field of biomimicry tries to imitate the wonders of nature," - are you kidding??? The meaning of the word "biomimicry" is "imitation of the animal". Come on, don't be ridiculous."-
Well, what exactly did I write? Science tries to imitate nature because it knows that nature is full of great inventions.
יוני
The ancient Greeks also talked about evolution. Anassimander wrote about it 2500 years ago. This is in complete contradiction to what is written in the Torah - where it is written that the species were created as they are.
"Starting from nothing" - the beginning of life is not related to evolution at all, except for creationists who lack understanding (or integrity).
Regarding the direction of evolution - it is easy to show that randomness is better than any possible direction. Easy to explain, easy to demonstrate, and you can also see it happen with your eyes.
It is not clear to me what you meant by "all the laws". Today we know how to build a synthetic living cell, so what is stored here?
June, there are indeed creationists who accept the theory of evolution (Rabbi Kook for example) but they are a minority of the minority.
Most believers insist that we were created as we are in our present form.
Creationists do not rule out evolution - look at Ramchal's sane opinion - who writes that all creation is created from one another in the form of development - just as evolution says - and even before Darwin
The whole debate is whether it is completely accidental and could have started from nothing or there is a planner because in every part of creation all the laws are stored, like for example in humans the embryonic cells can differentiate into any type of cell so in all of creation there is the entire creation and they differentiated (split differently) - in an evolutionary way but they They came from one source exactly as Ramchal describes
Thanks elbentzo, is string theory considered a real scientific theory? That is, does it have predictions that can theoretically be checked with the help of appropriate equipment and measurements?
rival,
The answer is that they are more or less free. That is to say, some of them are angles (for example) and are therefore defined between 0 and pi, some of them are defined positively, but in principle they are independent of each other and can have any value in the domain (they are continuous, so even if the domain is small, it is a large amount of possibilities ).
You can look at it from a statistical point of view, and some people do, but it is important to understand that it is not mandatory. The parameters are not random variables. They are not random or drawn. Simply, the standard model is not one theory, but many, many parallel theories, in each of which the particles have slightly different masses, etc. We choose the one that best describes our world, and wow, how well it describes the world.
There are those who will say that in fact all possibilities occur in the multiverse, and it is indeed a matter of statistics. I'm not that involved in these areas of research, and I don't necessarily think about things that way. But who knows, maybe it's true.
Shmulik,
The number of dimensions in string theory is a mathematical consistency requirement. But two things need to be understood: a) The high number of dimensions is one of the factors responsible for the fact that in string theory gravity is described in a quantum way without contradictions, in contrast to field theory.
b) Dimensions in string theory are not necessarily dimensions as we count - length, width, depth, etc. This is because in string theory there is a special mechanism through which a dimension can be compact. This means that it is not infinite, but very very very curved in on itself and very very very small. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the fact that string theory has 10 dimensions and that we see 4 in our world. If string theory predicted a number of dimensions smaller than 4, we would be in trouble. But any number greater than 4 is fine because of the compactification.
rival,
Sorry I wasn't clear:
I meant the number of dimensions of string theory.
I would appreciate an answer to the question I asked regarding the practical level of freedom of the above parameters.
Like a protein that can only fold into a limited number of states, can the parameters also, due to various constraints, be fixed only on a limited number of states? (For example, if one affects the other, then if it moves, other parameters must also adapt to it)
That is, what does the density function of the entire possibility space look like? Is it uniform or not?
Can the 18 parameters have any random value?
Shmulik maybe I misunderstood you, elbentzo talked about 18 free parameters and I thought that was what you were asking.
Do you refer to these 18 parameters as 18 dimensions?
(because as far as I know there are only 4 dimensions in our world: length, width, depth and time)
The parameter value is derived from observations, if possible
rival,
No. I guess there is never a justification for the amount from the theory. The parameters themselves are not derived from the theory. If there is only one parameter, I was interested in how the number of dimensions was derived.
Can their number be considered an exaggeration?
Shmulik, you meant to say "justification for the number of parameters", didn't you?
Is there a physical "justification" for the amount of dimensions or was the amount shaped according to the minimum required so that mathematics would work?
someone
Mutations in such an important system - wouldn't it be worthwhile to design a less sensitive mechanism??
someone
Answer me honestly - is improving our ability to see in the dark (say by 10%) good for us or not?
someone
"So contrary to what evolutionists have claimed for years, the retina is superbly constructed. ” – I explained to you that this is not true.
"If this is so, then they are not qualified to determine what poor planning is" - I don't understand, you choose one sentence from a scientific article that you don't understand to contradict everything that science says?
"Most of the systems in nature are far more sophisticated and optimal than systems designed by human engineering" - nonsense. Cameras see better than us - by an order of magnitude!!!. Machines stronger than us by an order of magnitude. Microphones hear better. Sensors already smell better. Even modern designs are sometimes carried out by a computer and not by humans.
An airplane wing is not at all based on a bird's wing - don't talk about things you have no understanding of - you're starting to sound like Raphael 🙂
"The whole field of biomimicry tries to imitate the wonders of nature," - are you kidding??? The meaning of the word "biomimicry" is "imitation of the animal". Come on, don't be ridiculous.
Evolution has been going on for three and a half billion years (or do you deny that too?) - the products of evolution are wonderful and very adapted to their environment. Even in engineering we use evolution to develop new things, including things we never thought of.
Leave the example of the Ferrari - it only shows that you did not understand what I explained.
Rival, this is because there are mutations that cause damage to genes related to vision. Again: just like a Ferrari car might have a flat tire. This in no way proves that it was not designed.
The parameter is called alpha-prime (the letter alpha with a comma next to it, like the one you put next to phon' to indicate a derivative) and it represents the tension of the string.
Anyone, so why do so many people need glasses and vision correction?
And the obvious question: What is the only parameter in string theory?
Miracles, so contrary to what evolutionists have claimed for years, the retina is superbly constructed. And if this is so, then they are not authorized to determine what constitutes poor planning. Now regarding the rest of your claims - most of the systems in nature are much more sophisticated and optimal than systems designed by human engineering. This is easy to understand when comparing two similar objects. A humanoid robot for example, is much inferior to the human himself. There is currently no technology capable of creating a robot capable of making a cup of coffee, asking for how much sugar, carrying the coffee up the stairs or in the elevator, or even just playing soccer against a mediocre team. In fact, the entire aviation industry, for example, is based on the design of the bird's wing. The entire field of biomimicry tries to imitate the wonders of nature, since man knows that planning in nature is much more sophisticated than his own engineering in general.
More than that, as mentioned, even a Ferrari car can get a flat tire because of a nail. This does not indicate poor planning.
someone
I can publish an article where I will write that having both of our legs the same length is optimal. Are you saying this is evidence of an intelligent designer?
elbentzo Thanks, and I especially liked the last paragraph.
Follow-up question, you say that there are 18 "free" parameters, but could it be that for one reason or another some of them actually have a very small possible range of movement and in fact they will always be set more or less at the same value? Or can each parameter practically be in the range of plus or minus infinity?
(I'm trying to understand what the actual degree of freedom is in practice, not just in theory, similar to the number of possible combinations in actual protein folding after it is created)
rival,
Today we have a theory called the "standard model of particles". This model predicts all the behaviors of matter, except gravitation. In this model there are 18 free parameters that the theory does not predict. What you do is go to the lab, measure these 18 numbers, and put them in the formulas. Given this placement, an accuracy of 10 digits after the decimal point (ie, an accuracy of 0.00000001 percent) is reached in predictions of scattering and interaction processes.
That is, the model we have today is accurate in a way that is hard to imagine, but it contains many free parameters. This is actually one of the reasons we are looking for a new, even better model. For example, in string theory there is only one parameter, and all the rest are determined by it. There is no freedom of choice or "adjustment" in it. The problem with it is, of course, that given the measuring devices we have today, it is difficult to verify it.
Note that changing one (or two, or all) of the 18 parameters would not mean that matter cannot exist or that the universe is collapsing or anything like that. He would simply have produced a different theory, in which the forces have a different intensity, the particles have a different mass, etc. That is, a world that is not the same as our world, but has the same fundamental laws.
Miracles, nice answer about the eye, nice.
Raphael
I am ready to say, for the millionth time, that all theories for the formation of the universe, if indeed the universe was formed, including that there was an "intelligent planner" at the time, are the product of imagination.
Can we move forward please?
someone
I'll say it again - the retina is defective in many ways. In the narrow sense of that article, the distribution of visual cells on the retina is "optimal", according to the constraints of the eye's structure. In total, we are talking about one facet - the geometric distribution of the cells.
The human eye is far from being the "best" eye in nature, so it is necessarily not the best possible design.
Regarding what you are trying to show - you must show that all body systems are optimal, and it is not enough to pull one line from one article about a small part of one system, of one species out of tens of millions of species.
And I also do not accept this sentence you quoted as a Sinaitic Torah... and I explained why.
Raphael,
Have you stopped beating your wife or husband?
Reporter:
"Yariv will content himself for the moment with the fact that from a scientific point of view there is no priority to any scientific explanation of how the world was created than to the assumption that it was created by the Creator"
But in the video you brought, Prof. Messini proposed a theory supported by undisclosed evidence that allows a glimpse of what created the world. Minute 48, remember? Remember also that it was said that her solution does not play with parameters outside the model but that everything stems from her assumptions?
Surely there is a priority for the scientific explanation. He doesn't need your imaginary friend.
If you disagree with her, based on what knowledge, can you dismiss her claim?
What is difficult to answer?
A question for those in the know -
According to what is known to science, how many basic parameters exist and determine the substance's essence (gravity, electric forces, attraction, repulsion...) that is, how many parameters had to be tuned to exactly the right value in order for the material to exist with all its properties?
Shmulik you are just scratchy. Is there a situation where you stopped taking the pills?
Rival, I also think that everyone should study this subject, but not on the science website. This subject is studied in the beit midrash.
Raphael wrote:
"Yariv will content himself for the moment with the fact that from a scientific point of view there is no priority to any scientific explanation of how the world was created than to the assumption that it was created by the Creator"
But in the video you brought, Prof. Messini proposed a theory supported by undisclosed evidence that allows a glimpse of what created the world. Minute 48, remember? Remember also that it was said that her solution does not play with parameters outside the model but that everything stems from her assumptions?
Surely there is a priority for the scientific explanation. He doesn't need your imaginary friend.
If you disagree with her, based on what knowledge, can you dismiss her claim?
I think everyone should learn, why only me.
Raphael El El El
you are awesome. Do you not understand the difference between faith in God and faith that you have reached the right solution?
Raphael,
you are awesome.
We will try again
You wrote that you want to help the youth to hear another opinion, namely yours, the one that claims that it is impossible to investigate what caused the explosion.
In the video, at minute 48, Prof. Marsini does she know what was before the bang (the only time there was dialogue in the video, if I'm not mistaken, and it was very surprising). She answers yes, she believes in it.
In your opinion, her answer agrees with your claim that it is impossible to investigate what caused the explosion?
If you disagree with her, based on what knowledge, can you dismiss her claim?
Yariv, if you really want to know, then I am ready to meet with you and study the subject with you. But not here.
If so, I think we should focus the discussion on the issue of legality that exists in the universe.
(oops, I saw your reply after I sent)
You claim that you have a better explanation than the one offered by science regarding the universe and the world, I am trying to understand in depth what your assumption is based on and what makes you think that this is really the true explanation.
Yariv, as far as I am concerned, the discussion deals with the question of whether there is a priority for some theory or scientific explanation for the creation of the world over the fact that the world was created by the Creator. Nevertheless, I will repeat what I have already said - for me, the very fact that the world and everything in it is governed by unquestionable legality indicates that there is a legislator who upholds this legality. Imagine what would have happened if one of the laws had changed even slightly.
Because that's what this whole discussion is about.
Rival, I have discussed this a lot in a previous discussion and besides, everything I say on this topic will not be accepted by you, so why get into it again?
Raphael,
Let's assume for a moment that God really created the universe (or the big bang) what evidence do you have that from that event until today he interferes (or has interfered) in some way in what happens in our world or in the universe?
Prosper Martini believes she knows what was before the Big Bang. Did you live?! What are beliefs or science here??
Shmulik you came out of a cucumber. You will learn - Sig for the wisdom of silence!
*And the possibility cannot be ruled out...
Raphael El El El
what is going on with you?
Not only can I not (in theory or practice) contradict or prove, neither can he at this point. But he, unlike me, will be able to find the relevant data. why? Because he is a world-renowned physicist and this is his field of activity, and he is good at it.
No one would talk to him or allocate money to him, if he proposed a theory that could never be disproved or confirmed, even in theory. That is, his theories have some hold on reality and therefore since it can be refuted it is therefore necessarily less imaginary than God.
There is a story that I don't remember all the details of an Israeli invention (if I'm not mistaken) that was submitted as a patent to the European Union but was rejected on the pretext that they don't accept inventions that contradict the second law....
I, unlike you, have never claimed to be more than I am. I'm not a physicist and I don't make assertions that I can't stand behind. I enjoy reading about physics and science, asking questions and happily, there are watches. I try to learn from the answers. You, on the other hand, spout assertions that have no basis in reality and you have never backed up any of your claims with evidence. You are also unwilling to admit that you have failed, even though it is so obvious that you have. Rabek, you gave a link to a video whose name is the opposite of your claim.
We will try again
You wrote that you want to help the youth to hear another opinion, namely yours, the one that claims that it is impossible to investigate what caused the explosion.
Is the segment in the video, at minute 48, where Prof. Marsini does she know what happened before the explosion (the only time there was dialogue in the video, if I'm not mistaken, and it was very surprising) and she answers yes, she believes that, in your opinion, supports your claim that it is impossible to investigate what caused the explosion?
If you disagree with her, based on what knowledge, can you dismiss her claim?
Yariv will content himself for now with the fact that from a scientific point of view there is no priority to any scientific explanation of how the world was created than to the assumption that it was created by the Creator and also that we do not give the possibility that the world was created by the Creator.
For me, there is certainly a clear and absolute priority for the explanation that the world was created by the Creator, but I will not go into it here because it involves religious belief and this website is not intended for that.
Raphael,
Let's assume for a moment that the universe has always existed, or was created in some way that we will never understand.
How is your theory about an almighty God who somehow exists without a creator superior?
I would like to understand this point.
My dear Nissim I came back to you. As I said, I will not answer you until you answer me clearly and completely. Possible explanations can be given in abundance but this does not make them scientific theories and therefore they are in the nature of imaginations. I repeat the question, do you agree that all the theories about what happened before the creation of the universe are imaginations or not?
*Repeats *Confirmed
Shmulik I lack on the question: Can you explain how Turok's theory is contradicted or impoverished?
Doesn't come from the field of physics, but, as far as I understand, if you reach a universe with an energy level that is close to 0 (a heat death universe) then changes in the Planck level will affect the dead universe on a macroscopic level, an unpredictable effect (for example: creating a big bang, tunneling singularities and other phenomena interesting).
In my opinion, the death of the universe in a big rip or a big crunch can create a similar ending because even then, the universe is "forced" to be under the influence of Planck-sized phenomena.
Albanzo that field called inflaton is it inside the universe?
albentezo,
Gave me enough ideas to keep sniffing around more on the wiki.
Thanks
Shmulik,
This is not a vacuum! The idea of a universe as a fluctuation of the vacuum is completely different from what Penrose proposes. I am not a great expert on his ideas, and must admit that although I have been present several times when he has spoken about them and have read an article or two, I do not claim to know the work through and through. I don't want to mislead anyone, but to my understanding Penrose does not pretend to give a causal explanation for the explosion (or explosions) in his model. That is, there is no phenomenology. It only shows that it is possible to build a periodic model of large compensators, which is mathematically and gravitationally consistent. To understand in such a model what causes the bang (that is, the appearance of a new scale after a scaleless phase in the universe) one needs to better understand the model. It should be related to a spontaneous breaking of the conformal symmetry (the scale-free symmetry, if you will), but again - I don't want to explain to you things in which I am not an expert.
albentezo,
Indeed this is what I understood. I was really, really enthusiastic about the description that when only photons remain, scales have no meaning.
I still don't understand why there would be a bang. Is such a situation unstable?
I extrapolate from another lecture by Lawrence Krauss where he describes that a vacuum is not a stable state and virtual particles begin to appear and disappear in a very short time but occasionally a particle can "remain in reality". Are only photons a vacuum and is the instability I described, the engine of the future bang, Eliba de Penrose?
I am convinced that the mess I just wrote, created a bang somehow
Thanks for the explanation
Shmulik,
In two words. First of all, you need to understand that a "big bang" is not an explosion, but an expansion of the universe from a singular point. In fact, the expansion is from "almost a singular point". We can't really go back that far because the theory of gravity we have today is not accurate enough. That's why there are many opinions about what happens when you get past the last point where GR is still accurate (and that's what the video in the first few minutes is about. Some believe that we reach a singularity, a real big bang, some believe that the universe is actually expanding and contracting, etc.).
What happens when only photons remain is a conformal picture of the universe. What it means? It's like I will now give you a photograph taken in the depths of the sea. If there is a seahorse or a fish in the picture, you can estimate the size of the photographed area. But if I give you a picture that only has water in it, you will have no idea if you are looking at a picture of a cubic centimeter of water or half of the Atlantic Ocean. When the universe cools down enough and only photons remain, there will no longer be such scales that determine what is big and what is small. From our point of view the universe will grow and grow and grow and be huge, but when there are only photons it can just as well be said to be nothing. Mathematically, this image can be pasted into the next universe, from whose point of view the conformal image is tiny.
It's a heuristic explanation with a lot of words. There is a place, of course, for mathematics. If you want, we will expand.
And another correction 🙁
Why does a bang occur after only photons remain...
On, on the topic…
I don't know what she calls me
Raphael and his fans, I'm trying to understand again -
In what way is the theory according to which a god with amazing abilities was created by himself without a creator, superior to a universe that was created without a creator?
albentezo,
I have a question about what Penrose said in the video.
What he said sounded so clear and beautiful, clear that is, until I went to the Wiki entry and then I didn't understand anything (probably)
Is there anything you can tell laymen about the subject?
Mainly I didn't understand, also from his words, why a bang remains after only photons remain.
By the way, when I say nice, I mean that the idea sounds good from DB and I can see such an episode in Futurama or maybe solder Penrose's solution to Asimov's short story "The Last Question"
Below is the link to the wiki
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology
Raphael,
You wrote that you want to help the youth to hear another opinion, namely yours, the one that claims that it is impossible to investigate what caused the explosion.
Is the segment in the video, at minute 48, where Prof. Marsini, does she know what happened before the bang (the only time there was dialogue in the video, if I'm not mistaken, and it was very surprising) and she answers yes, she believes that, in your opinion, supports what you want to instill in the youth?
Based on what knowledge, can you dismiss her claim?
Tell me - don't you see that the barrier has fallen? What do you even refer to an idiot?
Pazar
typo - look it up
But congratulations that you were able to understand anyway, a great success for you considering the understanding abilities you have demonstrated in the past.
What does R. Pa want from us?
The serious scientists that Raphael brought to his defense claim exactly the exact opposite of what Raphael wrote.
I don't remember ever seeing anything like this: a party in an argument brings as evidence a bunch of world-renowned scientists (Penrose, Smolin...) who claim the exact opposite of him and then continues to defend his opinion, even though his knowledge in the field is zero. delusional
Miracles, just to make sure, you do understand that "someone" is a mathematical language/biology... right?
"Intellectual".
And not - "intellectually"...
okay, well…
have a good night And don't come to me in a dream 🙂
Pazar
I don't disturb anything. Your and Rafael's intellectual suicide is already a done deal. All your chatter right now amounts to the stench that rises from a dead body when the rot takes hold of it.
Walkie-Talkie
Are you ready not to disturb? People are trying to have a discussion here.
And in general, how is it that you keep jumping here with such perfect timing - like Marmite predicting the coming of spring - after every comment. You do it really fast.
Pazar
Pointing out a person's lies is not attacking them personally, but I don't really expect you to understand that.
The title of the article is funny.
"What is God doing in science class?"
- teaches you a lesson..
I actually came to the conclusion that the saddest thing about Raphael is that he knows even less about his God than he knows about physics and all the things he talks about here, which is very little because it's hard to imagine how you can know about anything less than nothing.
By the way, Raphael, you can easily bet with Albenzo about that inflaton he was talking about. You can bet with him that it will be replaced by another theory (which in turn will be replaced by an even more different theory. Yes and so on and so forth until Allah in the Highness). Simply because of the simple fact that all scientists who understand the matter claim today: what happened before the bang can never be examined and known because if something preceded the bang then it contradicts all the laws of nature known to us. By definition. Therefore it will not be possible for a human being to discover the laws - if they exist at all - that preceded the explosion.
And of course, continued success.
Raphael
They lose their temper and therefore they attack you personally. You present them with dilemmas that they don't know how to deal with, so they start attacking you instead of trying to find a solution to the dilemma. They cannot find a simple solution due to the fact that they are not competent enough like the serious scientists. And from here their inflated ego begins - like a balloon - to let out (hot) air and shrink...
Kudos to you for standing firm in the righteousness of your words.
Shmulik
What goes through Raphael's mind is a tremendous panic. He just turned out to be a jerk. He realizes that he dug himself a hole, fell into the mud, and now he doesn't know how to get out of it.
This movie really brought him out. He tries to use science to fight science, and doesn't realize how ridiculous it is.
Raphael
Stop humiliating yourself. Answer my simple question, and then, maybe, you will come out a man…..
Raphael,
I, unlike you, am not a coward. And I don't really care what people think of me. Not you, and not anyone else here on the site. That's why I actually allow myself to leave and go. Because talking to you (pay attention - to you, and not with you, because you make the same contribution to the conversation as an inanimate object, or a very stupid animal like an insect) is simply a nightmare. And I don't gain anything from it.
I'll leave you with an answer, so you have something to ignore. The theory of eternal inflation presented by Linda is based on the existence of a field that pushes the universe outwards (inflaton, for that matter). The inflaton leaves a fingerprint in the cosmic background radiation. You understand (I mean, you don't, but let's imagine that you do), the reason that the cosmic background radiation is more or less uniform is because of the expansion of the universe that "stretched" a very concentrated area over a very large area, that is, averaged the radiation. But of course this is not exact, the inflaton has dynamics and it has interactions, and it has quantum uncertainty. It is therefore possible to predict what non-uniform patterns will remain in the cosmic background radiation as a result. So you can take a measuring device - like the many that already exist today (for example, WMAP or the Planck satellite) and the many that are planned for the future, and accurately measure the cosmic background radiation. If the patterns found in the radiation do not match those of the Pleton which corresponds to eternal inflation, then the theory has been disproved.
Now read it 3 times and you'll realize that I've already written it before, and you're just very stupid and therefore you don't understand.
I didn't underestimate the movie but you.
For a long time I have been asking you to explain where your knowledge comes from that allows you to decide that God is no less imaginary than physical theories. Sorry, you ran to look for a YouTube clip that will help you. so what did you do You brought the clip that could be most damaging to your argument and instead of admitting that you may have been wrong, as it is possible to investigate, you continue to insist strangely that you are right. You're asking me to prove some theory as if it's an ace for you but that wasn't the point. The point is whether it is possible to investigate what preceded the bang and you have demonstrated that it is possible! On one theory from the clip it is claimed that there is empirical evidence!
Listen, what's going through your mind???
Thanks for being wrong
ALBENZO I considered whether to stop talking to a wretched demagogue like you but then I was afraid it would be interpreted as if I bowed to a wretched creature like you. So instead of rambling too much, please choose *one* of the theories described in this video (of your choice) regarding what preceded the beginning of our universe and briefly explain to me how you contradict or confirm it. Then we will focus only on it until white smoke comes out.
1. Only a really smart person like you can interpret the sentence I wrote "Call me stupid." It won't make me like that, just like if I spare you the nicknames, it won't make you a semi-intelligent creature.", in the following way: "Do you think that if you call me such and such dubious nicknames and titles it will make you smarter and more righteous?" Do you understand that what I wrote is the exact opposite of what you said? That it doesn't matter what insults we exchange? Oh my god, you're an idiot.
2. No matter what I wrap my arguments in, I have arguments. I write more relevant content in one response than you have written since the day you joined the site. I may be prolonging the words, and maybe telling you a little what I think about you along the way, but I also answer explicitly and precisely to all your questions. You don't answer a single thing, because you are stupid. Because you are a coward. because you are lazy
3. The video doesn't show how weak these theories are. Within an hour of material that explains the theories, there is a 5-second segment where someone says about a *specific type of theory* that they think is not good. But obviously that's the only thing you took away from this hour's movie. Because you are a coward, and you are stupid, and everything that does not agree with what the Rebbe told you automatically flies out the window in your little head.
4. None of the theories presented in the video have been disproved within a year (or at all, as of today). Are you saying that Linda talking about there being other theories that have been disproved within a year means that all theories, including the ones that haven't been disproved, are wrong? Wait, do you also think that the fact that the ether theory was disproved at the end of the 19th century means that quantum mechanics is wrong? Or does the fact that we have proven that bloodletting does not cure patients mean that antibiotics do not work?
5. "They cannot be predicated." You really are the stupidest person I've ever talked to. In the video, the predications of some of these theories are explicitly explained, and you also received additional explanations from me for the predications of the theories. Both in the video and in me, you received explanations of exactly how such predictions are tested. And what do you have to say? "They cannot be predicated". You see, you are so stupid that you don't even use the word predication correctly. Predication is not something you do to a theory, it is something that follows from the theory.
Raphael. you can fight You can argue. to avoid. lie. resist. But you know the truth. You know, right? You are aware that you are a stupid man. You know this, because you experience it every day. You know you don't know what you're talking about. So I suggest - just fade away. Just turn around, with your tail between your legs, and pass out. You will no longer be able to maintain self-respect, but in the current situation, we may forget you. And right now the best thing that can be wished for you is that one day you will forget.
Raphael
Oh really? You are miserable, Raphael.
Shmulik, before you mocked the video and now you are quoting it in the article. Please explain to me how you can disprove or confirm Neil Turok's theory of bursting membranes. Take your time, I'm going to sleep now and we'll see what the day is like.
Miracles don't bother. I'm talking to Albenzo right now. Go play in the garden in the meantime.
Raphael
Where in the movie does it say "... and about the fact that they cannot be predicated"?
And why are you afraid to answer me? I do not bite….
When I asked Raphael why God is not more imaginary than physical theories, I didn't think he could surpass himself but then he claimed that "it is not possible to study what caused the big bang" and to prove that he was right, he brought a YouTube called: "What Happened Before The "Big Bang"
It's hard to understand what's going on in Raphael's mind.
In the video they demonstrate 4-6 ideas of what preceded the bang and wonder even if there was a bang. One idea was claimed to have empirical observations and no one interviewed in the video argued against this claim (it must be said that most of the video was not about critiquing the ideas).
In the face of all this, anyone else would have said and by God I was wrong: we can try to investigate what preceded the explosion. There are tools, building all kinds of telescopes and other detectors that might give us a clue, so maybe my initial claim was wrong.
What, a repentant can't admit he was wrong?
It is not clear who.
So what does Raphael do? He takes Prof. Neil Turok, who doubts one of the other ideas expressed, as proof that all the ideas discussed in the video are imaginary while forgetting that Neil Turok runs a research institute that studies the very idea that Raphael said could not be studied, while forgetting that Neil Turok did not dismiss all the ideas but one idea while giving reasons why And that in itself comes up with an idea for what preceded the explosion.
Modestly, Raphael aligns himself with Neil Turok and informs everyone that basically all the ideas are imaginary and the only reason he gives for his opinion is that we rely on our physics, as if that's a bad thing.
How delusional can a person be?
By the way, Raphael is acting here as if someone in the physics community is defeated that the Big Bang might stop being mainstream. Nothing could be further from the truth than that. It will be huge. Those who will once again enter into an embarrassment will be the religious who derived quite a bit of satisfaction from the correspondence (in their eyes) between the Big Bang and the story of Genesis. It is interesting how they will now fit the story of Genesis with the new story that science is revealing.
ALBENZO HABEL What do you think that if you call me such and such dubious nicknames and titles it will make you wiser and more righteous? Those who have something to say say it simply. If he wraps it up in a lot of nonsense and personal attacks it only shows the weakness of his arguments. You don't have to accept my opinion. This entire video is full of descriptions and explanations from senior scientists about how weak these theories are and that they last about one year on average before being replaced by others and that they cannot be predicated. Go drink a glass of water and relax.
Raphael
You're not answering me? Believe me, you shouldn't answer Albenzo - what you write is simply irrelevant, and quite embarrassing.
Integrity, Raphael, integrity!!!! Maybe check in the dictionary what it is? My dear, in my opinion you are one of the wiser religious people, and you talk like a fool....
Miracles, a Ferrari does get a flat tire because of a nail on the road. It turns out that according to you the Ferrari was poorly designed. But we know that's not true. And of course this does not disprove the claim that the Ferrari was designed.
If the retina is optimally constructed, then all evolutionist arguments about poor design are themselves flawed. And it proves that they don't know how to recognize poor planning when they encounter it.
Raphael,
I agree to keep this in mind for the future. I agree to remember that you are unbelievably difficult to grasp. That you are a liar - because no one here said that the big bang theory is dead. You see, there is a thing called science. In science we try to answer questions. Wait, do you understand by now? Or have I lost you? Ok, so we have the big bang theory. She answers a lot of questions. She answers them correctly. How do you know she answered correctly? No, Rafaeli, not because the Rebbe said so. Know that they test in the laboratory. Yes, yes, I understand that you cannot understand what it means to make predictions and test them, but what to do - that's what you do. But the big bang theory is not perfect. She doesn't answer all the questions. So they try to find a better Torah.
Do you understand? If not, say: "Hello, I don't understand what a laboratory is" or "Can you please explain to me what it means to produce a prediction?".
Any theory that can replace the Big Bang must not only answer new questions, but also the old ones. And she has to answer them correctly - that is, like the Big Bang. So basically what we are looking for is a more general Torah that will contain most of the things in the Big Bang. Among other things, according to this theory, 14 billion years will have passed since the universe contracted and went through an inflationary phase. It is possible that in the new Torah, this will not be the result of expansion from a singular point (explosion) but as a cyclic jump, or a collision of membranes, or something else. Do you remember me explaining that to you? Do you want to sit aside for a moment and remember that we already had this whole conversation?
And now I see that you have concrete criticisms of some of the ideas raised in the video. For example, you are talking about different laws of physics in different universes (in the context of Marsini-Houghton, I assume). So just to set the record straight, can you please explain to me what it means to have two different universes in her model? Let's see if we both understand what that means and then we can talk more in depth about whether or not there may or may not be different laws of physics in these different universes. The same goes for your review of a black hole. Before we get into the mechanics, let's align ourselves and make it seem like we speak the same language. So please remind me, what does it mean that the universe was born from a black hole in Smolin's theory? How does a black hole give birth to something?
You see, you can't make me "everything comes back to you and poop in your hands". Because I - unlike you - am not stupid. not a liar not a coward not lazy I understand the things I'm talking about. You know as well as I do that even if you work for three years you will not be able to answer the trivial questions I asked you now. Because you don't understand anything about physics. I do understand. I'm not lazy - I sat down and watched the entire video you sent before I wrote a comment (unlike you, who obviously didn't watch it at all - otherwise how do you explain that you didn't know it contradicted almost everything you said, or you ask me questions that are answered in a black and white video? ). You see, there is no symmetry here. We are not equal. It's not powers. You are a stupid, ignorant, and brainwashed man who probably doesn't even realize how much he is making fun of himself. call me stupid It won't make me one, just like if I spare you the nicknames, it won't make you a semi-intelligent being. You will remain exactly the same, because you don't have the integrity and courage to look in the mirror and say, "By God, I'm talking about things that I simply don't understand anything about. Maybe I'm wrong?".
Good luck later,
Albanzo
First of all, I understand that the big bang theory has already passed and all the theories that science built on it are judged like snow last year, including the age of the universe. Let's remember that for now.
Another thing is that all these theories rely on the laws of physics that we know today from our universe so that they cannot be extrapolated to other universes that we have no idea if they exist at all and what laws govern them and therefore we do not know how they are supposed to affect our universe.
Another thing - the birth of a universe from a black hole assumes that there was a black hole before our universe was created, meaning that it is a previous universe similar to our universe whose laws allow the formation of a black hole. Again - how do you know what the laws were that ruled that universe before? How can you check it?
And one last thing - listen to what Professor Neil Turok says about Andrey Lindy's theory. That's pretty much what I think about all the dubious theories outlined in this video.
In conclusion - all the nicknames you called me go over you and poop in your hand. And be careful when you check black holes that you don't accidentally cross the event horizon or you'll turn into a spaghetti monster.
someone
And if the retina is "optimal" - what follows from this?
someone
You will study at the university and then you will understand what "optimal planning" is.
In any case - if the Ferrari drives in the conditions it was designed for, and the driver is killed because of a nail on the road, then it was definitely designed badly, and heads have already flown over such mistakes.
But (!!!) - the bugs I described describe the situation under normal conditions. I did not say that the retina should be immune to a nail in the eye, I said that it should be resistant to environmental conditions in which the person lives. Is it really that complicated to understand?
Raphael,
Subtotal.
You wrote: "It is not possible to investigate what caused the big bang. To come up with imaginary theories that cannot be disproved or confirmed - yes it is possible.''
So you brought a link to YouTube called: BBC Documentary - What Happened Before The Big Bang
In the link, for example at minute 13:55 the narrator says: "For Linde, the Big Bang is not the starting point at all. He thinks this is the end of something else.' Then the narrator continues and explains about the multiverse that results from inflation.
That is, to prove that it is not possible to investigate what caused the Big Bang, Raphael brings a YouTube that describes exactly how they investigate what caused the Big Bang.
By the way, this is Lindey's resume:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Linde
Rafael, you are great
Miraculous, I searched in one of the best online dictionaries (Oxford) and in the results I got it is not mentioned at all "taking into account the constraints" (as the dictionary says: best or most favorable; optimum). Do you have a reliable source for your claim?
As for the rest - in fact you did not mention poor planning at all. Even a Ferrari car can get a flat tire because of a nail on the road. Does that mean it was poorly designed? of course not.
Raphael
You said you would answer me... are you busy again
Albanzo
Don't slander goldfish!!! My fish knew I was feeding them and not my wife.
They managed to teach goldfish to press a rod to get food - when the rod only works between certain hours. The fish did not press the rod outside the set time 🙂
They managed to teach fish to come eat by playing a certain sound - and after 6 months they still remembered it.
They are much smarter than some people here…..
Dory
We will try again
Dory
1. The more hidden a force, the more powerful it is
This sentence is meaningless. It is not based on anything. There is no concept of "power" when comparing forces of different types. There is also no basis for this argument - after all, we have no experience with "hidden power".
2. Everything we see in the world and treat as causal is a result because thoughts and desires are the antecedents of every action.
Not true - an earthquake is the result of the movement of tectonic plates and there is no meaning here for thoughts or desires.
3. The object of the investigation will go from investigating external things to investigating the person, his abilities and the possibility of upgrading him
A meaningless sentence. How do you know what will happen???
4. Nothing is random, so is the negative attitude of the world towards us (only that today we lack knowledge of what is driving the attitude)
That is not true at all. There are random physical phenomena, such as radioactive decay.
5. Just as behind a knitted picture are hidden the hidden ties that hold it together, so every object has properties that make it up but are unperceivable by the 5 senses with which we were born.
A meaningless sentence. Speaking of which, we have a lot more than 5 senses. In any case - what is it based on? Without substantiation - it's just a jumble of words.
6. We experience our life in only one "mode" which is to want to accept everything for our own good, this is how our desire works, it is not bad or good but accordingly our level of perception is also calibrated. If we were able to change the will, our perception system would change.
Two meaningless sentences. Since when is "for our benefit" related to the matter we are talking about?
As I said - a collection of meaningless sentences at best, and wrong at worst.
Raphael,
I've known for a long time that reading is a lot bigger than you, but I must say that you did manage to break the threshold of stupidity, now that you've shown me that even watching the video is too difficult a task for you.
In the video, some examples are given of the predications that the various theories produce and how they are tested. For example, the idea of the universe as a wave within the string horizon, the last idea that Prof. Marcini-Houghton talks about, requires the existence of many contiguous "universes". The gravitation of these bubbles affects each other, so it predicts certain phenomena of the flow of matter in space, which cannot exist in the standard model of cosmology. This is one example out of 3 that are given in the video (unfortunately or happily, depending on how you look at it, this predication correlates with the measurements). Another theory, presented by Prof. Linda, which holds to eternal inflation, makes certain predictions regarding the mode of averaging of the cosmic background radiation, and consequently the patterns we find in it (patterns we measure today, although not exactly high enough). The idea presented to me by Smolin - of the birth of a universe from a black hole - must have Hawking radiation implications that we can try to measure.
Suddenly I realize that I'm just explaining to you what you see in the video... and I think to myself that maybe this whole discussion is your ploy to get someone who isn't a perfect idiot like you to explain the issue to you.
By the way, not all of us have the memory of a goldfish. I haven't forgotten that you still haven't answered any of the questions asked here. You are not just stupid, not just lazy... we must not forget that you are also a tireless coward. Changing the subject is not a legitimate answer.
Miracles
1. When you write "meaningless sentence" do you mean that it is meaningless to you personally because you don't go into the depth of it or that it is objectively meaningless?
2. When you write "not true" you don't think it will be serious to explain why it is not true, and what you think is true
* In short, I would like you to refer to the clauses, at least the ones you wrote because the sentence is incorrect.
Raphael
So what did you decide? Are you difficult to understand at levels that are hard to imagine or are you lying?
Dory
1. The more hidden a force, the more powerful it is
This sentence is meaningless. It is not based on anything.
2. Everything we see in the world and treat as causal is a result because thoughts and desires are the antecedents of every action.
Not true.
3. The object of the investigation will go from investigating external things to investigating the person, his abilities and the possibility of upgrading him
A meaningless sentence.
4. Nothing is random, so is the negative attitude of the world towards us (only that today we lack knowledge of what is driving the attitude)
That's so not true.
5. Just as behind a knitted picture are hidden the hidden ties that hold it together, so every object has properties that make it up but are unperceivable by the 5 senses with which we were born.
A meaningless sentence.
6. We experience our life in only one "mode" which is to want to accept everything for our own good, this is how our desire works, it is not bad or good but accordingly our level of perception is also calibrated. If we were able to change the will, our perception system would change.
Two meaningless sentences.
Raphael
I don't understand what "imagination" is. These are possible explanations for what happened in the distant past. Do you agree that "Creator" is in the same group of explanations?
I understand the cynicism, but all in all, I mean one thing that includes several things:
1. The more hidden a force, the more powerful it is
2. Everything we see in the world and treat as causal is a result because thoughts and desires are the antecedents of every action.
3. The object of the investigation will go from investigating external things to investigating the person, his abilities and the possibility of upgrading him
4. Nothing is random, so is the negative attitude of the world towards us (only that today we lack knowledge of what is driving the attitude)
5. Just as behind a knitted picture are hidden the hidden ties that hold it together, so every object has properties that make it up but are unperceivable by the 5 senses with which we were born.
6. We experience our life in only one "mode" which is to want to accept everything for our own good, this is how our desire works, it is not bad or good but accordingly our level of perception is also calibrated. If we were able to change the will, our perception system would change.
Miracles So you agree that these theories are nothing more than imaginations? You will not get an answer to your question from me before you answer me.
Raphael,
Waiting to hear if this video is your only source of knowledge?
Raphael,
How are ideas that have some basis in science no less imaginary than God?
explain it
Raphael,
What are you talking about?
It would be amazing if they debunked the bang.
Noble straight
How do you bring a video that says the exact opposite of you as proof of something?
what is going on with you?
Raphael
Imaginations... just like God. Do you agree with that?
Miracles may or may not have been laws before the big bang (which may not have been). No one can know and therefore everything is imagination.
Shmulik So now we hold that there was no big bang at all - such a statement is also a great achievement on this site.
Raphael
No - it is not an achievement. You keep making straw man claims - attacking things we didn't say. This is the "integrity" I keep talking about.
And regarding disproving theories - have you read what Albenzo wrote?
Raphael
keep your mouth shut…. There were also laws of nature "before" the big bang. These may have been different laws than the laws today, but not a single scientist claims that there were no laws.
Miracles I'm doing you a favor and answering you - the answer is yes and it's also a huge achievement on this site.
Raphael,
Waiting for an answer.
Did you hear the 05:49 minute in the video you brought?
What about minute 10?
Listen, Raphael, it's been a long time since there has been such a landing stage here.
you are awesome.
Remember that within our universe the laws of nature rule - which was not the case before. We'll see in the end who's the jerk.
Raphael
Even I know how to answer that for you.
But - please - answer what I asked.
Albenzo, what experiment can be done inside our universe that would simulate the conditions that existed before the big bang in order to disprove or confirm these theories?
Raphael
Little by little - did you understand that we are not saying there is no God?
Raphael,
Yes. These theories are disprovable. They provide predictions. The video (which I'm now convinced you haven't watched at all) explains this, and even explains what predications some of these theories produce, and how these predications can be tested with measurements like LIGO.
Well, is this your stupidest? Are you sure you can't stretch the line a little more...?
Raphael,
simple question:
Is this your only source of knowledge?
Where in the clip does God enter? Where did you deduce that God is no less imaginary? From what minute? How did you decide that the theories based on well-defined, evidence-based concepts are just as imaginary as God, who is an ethereal concept, loosely defined, if at all and certainly not physical, i.e. not disprovable.
how?
Nissim, I'll start from the front row - I have to throw a feast in honor of your statement. you made my day.
Regarding the first line - you are also welcome to answer the question I asked Albenzo.
Raphael
Ok. The video says what we all say all the time - so what were you trying to say? Did you understand what Albenzo wrote?
You have to understand something - none of us are saying that God does not exist. do you understand that
Shmulik, you have no choice. I tried everything but nothing helps. Suri.
Do yourself a favor and stop threatening me with the charge of dishonesty. I'm just doing you a favor by answering you at all so don't be greedy.
Raphael,
I'm not disrespecting the video. I despise people who make such a profound claim based on a video.
I did not understand how the video supports the claim that God is no less imaginary.
I ask again: is this the source of your knowledge?
Raphael,
So your source of knowledge that it is impossible to investigate what was before the bang is this video?
The pathetic Shmulik even the great Albenzo recommended the video so who are you to disparage it?
Miracles Certainly not everything said in the video is acceptable to me, but I am interested to see how the scientists see this topic. I take my insights from there.
Raphael
Are you answering me or are you showing your dishonesty again? Your dog is stressed about it... (I know you didn't bring him, but he actually loves you 🙂 )
someone
Optimal does not equal perfect
Pazar
My response to the questions you wanted came out of the basements. If it's important to you to get these answers, you can go look at it
Raphael
What was before the bang cannot be refuted or confirmed. All scientists will agree on this except for Albanzo.
Of course he will resolve himself with comments like: "We don't know yet. "
But such a claim is equivalent to the claim that God was before the bang simply because Albanzo still did not discover God. Good Day.
Raphael
Professor Albanzo wrote a comment!!! Where is the Tsumi?? Come on, he's waiting. All attention to him please!!! Nissim will wait vigilantly.
Another thing, I would appreciate it if you would answer me briefly and not spread your answer over the whole (apparent) universe
someone
You can certainly criticize NASA's design, claim that their spacecraft are on the face, and that if I were the manager I would fire them all. This claim is not at all ridiculous. Regarding some things, your words will even be right.
Albenzo the comic
So let's start by saying that I know what I'm talking about since I pointed exactly to the link that explains the whole issue
Now a question - can one of the theories about what happened *before* the big bang be refuted or confirmed?
And a note to everyone - I highly recommend watching the video. Also because some very interesting people speak in it (full disclosure, some of them are my colleagues), also because it explains quite well many of the basic ideas (although it is a bit dramatic and not very in-depth). Besides, I promise you that if you watch the video and then read Raphael's comments again, you will burst out laughing. Simply because he obviously didn't watch the video at all (or didn't understand a word of what he saw).
Really worth an hour.
Password FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read
I do not believe.
Rafael, believe me - you made my day. You are just a comedic genius. You are asked how you come to the conclusion that it is not possible to investigate what happened before the big bang, and you give a link to a video of an entire hour that interviews physicists and shows how they *investigate what happened before the big bang*, including an explanation of a large part of the ideas, methods (the theoretical and practical - a long section on measuring gravitational waves, satellites, etc.).
In addition, I can't help but point out the fact that the video says more or less exactly what I told you when I tried to explain the issue to you a few weeks ago. I explained to you that our knowledge of the big bang only reaches "a little before", and therefore we are not sure if there was a big bang at all, I explained to you about the membrane collision model, I explained to you that the singularity should disappear in string theory and that when there is no singularity a cyclic universe can exist, etc...
You're just a joke, it's amazing.
Raphael,
I asked you a super simple question:
Raphael,
We are all waiting:
Based on what knowledge did you decide that God is no less imaginary than physical theories?
Based on what knowledge did you decide that it is impossible to investigate what caused the big bang?
You said you already wrote. You didn't write but now you provided a link to YouTube.
Is your source of knowledge for why an equally imaginary God is in this clip? What minute to concentrate?
Is the answer to why it is impossible to investigate what caused the Big Bang found in this clip? what minute
Am I to understand that you derive your physical knowledge on which you decided what you decided from the BBC?
Raphael
Is everything said in this video acceptable to you? Yes or No?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=os6ieSdbyZ8
Shmulik, no one is waiting for me because everyone here knows the answer except you. See the link above.
Raphael,
We are all waiting:
Based on what knowledge did you decide that God is no less imaginary than physical theories?
Based on what knowledge did you decide that it is impossible to investigate what caused the big bang?
You said you already wrote: provide a link
Raphael
Only you can help yourself. Too bad you don't understand that.
someone
I read the study a long time ago. Do you understand what "optimal" is? The meaning of the word - "the best considering the constraints". It is only about the division of the cells on the retina - and this does not solve the 10 bugs I mentioned.
I don't understand what you are avoiding. I showed you 10 points where the eye could be improved. It has nothing to do with the article you mentioned.
You suffer from the same integrity problem as Raphael. You found an article that in your understanding (and only in your understanding) strengthens your claim (and you've already made it before), but you don't bother to read an article I'm referring to, which claims the opposite of your opinion.
Miracles, so it turns out that science claims that the grunt structure is actually optimal:
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.158102
The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images.
Do you disagree with the above study?
Dory you are amazing!
Rival Can the lenses you developed enable the blind to see?
Nissim Do you have anyone you recommend who can help me with my integrity issues? You messed up
Don't call it God - call it absolute laws that are revealed in humanity according to our evolutions. And I will explain:
If we look back we will find that until today we have not found the connection between the solutions we tried to implement and what actually happened. We are witnessing a time when crisis after crisis arises that hurts and destroys the entire population.
If in the past we thought we had security as an independent country, we are witnessing that the crisis is becoming more and more systemic, global that encompasses the entire world.
The solution to the global crisis lies in understanding the laws of the natural system.
A systemic crisis requires systemic treatment.
Just as until the 18th century there were diseases that we did not know how to deal with and at the end of the 18th century we discovered the electrical nature of nerve impulses and the chemical system in our brains and therefore knew how to give medicine X which would work on symptom Y, so today we discover that in a global village there are connections and branches between the countries and the different channels. Therefore, in order to restore the system there is a need to understand the laws of nature. If we become wise and know how to get along with this law, then we can achieve harmony and worldwide prosperity.
What is that law of nature? The law of nature is an integral law that sustains all forms of nature and links them.
These connections are not perceived by the same five senses with which we were born (we will not be able to discover this law with the same tools with which we discovered the infrared or ultraviolet).
We are witnesses that in evolution, organs or senses that are not needed - became extinct.
In the same way, we will discover that with our development and the discovery of the global system, the common village, the connections between us and the mutual dependence, we will be obliged to develop within ourselves a new sense that will coordinate and bind us in a deeper recognition of the law of nature that is being revealed today.
Yes, the same law of nature that "revealed to us" that a developed brain is the one that contains more complex branching and connections between the neurons will reveal to us that the more the connections between us are arranged in a good connection, i.e. of reciprocity and balance, the more we can perceive our world in the way it really exists, with Additional layers that we have not yet experienced that create a perfect existence.
Only in this way can we be in harmony, only in this way can we reach general peace.
Therefore we will have to mobilize the media, heal the education system, create a new era in which we will be exposed at any time and place to the same explanations about the law of nature.
And what is the same method?
: )
someone
If it is not difficult for you to read English - for you: http://www.rpgroup.caltech.edu/courses/aph161/Handouts/Nilsson1994.pdf
Someone, but we planned something better, so what do I care about the eye ??
someone
I described 10 bugs in the retina of the human eye. Which one did you not understand? That's what you asked for, isn't it?
Now you change the question, because the answer doesn't suit you? Have I become Raphael? 🙂
Rival, but you didn't design a human eye (because people aren't smart enough to make an eye). As I did not design a spaceship. So the claim stands. And I still haven't received an answer from you about the watch with the DNA.
"If you are not able to design your own eye, how can you criticize the design of those who are capable?"
You are wrong, we have designed and built good cameras tens of thousands of human eyes.
Rival, miracles and walking. If you are unable to design your own eye, how can you criticize the design of those who are able? By that logic, I can criticize NASA's design (with all the failures they've had in history). I can claim that their spaceships are on the face, and that if I were the manager I would fire them all. Of course, this claim sounds ridiculous. But what is the difference between this claim and your example?
Miracles, first, specifically regarding the retina. Do you think it is designed the wrong way?
Rival, here is the question I asked again: in front of you is a watch with DNA like that of a living creature. Would you conclude that he evolved irrationally because he has dna?
Raphael
You must address your integrity problem!!!
You say over and over again that science has no explanation for how the universe began, even though it doesn't necessarily have a beginning!!! The thing is, it was already explained to you, and then you called the explainer an arrogant and stupid liar.
Evolution does not create perfect things, contrary to the idea of an "intelligent designer". The eye is proof of this - because of its limitations!!!
I asked several questions - your rabbi doesn't know how to answer them, so you start lying that you are "busy"?
Raphael - try to go up a grade. You are not really contributing to this discussion.
Study evolution and you will understand.
Raphael,
Based on what knowledge did you decide that God is no less imaginary than physical or near-physical theories.
Based on what knowledge did you decide that it is impossible to investigate what caused the big bang?
You said you already wrote: provide a link
someone
Even in poorly designed systems there may be beautifully designed parts, so what you are making is a "straw man" argument.
But, for the sake of discussion, let's look at the human retina.
1) We have a blind spot in each eye, which is a serious bug in the case of people who have lost sight in one eye.
2) Look at the sun for a few minutes - and you will lose your sight. My poor camera has a mechanism that prevents this damage.
3) We don't see small creatures that endanger us.
4) We see no dangers in the dark.
5) We don't see many colors that insects do, which prevents us from distinguishing between different things.
6) At the age of 40 we have a very significant decrease in the ability to see (I know it's not just the retina, but it also starts to get damaged).
7) The retina is extremely sensitive to many different diseases.
8) If our eye does not move, say because of an injury or illness, we lose the ability to see in a short time.
9) Our ability to separate is low compared to many animals, which puts us at risk.
10) We get blinded easily, especially when going from darkness to light.
Need to continue?
Rival, how do you explain that in your opinion the eye is poorly constructed? Did something go wrong in evolution? Or is our evolutionary development not over yet and there is a chance that in a million years our eye will be perfect?
Walking death is right, I meant to say that it is poorly constructed.
Because they claim that only an intelligent being could have created our body and the universe.
Shmulik,
As of right now and for the purpose of the discussion "creator of the world = intelligent being" this definition is good enough, even if it is an alien.
rival,
Take into account that for religious people God is not just an alien who created the universe but the source of goodness, responsible for every atom and atom, making peace in the highest, homophobic, hates women...
rival
The design of the eye is not defective, very simply because the eye is not designed.
On the other hand, if someone in the industry were to plan something like this, they would find themselves out of a job.
Someone, the design of the eye is flawed and this is what people who understand in the field say.
The eye of the octopus for example is built in a much more logical way, read a bit about the subject.
walking death, I don't remember saying that its non-existence can be proven.
I just firmly asserted that he does not exist, that's all 🙂
Rival, so in front of you is a clock with dna like that of a living creature. Would you conclude that he evolved irrationally because he has dna?
Miracles, so you are able to spot poor planning? Do you think the retina in the eye is designed in a defective way?
rival
I very much doubt whether it is possible to show with regard to such an abstract definition of a creator that such a thing does not exist at the level of proof.
It is certainly easy to show that there is no necessity for such a creator, but if you think that its non-existence can be proven, you are probably wrong in a way that is not much different from how Raphael is wrong.
walking dead,
Creator of the universe = an intelligent being who created us and the universe.
I think this definition is good enough for the purpose of the discussion.
rival,
of course not.
I'm trying to get an answer to a polite question from Raphael:
Based on what knowledge Raphael decided that God is no less imaginary than physical or quasi-physical theories.
Based on what knowledge did Raphael decide that it is not possible to investigate what caused the big bang?
He wrote that he had already explained. I want a place mirror
rival
Do you have a definition for the creator of this world you are talking about?
Yes, I claim that there is no creator for the world, this is not a straw argument as far as I'm concerned, this is the real truth.
Shmulik, and if we never know what caused the Big Bang, does that automatically make the theory that God made hocus pocus and created it more reasonable?
Raphael
remember this comment - https://www.hayadan.org.il/creationism-in-science-school-1906156/comment-page-3/#comment-647164 -? She touched on exactly this topic and, among other things, explains why this claim of yours is a lie.
I'm glad you're willing to admit that the existence of the Creator is just your opinion, but for some reason it somehow comes with the addition of this point that the opposite opinion we supposedly hold (because you still haven't understood what our opinion is after so many explanations) is wrong. Oh wait, you actually said it was just your opinion and then contradicted it in the same sentence. Are you willing to decide if it is just your opinion or if it is the proven truth as you practically relate to it, even though you are unable to define what it is in any way?
Or in short, decide already. Are you difficult to understand at levels that are hard to imagine or are you lying?
Raphael,
Where did you explain?
What if, not what if.
what if…
But you didn't answer based on what knowledge you decided that it is impossible to investigate what caused the big bang?
What if tomorrow there will be a theory that makes the bang redundant?
But you didn't answer based on what knowledge you decided that it is impossible to investigate what caused the big bang?
What if tomorrow a more religious theory comes up
Albanzo one more thing - the fact that you said in a previous discussion that it is possible to study what happens beyond the event horizon of a black hole is also a lie and Hawking radiation will not help you here.
Shmulik, I explained, but you are probably hard of understanding.
But you didn't answer based on what knowledge you decided that God is no less imaginary than physical theories you wrote
Wd and Albanzo the liars and swindlers
Let's make some order
I have explicitly said several times that I am not here to prove the existence of the Creator but to make it clear that science does not and will not prove his non-existence. And here, thank God, I succeeded.
The fact that I said that a creator is the only reality is not a lie and I am allowed to say it just like your mistaken opinion that there is no creator.
What caused the Big Bang cannot be investigated. To come up with imaginary theories that cannot be refuted or confirmed - yes it is possible.
Raphael,
If your answer didn't come up, then I'm probably being harassed? What is this paranoid? Who do you think is being bullied, your friend in heaven? Every time something happens that you don't understand, is it because of bullying? If there was no response from you, then logic says that if there is harassment, you are being harassed, right? Anyway the response is yours.
I hope you at least understood that I don't claim to know. I told you what I read and heard about the physical side and I asked you for an answer to such a simple question about the side you represent, which for many responses, you avoided, for your own reasons, answering.
Raphael,
Repeating a lie many times does not make it the truth.
You (again) claim that according to science, the universe was "created" and that it is impossible to investigate what caused its creation. You have already made this claim before and it was made clear to you that it is simply a stupid lie, which is unclear to me if you heard it from some liar or if you thought of it yourself.
We can and how to study the big bang, and also what preceded it (if it preceded it). As usual, you are confusing "we don't know the answer at this moment" and "it is impossible to investigate". And just so that you have something to ignore, I will ask a question: have you tried, even tip-tip-tip-tip, to check what the science of cosmology says about the study of the big bang and what preceded it (if it preceded it)? Where did you read about the subject before you came to the site and wrote that science is unable to investigate this subject?
Raphael
Your lack of understanding of what people say, does not mean that they say what you understood from this lack of understanding.
Some people here said that in their opinion there is no creator (and no, it is not necessary to say in Hebrew in my opinion to make it clear that the sentence represents an opinion). Your inability to differentiate between the meaning of this statement which says that they have no reason to believe in the existence of a creator because there is no evidentiary basis for this claim, and between the statement I know for sure and I have proof that there is no creator, causes you to fall into the delusion that someone here claimed to have proof that there is no creator.
Practically, no one here has claimed to have proof that there is no creator. It doesn't get in the way of continuing to treat what people said as if they said it (do you understand why it's a lie now?).
On the other hand, you claimed that the existence of a creator is a proven matter (for example, "the only reality is the reality of the creator") (a lie in itself). You are shown time and time again that your proof is worthless, and your response is complete disregard, which is also a form of lying, as you pretend it didn't happen, and that your argument is still worth something when it isn't.
Beyond that, considering that you are not able to define the creator that you believe to be fully certain of his existence, as a certainty of a finished fact, and unable to see that this in itself is a complete mental fallacy (I am absolutely sure, that something that I am not sure at all about what it is or in fact anything about it or its properties, exists ), your intellectual future is, to say the least, unspectacular.
Shmulik - you too, in short - if you don't *know* that the universe was created from nothing, then it's just imagination.
Rival I will try to answer you again but briefly. We both agree that the universe was created. But no one among us can investigate how and from what the universe was created. You say from nothing and I say the Creator created. Since it is about a time (or not a time) before the creation of the world - neither you nor I have any idea about that. Therefore questions of who created the Creator are not relevant just as questions of what was before the big bang are not relevant. Hope it goes away...
Sorry opponent says that…
Shmulik, you are also being bullied. I invested in a long answer for you and it disappeared. As WD says - everything from above.
Raphael,
I don't understand why you are unable to answer a simple question:
Based on what knowledge did you decide that the claim that God exists is no more imaginary than the claim that the universe was created from nothing?
You are also wrong (and I try not to use a harsher word) when you describe my opinion:
Look for my comment on the topic I just wrote: "What's more, it is intriguing to investigate whether it is possible to show with the current tools of science that there is a way for the universe to be created out of nothing"...
Does this wish imply that I *know* that the universe was created out of nothing? Does my question seem like I *assert* anything about the formation of the universe?
Apparently God doesn't want us to talk about him.
It's all from above.
Refael I can't respond to you, I need to talk to Avi Blizovsky, it seems that something is messed up here in the filtering system.
Rafael, a lot of my comments here don't appear either.
Rival I answered you but I don't see the response. Someone is probably harassing you.
Wd do you want me to bring you all the comments here of those who say that there is no creator of the world? What are you talking about?!
Pazar
Prev) Who is my patron? You can tell me please or at least tell him to pay me, because I haven't received a penny for any response anywhere, and it certainly wouldn't hurt to have a little more money at home.
1) The response I wrote to Raphael and linked to answers your question, there is no evasion here. If you have difficulty understanding thanks to a failed education and quite clear Hebrew is beyond your ability to understand then I really have nothing more to do.
2) It is not clear to me what imaginary facts of yours and what propaganda that is supposedly mine you are babbling about. If you want to say something or ask something, try to do it maybe without getting into a crisis.
3) I'm not trying to convince a billion and some Muslims that God doesn't exist, just like I'm not trying to convince you or Raphael or anyone else that God doesn't exist. When I comment here I don't know at all who reads it, Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu or whatever, it doesn't interest me. I respond against comments that sin against the truth for those who read it and come across false claims by people that I see the need to correct. This.
4) Afraid of what? What the hell do you picture in your head when you think of me, who do you think I am? It seems as if you have formed five opinions about me based on my telling you that I am a leftist, that I am not Jewish, and that I do not worship idols.
5) Why do I prefer to do what in a pluralistic country like the State of Israel? Is it really more delicious for me to drink from the well into which I spit and eat from the plate into which I excrete? What are you talking about? What kind of sick person are you?
6) Belief in which God formed the legend among humans? Before they believed in any god did people live alone? Do you have evidence for any of this (which version you think is true)?
7) I didn't know I was a drugged up anarchist, or that I had any interpretation of God. Oh right, because these things are your hallucinations, he almost confused me, NOT.
8) You yourself are not able to define what your interpretation of "God" is, so it is not clear to me why you struggle so hard to claim the existence of something that all you know about is that you know nothing about it except that it supposedly exists.
9) Interesting, I have never belonged to any faction so it is not really clear to me what fights you are trying to get me into or what downfalls you want me to have in these fights. If you're talking about quarrels between factions in Judaism or Islam or Christianity, then it really doesn't interest me because I don't belong to any of them and their quarrels about definitions of something that doesn't match the definitions they give are not really refutable to me, nor do they really interest me. I have enough nonsense in my life (you are an example of one of them).
Conclusion) I'm not sure what you wanted to say with your nonsense, but it's nice that you tried and that at least you're able to write, maybe in the future you'll also be able to write something coherent, it would be so exciting.
I'm sorry that you were so hurt and that I caused you so much excitement. I realized that it is not so good for the heart.
Shmulik, you are making a fool of yourself. Do you have scientific proof that the universe was created from nothing and without a starting cause (trigger)? In short - imaginations.
What is happening here that many comments are blocked??
Spring. Did you change the filtering mechanism on the site?
And an amazing and almighty God created by himself is more logical a location created by himself?
Please explain.
Inspection notice.
Raphael
This is your first comment in this thread -
"Here he begins yet another fruitless debate on a subject that has been mined here and everywhere to the hilt.
Let me guess that those who say there is no creator will never be convinced by the response given here, and vice versa.
The goal is simply to increase the site's rating by hundreds of heated comments and to satisfy the tireless desire for debate of some of the veterans commenting here."
You see the section where you wrote "that those who say there is no creator for the world", I assume you are able to see it.
Beauty is a straw man, you should already know what it is (we've only explained dozens of times). In other words a lie.
Even if you want us to attribute this case to a mistake or an error, you continue to claim this even after you have been made clear what the claim the people are actually making. So either you are difficult to understand on levels that are hard to imagine or you are lying. Choose what you like, and if you want, let me know how you want me to treat you from the two options.
Do you want to go through all the other lies?
or error or false:
Based on what knowledge did you decide that the claim that God exists is no more imaginary than the claim that the universe was created from nothing?
Wd I made a special effort and read all of your last comment but I will only respond to one thing - show me just one lie I told.
So much nonsense wrapped in self-confidence and arrogance and still no answer to the most basic question:
Based on what knowledge did you decide that the claim that God exists is no more imaginary than the claim that the universe was created from nothing?
And another small note:
Belief in God was the legend among humans.
Different interpretations of "God" by drugged anarchists like you only caused quarrels between the factions. Needless to say, it was you who were the first to fall in these fights.
have a good morning And some wisdom later.
And another question for you (your patron can also join):
Why don't you - a non-Jew (Gentile) who voted for the extreme left, as you say - try to convince a billion and a bit Muslims that God does not exist?
: )
Are you scared?
Is that why you prefer to do it in a pluralistic country like Israel?
Is it really more delicious for you to drink from the well you spit into and eat from the plate you excrete into?
Be brave for a change, and answer the questions.
Walkie-Talkie
Why are you avoiding giving an answer?
I understand that the facts get in the way of your propaganda, but you can't be educated if you don't overcome your ignorance. Therefore try not to evade this time and answer the question: how exactly can you disprove the existence of a force that is greater than everything? Come on, we're thirsty to know, maybe you'll even win a Nobel Prize 🙂
Miracles
As said at the end of my confused comment: people here laugh about it, but the truth is it's sad.
It's amazing how stupid you can be...
Miracles
can not be.
1) The education system in Israel does not leave children in these classes, even if they do not know how to read.
2) I know 12-year-old girls and they are much more educated, have higher reading comprehension abilities and have much higher logic and ability to draw conclusions than Pezar. They also curse much less and only other girls in the class.
walking dead
Why do you treat this fool? It's just some 12-year-old girl in the third grade.
Pazar
a) It's not me. I haven't changed my nickname here since I started commenting here. It's too much work for me, you have to click with the mouse on the nick box and type something new.
b) You are invited to read the response to Raphael, it is perceived as an answer to "your" "innocent" question. – https://www.hayadan.org.il/creationism-in-science-school-1906156/comment-page-3/#comment-647164
C) The company of people like you is better for every person to be denounced, and I am happy to be denounced in your company. You are the epitome of the worst human traits.
Holy Jesus unbelieving Jews or by your other name walking joke
Everything you mentioned is easy to refute. But it will be interesting to hear how you disprove the existence of God. To remind you that those who understand this more than you will not agree with you? 🙂
What's more, the nickname you mentioned says everything about you.
It's not just that creatures like you are denounced from society. every company Even if you were born in Germany - German society would denounce you from it. Not to mention the amount of stones your misguided and unhappy soul would absorb if you were born a Muslim.
"Wouldn't it be simpler if you asked them for proof that there is no God?"
As soon as you prove to me that the Spaghetti Monster does not exist, and that tooth fairies, unicorns, mermaids and invisible monsters do not exist, then I will prove to you that there is no God, okay Mamosh?
😀
Raphael
You really suck at these trolls…
Wouldn't it be simpler if you asked them for proof that there is no God? At least that way you would shut them up and leave them with their poop in their hands without them having the ability to throw it at passers-by.
my father
Can I please get a guide on how to successfully avoid sending comments to basements?
Raphael
I don't need a response from you. If you want to respond to something, respond, if not, don't.
I wrote the comment to clarify the situation here because you complained about the return of this debate.
The bottom line of the whole thing is that you need to stop coming here and lying. And if you don't want to stop lying here, then at least don't whine about people reacting to it and exposing your lies.
The fact that you write such things - "My comments are addressed to the readers of the site and especially to the youth whose opinion is still not formed and not to the commenters you mentioned. There is a war on public opinion here. I don't want them to hear only their side and accept it as the absolute truth that cannot be disputed" - shows that you are completely disconnected from reality (not that it surprises anyone) because it is clearly a lie.
The fact that you are unable to read anything longer than 4 lines is a serious problem in itself. The fact that you do not understand that it is problematic that a person who is unable to read something longer than 4 lines thinks that he is able to learn something about the world and thinks that he understands something about the world is an even more serious problem. The fact that you think your intellectual state is good while you are unspeakably ignorant is an even more serious problem.
People here laugh about it, but the truth is it's sad.
Nissim, I'm sorry that I don't give you enough fasts due to the cliff of times. I'm quite tired, I'm going to sleep. good night. Tomorrow maybe I will contact you.
Anonymous I'm talking about joy born from a good thought when you are clear in your mind and not under the influence of drugs. It is clear that there are also emotions that are caused by a physical event such as the feeling of pain following a blow or joy due to the effect of drugs.
Raphael
Are you going even lower? Haven't you hit your head on the pavement yet?
In short, Raphael, you have no proof that there is a soul, you believe that it exists only because it is convenient for you to believe it.
I follow this discussion and it is really entertaining 😀
Albanzo how predictable 🙂 I could have written this comment for you myself. A little arrogance, a little excessive self-inflation (reminiscent of something that is released from behind and also smells like that), a little disdain. Well what's new?
"How can you differentiate between true inner joy and the pretended joy of drugged people who, after they wake up, fall into depression?"
There is no such thing as inner joy and fake joy, when a happy person is happy and it doesn't matter what external or internal process caused it in the mind (sometimes for example I think of something happy and I become happy, some people take drugs and they become happy and as soon as they take the drug they feel really, really happy , it has nothing to do with the fact that maybe after the effect of the drug wears off they will enter depression, still during the effect of the drug they would be happy a completely real joy, it is not a simulated joy)
Raphael
I understand you have no answers. Don't be a rag, okay? And no - it is not possible to distinguish between real joy and joy that is the result of drugs.
I also tried to explain to you that our ability to control thoughts goes far beyond emotions. In my work, I get to be present in an operating room during brain surgeries of various types. In some surgeries, the patient is awakened and (electrical) signals are injected into different parts of the brain, and have a very frightening effect on that person's thoughts. The patient is talking and reacting, and believe me, it's the scariest and most amazing thing I've ever seen in my life. I was told about cases where there are two different "people" in the same brain!!!
Raphael, you must wake up and learn about the world. And you must try to overcome your sickening arrogance.
Raphael,
I forgot that your reading comprehension can be summed up in six or seven words.
My sincere apologies,
(Maybe I should have written "my sincere apologies" in the same line so you don't get tired in the middle).
First of all, paranoia is the first sign of losing sanity.
I don't follow discussions and "look for the right moment to join". I am a scientist who works from morning to night to explore the universe so that you can come and decide what is right and wrong without understanding anything about anything. I haven't been following this discussion and it doesn't particularly interest me either. What interests me is trying to understand where you get this brilliant scientific mind that allows you to know what is true and what is not without studying the subjects you are talking about, without performing experiments, without conducting studies or reading studies that others have done, etc. I hope that if I understand how you know the things you know even though they completely contradict the facts on the ground, maybe one day I can apply them and become a better scientist.
And of course, you ignored it. Because that's what you're doing... ignoring everything that doesn't line up with the decisions you made in advance. Sometimes you accompany the ignoring with a personal attack, just because it makes you feel less stupid. I am very sorry that the fact that I know that drugs change moods makes me in your eyes "with a very good understanding when it comes to drugs". If you are serious - then your standards of understanding are so low that you probably never really understood anything. And if it was an attempt to get off on me, then it was an attempt: a) Not funny. b) not witty. C) doesn't make sense. To your credit, he is indeed very mature and of course it indicates that you are full of content and really have something significant to say, and that you are not just spouting nonsense.
To your question - I was happy without drugs. No one here (or anywhere else in the world) said that drugs are the only way to evoke emotions in the human brain. But the very fact that changing the chemical balance affects the emotions is enough to completely disprove the stupid claim you pulled out of your ass - that the chemical balance is determined by the emotions.
Surely Albenzo is now writing me a response as long as the deviating exile... what tension!
Miracles I can't answer you now. Albenzo enters the conversation and should be given the most attention. There is Akshin.
How can you differentiate between true inner joy and the pretended joy of drugged people who, after they wake up, fall into depression?
Raphael
Maybe start answering questions and stop dodging? I asked some simple questions and got no answer. Let's try to move forward, okay?
Both I and Albenzo explained to you that chemical substances have an effect on emotions - and this completely contradicts what you said. So your response is another question? Maybe you will give answers?
Or in short Raphael, how is it that drugs which are known to be chemical substances make a person suddenly happy? Doesn't this contradict your theory about the soul?
Albanzo
First of all I want to congratulate you for joining the conversation. I was sure you were listening all the time and looking for the right moment to join. So again - welcome.
For that matter - I see that you have a very good understanding when it comes to drugs. Tell me - have you ever been happy without taking drugs?
Raphael,
First of all, Sahtain for the precise and concise understanding of the human mind. I am very happy to hear that you decided that first there are emotions and then the brain "reacts" by adjusting its chemical state.
I know there are many converts who got where they got after going through a polar experience. That is, they were the most secular there is, experienced an empty and meaningless existence (which is their fault, not the fault of secularism, but leave it now), got tired of this existence and turned to religion. Many of these have experimented with drugs.
I don't know if you are like that, and I don't know if you had the chance (before repentance, of course) to do drugs. If not, let me tell you that when you take a completely standard brain, neither happy nor sad, with a completely standard chemical balance, and you blow it up with certain substances (eg, MDMA - or for you, ecstasy), the person whose head that brain occupies suddenly becomes happy Beyond imagination.
So let me understand how it works in your learned opinion - your soul hears a rumor that you're about to take ecstasy in three seconds, decides accordingly to be super-duper happy, and then the brain responds to the feelings of joy by... allowing the ecstasy you just injected into it to exist? I do not understand. Please explain. If the chemical balance is only a response to the emotions that come from the soul, how is it that a physical change in the chemical balance affects the emotions? If the cause and the spinner are as you have decided (needless to say, contrary to any scientific research on the subject), why does the spinner affect the cause?
Raphael
So how do you explain that we know how to chemically control emotions? And we know in an electrical way, to really make a person think a certain thing - you know that?
No Raphael, I have no doubt about it, there is no such thing as a soul, everything is created in the brain and only in the brain.
Why is it that most people in the world are crazy and only you and your friends are sane? (rhetorical question)
emotions. And don't tell me that when a person is happy then you see one or another activity in his brain because this activity is the result and the effect of the feeling of joy on his brain and not the cause of it.
"For me the existence of the Creator is more tangible than your nose is for you. In the end maybe you will understand"
Listen, I don't like to say this, but madhouses are full of people for whom imaginary things of all kinds seem as tangible as their noses... (really without intending to offend or sound arrogant) just because some imaginary thing seems very tangible to you does not mean that it really exists beyond your wild imagination.
Raphael
I have no doubts about my "soul". I think there is no such thing as a soul. In other words - there is nothing in humans that cannot be explained biologically-chemically. Can you tell me one thing that cannot be explained biologically-chemically?
Manny
Is it always like this? The answer is no. Raphael will also agree that if there is one head and doubling from the neck down then there is only "one soul". Therefore, I argue that Raphael focuses the soul on the head.
Do you have a doubt about the existence of your soul? Who exactly is your "I"?
Miracles, he claims that Siamese twins are like two separate people and each of them has its own soul.
Raphael, if you can't see or measure the soul in any way then how do you even know it exists??!
This is really sublime to me, please enlighten me.
I understand, your question is related to my previous answer?
Raphael
So why do Siamese twins have two souls?
The soul is not an extra space. It is a spiritual thing.
Raphael
Don't be a nasty brat. I asked you a question. You don't know or don't want to answer so don't answer. But don't be rude, okay?
Regarding Siamese twins - so you are saying, as I understand it, that the soul is located in the head?
Yes miracles, conjoined twins have two souls.
For me the existence of the Creator is more tangible than your nose is for you. In the end you might understand.
Raphael
Siamese twins have two souls?
Manny without your soul you are just a mass of particles. And your soul cannot be seen, measured, etc.
Raphael
what is difficult for you My Hebrew or the concept of axiom? What does a tangible object have to do with the concept of axiom??
Miracles your nose is an axiom?
Raphael
I don't need a response from you. If you want to respond to something, respond, if not, don't.
I wrote the comment to clarify the situation here because you complained about the return of this debate.
The bottom line of the whole thing is that you need to stop coming here and lying. And if you don't want to stop lying here, then at least don't whine about people reacting to it and exposing your lies.
Raphael, how can something that cannot be seen, heard, felt or measured in any way be the most realistic reality that can be??
Did you perhaps mean "the most imaginative that can be"?
Raphael
I don't think you understand what an axiom is: if the existence of a creator is not an axiom, then his existence is a consequence of other axioms.
Miracles, no. He is the most realistic reality that can be.
Raphael
Is the existence of a creator an axiom for you?
WD The problem is that your response is long and has a lot of things I need to respond to. What do you want me to quote and respond with another quote and another response etc.? It makes the whole thing awkward. That's why I prefer not to refer to her at all. A response in my opinion should be short and to the point in order for the conversation to flow. Finishing a topic - moving to another topic, etc. Can you please give me the last line?
Anonymous My comments are addressed to the readers of the site and especially to the youth whose opinion is still not formed and not to the commenters you mentioned. There is a war on public opinion here. I don't want them to hear only their side and accept it as an absolute and indisputable truth. And also want to ask you not to use nicknames and threats because it only achieves the opposite of the goal and it's not our way either.
Pazar
Every second word out of your mouth is a lie and a complete distortion of the opinions people present here, and are you talking about the morality of the people commenting here? Fuck the hypocrisy.
Raphael
Have you read my comment yet? With all the comments here you already had more than three times the time to read it.
No one here is looking for proof of the non-existence of God. Until you decide what God actually is, and not some abstract being that you can move the beams about its nature whenever you feel like it, there is no point in discussing the confirmation or refutation of the claim.
Pazar
Another straw man. Did I ever talk about how the Jewish people in Israel should live as a Jewish people in the Land of Israel?
It's funny that you are easily willing to accept that I'm gentile and left-wing, but feel the need to qualify the claim that I'm not an idolater. It's actually funny that you think there is any difference between worshiping a god and worshiping idols.
Raphael
Silence your groupie…. He insults you and your faith.
On the one hand, you are trying to appear as someone who invests scientific thought. On the other hand, you are not open to discussion and you hide behind sentences about "the will of the Creator" and "what he revealed to us". Do you realize how ridiculous your attitude is to a secularist?
Everything they tell you is stupid in your eyes. What are you even doing here?
And another thing:
You can clearly see what values and morals, so to speak, they have, let's call them people who will not offend God forbid, as a result of a lack of faith combined with ignorance. The hacks scream from them on.
Even the greatest scientists from time immemorial and today, some of them believe in God. There are also those who believe in aliens, but none of them will emphatically claim that God does not exist. Because they know there is no way to prove it. as well as vice versa.
The only problem is with these Akbar sages you argue with who think they know anything at all about the world. Excessive arrogance of those who know that they will be burned in boiling excrement, and therefore Hmmm
Raphael
You are doing a good job here.
But be careful who you are arguing with: wd is a gentile who claims not to worship idols, a leftist, and one who thinks he knows better than most of the Jewish people in Israel how to live as a Jewish people in the Land of Israel. Nissim is one who hides among trees in Finland and he also thinks he knows better about Judaism and the Jews than Jews who observe Torah and tradition.
And Shmolik - the clown on duty.
And I ask you - well? Not funny?
It is still not clear why you continue to refer to these lepers.
Dear Nissim, I only know what he revealed to us.
Raphael
When did God appoint you to be His spokesman? Don't you see the irony in that? Do you understand what God wants?? Really Rafael? A little modesty won't hurt you...
I agree with Nabara and I add: anyone who is looking for scientific proofs for the non-existence of the Creator - is also close to being deceived. Probably the reason is the will of the Creator not to spoil the free choice on which everything stands.
To the opponent,
A snowflake is not a complex thing at all and the process of creating it is also not complex at all. There is no comparison between the complexity of the most primitive cell you can imagine and a snowflake.
And regardless, anyone who is looking for scientific proof of God's existence will almost certainly be deceived. This certainty (of God's existence) man must seek inwardly in his heart. If his search is yes, there he will find it, and only there.
someone
I can tell you as an engineer what I see as planning. A system is designed when it is built from a small number of components, with each component performing a single function, and each function being performed by a single component. A broken component can be easily replaced with another component, which means that there are simple interfaces between the different components.
I expect to find homogeneous components with simple geometry - think of the glass of a watch, or the gears.
In software engineering we are talking about code that is well designed, as opposed to code that was written in the past and underwent change after change to adapt to changing requirements, or to fix bugs.
Living things really don't fit my understanding of planning. They are much more like a mess of bad software 🙂
Consider the following situation: you are an astronaut and you arrive as the first person on a distant planet. You see a strange animal there that resembles a jellyfish in the pink sea, and you see a safety pin on the beach. What more will surprise you?
someone,
Each case must be examined individually, researched and conclusions reached.
Earlier you hinted that the level of complexity that exists in nature is proof of design, so here I brought you an example of a snowflake that in my opinion looks very complex and yet we know that a natural process (that we know) created it.
The same goes for animals, we know the evolutionary process that creates this complexity (a process that lasts thousands of years) and therefore here too we will conclude that the bodies of animals were not designed but developed gradually.
As I said, each case will be examined on its own merits, we do not guess, but investigate and discover the answers.
Rival, I don't know if planning can be deduced from its structure. maybe yes, maybe no. Now I would be happy if you would answer my question and tell me what is the criterion according to which you identify if any object was designed.
Raphael
So I probably know more than you…. So far you have not proven that you know anything about anything - neither science nor Torah. Now bring your "groupie" to speak on your behalf, and continue with the nonsense you are spreading.
I'm tired of talking to you. You are not able to think a millimeter beyond what the rabbi told you.
Someone, let's start by answering a simple question: Did someone design this beautiful and complex snowflake?
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/photos3/w050207a028.jpg
Raphael,
Hmmm, bothering to comment but not answer. why?
Still waiting for an answer to the question based on what knowledge did you decide that God's claim "...is no more imaginary than the claim that the universe was created from nothing..."?
Shmulik, you amuse me
Rival, so by what criteria do you identify a planned product?
Raphael,
Still waiting for an answer to the question based on what knowledge did you decide that God's claim "...is no more imaginary than the claim that the universe was created from nothing..."?
Miracles What you said about Judaism indicates ignorance. You tried to boast of your knowledge and revealed your ignorance. According to Judaism, the Creator of the world not only created the world but sustains it every second by His will.
Raphael,
So you are not going to answer the question based on what knowledge you decided that God's claim "...is no more imaginary than the claim that the universe was created from nothing..."?
Miracles are like that with us, we are not able to think. Thinking is something only unbelievers are capable of. Reed May Lips: Go find your friends 🙂 🙂 🙂
Raphael
By the way - what you said is contrary to what I know about Judaism. In Jewish metaphysics, God created the world and established the laws, but after that everything runs by itself. There are religions that are not like that.
And again - try to keep the conversation level here. Don't speak street language. does not fit you.
Raphael,
Why are you looking for someone to argue with? what is this part
Why are you unable to answer this simple question:
Just answer based on what knowledge you decided that God's claim "...is no more imaginary than the claim that the universe was created from nothing..."?
Raphael
What are these profanities? broken? 🙂
I thought you were a thinking person. I realize I was wrong. You are a hero when your Rebbe tells you what to say, but when you have to put in a bit of thought you talk out of the blue.
Shmulik is vanity, vanity, everything is vanity. I'm looking for someone serious to argue with.
Raphael,
Why the vanity?
Just answer based on what knowledge you decided that God's claim "...is no more imaginary than the claim that the universe was created from nothing..."?
I don't understand why this simple question of mine brought out such disgust from you.
How you wrote (with the required correction): When I see that you get on the defensive and start with personal insults, it gives me an indication that I'm on the right track.
Shmulik, I have no reason to confront your nonsense.
Miracles, go look for your friends elsewhere, the universe cannot exist even for a millisecond without a Creator.
Raphael
Neither of us have a clue how the universe began (if it even had a beginning). The difference is that we admit it. So I think there is no point in discussing it, unless you can show substantiation for your argument that there is a creator.
I suggest something completely different. Let's look at today. I claim that there is no reason to think that today there is "God", or any other higher power. How about that?
A slight addition
So on what basis did you decide that God's claim "...is no more imaginary than the claim that the universe was created from nothing..."?
Based on what knowledge?
Just explain that.
Raphael,
Good, agreed.
There is no proof that a creator exists.
Thanks.
As for the rest of your claim, you are wrong:
"...but just to clarify that this claim is no more imaginary than the claim that the universe was created from nothing or from a collision between two universes in a multi-universal reality or any other theory that deals with the reasons for the existence of our universe and to which you treat with respect and seriousness"
You are not a physicist (unless you claim that you are, I will assume you are not a physicist) so how did you decide what you just wrote? based on what?
I'm not a physicist but from what I read and hear, we are approaching the time when it will be possible to say whether the multiverse is physical, whether inflation is physical, the new activation of the particle accelerator may reveal new physics.
While there is no progress in the ability to prove that God exists (let go of proof, come define it for me and don't run away to the claim that you shouldn't put fences on God) there is clearly progress in all the theories I described above, so on what basis did you decide that God's claim "...is not imaginary"?
Shmulik I answered an opponent's claim but it was blocked and then disappeared. Here is the answer again: I agree that these two claims cannot be dismissed and I am not at all here to prove the existence of the Creator at this stage but only to clarify that this claim is no more imaginary than the claim that the universe was created from nothing or from a collision between two universes in a multi-universal reality or any other theory that deals with causes To the existence of our universe and to which you treat with respect and dignity. I hope this time it will pass...
Raphael,
was i wrong are you a physicist You don't repent?
An answer to what a rival claimed, is there? so simple
Here, you won't have to go far:
"You said that science cannot rule out the possibility that there is a creator for the world, so I'm just showing you that no imaginary possibility can be ruled out and therefore it doesn't prove anything, certainly not his existence"
Do you agree with his claim, yes or no?
Raphael
do yourself a favor Get over your intellectual laziness and read the response I wrote to you.
Raphael
No one is on the defensive, or attacking you personally. Just stating facts.
Shmulik
It's not even mental tricks, it's just basic failures of language and consistent thinking ability.
When I see that you get on the defensive and start with personal insults, it gives me an indication that I'm on the right track.
Shmulik, I agree that it doesn't prove anything. I'm not trying to prove the existence of the Creator, but I want to show that whoever rejects it or underestimates it - his hand is on the bottom.
walkie,
right.
He had to perform mental tricks to protect his faith and not to enter into cognitive dissonance.
As I remember, his faith is very loose since Raphael is a convert and as such, there are still reasoning processes that are deep in his DNA and therefore he tries to prove his faith. Being here is part of the twelve stages of repentance.
Question: How long will it be before RH spews his nonsense here?
Raphael,
A physicist does not *believe* "that the universe was created from nothing and without the need for a creator". This has nothing to do with faith.
A physicist takes the evidence and tries to make theories out of it and no theory you know relies on the claim that the universe was created out of nothing, so there is no need to believe or not believe this claim
What is more, it is intriguing to investigate whether it is possible to show with the current tools of science that there is a way for the universe to be created from nothing (see his book as well as the lectures of Lawrence Krauss, especially the one in Sweden or Stephen Hawking's book on the subject) and try to find the physical evidence to support this claim.
Since you are not a physicist and yet you arrogantly decided to write: "To me, even the possibility that the universe was created by itself is an imaginary possibility that cannot be proven" I wrote that it really doesn't matter what you think because you are completely irrelevant and no physicist will consult you or ask you for permission to prove it.
Raphael
You can't say we discussed it in the past when you don't understand what the laws of nature are at all, and avoided understanding it in any way (as you did in the past). You're basically saying I was too afraid to understand it before and I'm still afraid of it, so I ignore it and don't want to talk about it.
An adversary is like showing me a random graphic illustration created by a computer and telling me that it was created by itself and that there is no planning here. But if you think a little further you will come to the conclusion that a computer could not create an illustration if there was no one to build it and program the software that created the illustration. Here too there are laws of nature that govern all matter and forces in the universe. The question is what is the origin of the laws of nature, but we have already discussed this topic a previous time and there is no point in repeating the whole debate once more.
Shmulik
I came to the conclusion that Raphael does not understand the difference between not believing and believing not. He thinks the two things are the same.
Raphael,
Reporter:
"Rival I can't prove I wasn't created 5 minutes ago with all my memories."
An opponent answered you:
"Raphael,
You said that science cannot rule out the possibility that there is a creator for the world, so I'm just showing you that no imaginary possibility can be ruled out and therefore it doesn't prove anything, certainly not his existence."
So what remains is to hear from you a non-evasive answer to the (obvious) claim of an opponent. In the meantime, you just dodged the questions and suddenly started talking about a universe that was created out of nothing and the rest of the charge in Shin.
A super simple question: Do you agree with an opponent's claim:
"You said that science cannot rule out the possibility that there is a creator for the world, so I'm just showing you that no imaginary possibility can be ruled out and therefore it doesn't prove anything, certainly not his existence"
Raphael
For someone who doesn't have time to read my comment it's certainly strange how much time you have to argue with people.
Snowflake if you haven't noticed.
No, complexity is not evidence of design, for example:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/photos3/w050207a028.jpg
rival. What do you think about the level of complexity that exists in nature? Do you think complexity is not proof of design? And if not, what criteria constitute proof of planning for you?
I'm not belittling you personally, I'm belittling a belief that I think is completely stupid.
And this is not due to ignorance, on the contrary.
Your adversary's disdain stems from ignorance and feelings of inferiority. I showed you that what you believe in (that the universe was created from nothing and without the need for a creator) can be considered equally unfounded imaginations.
I also think about those who worship an imaginary being from the world of legends called God.
I also think not about those who pray to the moon.
Raphael, I think not.
And if he didn't sacrifice cats then should his faith be respected?
Raphael,
I didn't set anything. You are and to that I said no delay
First of all it should be denounced and certainly not respected, secondly one might think that the Torah you believe in is not full of stories about the sacrifice of poor animals for the sake of that invisible creator.
A rival and I have a neighbor who prays to his ego every evening and makes sacrifices to him (poor cats). He is sure that his ego created him. Do you think his faith should be respected?
Raphael, I have a neighbor who goes outside every evening and prays to the moon, he is sure that the moon is the one who created us and his whole family also believes in it, they even have an ancient book that describes everything the moon has done for humanity.
Do you think his faith should be respected?
Yariv, if you want to know what to do, then contact a rabbi to guide you. This is not the place.
I will content myself for the moment with the fact that the scientists will not claim that there is no creator of the world but will accept that this is a possibility that science can also contain and will not disparage those who believe that there is a creator of the world.
Raphael Let's say that I was convinced and came to the conclusion that God really exists. What now, should we pray to him?
To thank him every day for what he did for us? to follow his commandments?
What exactly does he expect from us?
Raphael
I understand that you did not read the article, and that you are trying your best not to understand what people are telling you.
WD I don't have time right now to read all your prose. But I read the beginning. What you say "in general, for the most part, no one here bothers to talk about God and make claims about his non-existence" is not true. See the title and content of this article as well as many of the comments here.
Equally an adversary, I can ask you how you come to the conclusion that God does not exist...
Shmulik, what you think doesn't matter either.
In my opinion there is no difference between the claim that we were created 5 minutes ago with all our memories and the claim that the universe was created from nothing and for no reason.
Raphael
Have you ever considered that you might be the problem here?
I will try to explain. In general, for the most part, no one here bothers to talk about God and make claims about his non-existence. You (and several other commenters) on the other hand come and claim, in different ways, that there is a God and that it can be proven. Now this is a site that tries to make science accessible to the general public, and some of the commenters are sensitive to the fact that people come and spread false claims on it and do not want less knowledgeable readers to think that some false claim is valid. (Maybe you don't notice but it happens in many cases and not only when someone claims that God exists.
All that is said to you when you make claims of this kind is that you are wrong and misleading, and they explain why and how you are wrong. I don't recall seeing anyone here talking about proofs for the non-existence of God. People simply explain to you that there is no factual evidentiary basis for believing in the existence of God.
Now your claim about the existence of God is problematic to begin with. why?
1) Because you ignore the fact that there is a huge amount of gods (in the world of human definitions) and not all of them are in line with your definition.
2) Because you are not even able to explain what you mean when you say God.
Now we reach a point where there are several options, but I will focus on two in order not to ramble too much.
1) It is about a definite definition of God with details that can be checked for truth with scientific tools, which usually includes a God that intervenes in the operation of the universe and that these interventions can be proven.
2) It is about an abstract definition of God that part of the definition is that it is impossible to measure or know anything about God, and in fact this God does not affect our lives in any way that can be tested.
When it comes to the first option, we find that there is no basis I have seen that supports this type of God, and that many of the claims about this God are completely hidden by what we notice in the evidence base.
When it comes to the second, then from the beginning there is nothing to talk about because already according to the definition we are aware that there cannot be an evidential basis for belief in its existence, but there is also nothing that contradicts its existence.
The God of the first type usually comes with a variety of commandments and laws that you are supposed to behave and live by.
The second kind of god doesn't actually tell you to do anything because he doesn't interfere with the universe at all.
The other problem at this point is mixing the two. When you think that because the second cannot be proven or disproved it holds for the first, and eliminates the contradictions in the first, and that they are essentially one and the same entity, you commit a serious logical fallacy.
In fact you initially tell yourself that it is possible to believe in one kind of God whose existence cannot be confirmed or disproved, which is somehow still logically fine, though not necessary. Then you decide to unite him with a second kind of God, whose existence is disprovable, and affix to him the attribute of, irrefutable from the first kind of God. Then you say to yourself that living according to the world of values associated with God of the second type is the way you should live because there is a God, because we have shown that His existence cannot be disproved, even though the world of values of God of the first type is completely different (it is empty). You are forcing an equality/equivalence that does not exist/is dead. You are trying very hard to distort reality to fit your world view, but even you are able to see the absurdity in this.
I don't care if you choose to believe in God. I think this is a bad way to make decisions but depending on which god you believe in you don't really have to make decisions based on that. All in all there are reasons why this is a good choice to make as a human being even if you sin to the truth when you do it, and I can understand why people make this choice even if I don't agree with it.
But, to come here and try to sell people bullshit, expect that no one will have anything to say about it, that people will just sit quietly and let this information be presented without comment, and then complain when it is commented on. I don't have enough words to describe all the wrongness of it.
Now I'm going to make your life a little easier. Intelligent religious people, do not conduct such discussions of proofs for the existence of God. They have a very good answer for that. She goes like this:
"If there was proof of God's existence there would be no need for faith and no faith could exist."
Do yourself a favor and start using this insight.
Okay, so we are presented with two possibilities that both sound equally illogical (let's say) and both cannot be proven, how do you come to the conclusion that God exists from all of this?
What you think can't be proven doesn't matter.
Yariv demonstrated to you that there is no difference between the claim that we were created 5 minutes ago with all our memories and the claim that God created everything.
Do you agree that there is no difference between the two claims?
To me, the possibility that the universe was created by itself is also an imaginary possibility that cannot be proven. So what?
Raphael,
You said that science cannot rule out the possibility that there is a creator for the world, so I'm just showing you that no imaginary possibility can be ruled out and therefore it doesn't prove anything, certainly not his existence.
How did you come to the conclusion that the possibility is imaginary which is not true?
Beautiful, meaning that no imaginary possibility that is incorrect can be rejected, not even the possibility that was created 5 minutes ago.
Draw the necessary conclusions about God.
Rival I can't prove I wasn't created 5 minutes ago with all my memories.
"The conclusion of the last debate was that science cannot rule out the possibility that there is a creator for the world and needless to say that it cannot prove that there is no creator for the world"
The truth is that this is one of the most retarded arguments I've ever heard, in the same way you can't rule out the possibility that was created 5 minutes ago with all your memories, prove it not.
"The conclusion of the last debate was that science cannot rule out the possibility that there is a creator for the world and needless to say that it cannot prove that there is no creator for the world"
The truth is that this is one of the most retarded arguments I've ever heard, in the same way you can't rule out the possibility that was created only 5 minutes ago with all your memories, prove it not.
Wd remind you that the conclusion of the last debate was that science cannot rule out the possibility that there is a creator for the world and needless to say that it cannot prove that there is no creator for the world. So all those who release statements from the hip here speak from their heart's thoughts and their opinion is considered the skin of garlic.
Raphael
To call Camila so that she can explain to you again the logical fallacy in the concept of the law binding your legislator? To reach an understanding of what the laws of nature are, we have already understood that you do not want to know.
Ori
The guy didn't get stressed for nothing. Religious people (most of them) who comment here are not very smart. A wise religious person would not have entered into an argument with a secularist about the existence of God, and certainly would not have tried to dismiss the "scientists" as stupid evildoers.
They may be a minority, but an intelligent minority.
God exists it is true, but only in the wild imagination of the gullible believers.
Raphael
Stop feeding the trolls. They are a minority and have no power or influence and their opinion is worth as much as the skin of garlic. What do you care if they are like that? Leave them. Shame on them.
Raphael
Unlike you, I don't feel like a puppet on a string. Raphael, of all things. Lev, I really feel sorry for you that you feel this way. You don't understand how much fun it is to live when you are responsible for your actions, and don't think of yourself as someone else's tool.
Good morning Raphael!
I slept on it (albeit for a short time) and had a great epiphany that brought me to the final conclusion that my brain is the one that activates me.
What do you think about this ?
Rival I'll let you sleep on it maybe you'll have enlightenment in the morning. Good night.
I understand that this is only Raphael's example, but what is the example?
It seems you expect us to draw some conclusions about reality from your imaginary parable.
Rival, you remind me of a puppet on a string who tells her friend it's good that we have strings that hold us up and we don't need an operator to hold the strings? (note - this is just a parable)
Just like that, the same laws of nature that cause billions of separate and random atoms to turn into a neat and beautiful salt crystal.
Rival, well, it's not about real wires. I forgot that it is impossible to explain to you with a parable because you might take it literally. Did you really look for wires connected to your head and hands? Think for a moment what prevents you and the entire universe from returning to being nothing and zero. Uh...laws of nature right?
Raphael,
The last time I checked I didn't find any wires attached to me, or anyone activating me.
But yes, unfortunately many of the believers do have strings attached, and the ones who pull them are the rabbis who decide for those people how to live and what to think.
Nissim, you remind me of a puppet on a string saying to her friend, do you think there is any reason not to think that today the person holding our strings no longer exists?
http://media.oglaf.com/comic/acrophobia.jpg
Raphael
Neither of us know how the universe began (if it even has a beginning), or even how life began. But, we see the world around us and can draw conclusions.
Question: Do you think there is a reason not to think that today, the Creator no longer exists?
Raphael
Do you notice that you are the one fueling this argument?
Nonsense, the Creator exists only in the imagination of those who believe in Him.
No one created us, certainly not someone intelligent.
Rival, the only reality is the reality of the Creator.
The creator of the world exists only in fairy tales.
Face the reality.
Shmulik, I was almost tempted to answer you 🙂
No one says there is no Creator.
There are those who say there is and others (and I am among them) say, come on, prove it.
Here he begins another pointless debate on a topic that has been thoroughly discussed here and everywhere.
Let me guess that those who say there is no creator will never be convinced by the response given here, and vice versa.
The goal is simply to increase the site's rating by hundreds of heated comments and to satisfy the tireless desire for debate of some of the veterans commenting here.
My father is autumn
If I may ask - why didn't the perfect God create a perfect world?
elbentzo
Please do not insult the monkeys. They may even file a lawsuit for defamation. They have more sense than we think.
Avi,
Wait, I'll understand.
1. Science will not reach the truth, because it searches for the truth *and not* first decides what the truth is and then starts searching?
2. If I decide I have evolved from a pest then do you think I will develop camouflage colors? I'm trying to understand how this part of "deciding" what the truth is works, and how according to you it affects who we are. The way I see it, it doesn't matter at all what truth you've decided on. If you've decided on truth before you've checked, then you're closer to a monkey than something perfect...
My father Setoi,
God is an imaginary invention of humans, he does not exist and never was.
We have a right to choose just like an ant has.
Science will never be able to reach complete truth because it ignores that there is a God and that we were created in his image
Therefore, we have the right to choose at every moment in our lives, and if we choose that we evolved from a monkey, so will our lives.
Mechanisms of balance and control (restraint) exist in every government of a progressive and reformed country.
And even in these areas there is politics. As Aden commented on it.
The problem is with lousy science politicians who try to divert the direction science is heading in the directions of the interests and agendas of those lousy stakeholders.
Eden
Both medicine, teaching, security and religion - they are all based on people. Of all these, science has mechanisms of balances and control.
Eden
So you're basically saying that we should remember to be wary of people even when the word science is mentioned?
Miracles - maybe I could be precise in the wording, but the scientific method is not disconnected from the human world, from the education and control systems of all kinds, money, personal lust, etc. That's what I mean
It is clear that a scientific method without context has no danger or no danger or anything else
Miracles
And it is different from his contribution to the discussion without it how?
Eden
Can I have an example of what you mean?
Pastel colors are plastered
I don't understand why it is so important for you to show that you are not even able to understand what is being written to you. Your reading comprehension, drawing conclusions, and logic are so flawed that I really have no desire to discuss the matter with you, but I'm willing to make an effort for you to understand, so I'm trying anyway.
I "don't" know scientists who compare science and religion? Huh? Who said such a thing? Your stuff has nothing to do with anything. I never claimed to be a scientist or not a scientist. In any case, you don't need to be a scientist or a non-scientist to have a discussion that compares science to religion, so it's irrelevant.
To be perfectly clear. I am not interested in having any discussion with you. You are nothing short of contempt for intelligence and every comment you make on the site proves it. I suggested that you debate the issue with you so that you can be educated (I know this concept makes you feel disgusted). The only thing that's ridiculous about me is that I'm willing to give an educated a-hole like you a chance to learn.
Eden
I don't understand what dangers you see in science. Science is a method of studying nature, a method that proves itself over and over again. What do you think is dangerous about it?
Spaghetti
The fact that you change the nickname all the time does not contribute to the discussion.
I think that at the same time as studying science, we need to teach the dangers, the problems that existed, the limitations of science in solving problems (as opposed to the marketing of "science" and there is a lot of marketing) and the fact that people deal with it and it causes problems - for example, politicians.
By the way, I don't really think that "science" is taught in school, just as people are not taught to think or rather they are forbidden to think, to a large extent, even if not directly.
Miracles
I said what I wanted to say. what are you trying to say No one knows...
Walking Chicken Shit
You "don't" know scientists who compare science and religion.
And you want to hold a discussion comparing science and religion..
The fact that you are not a scientist - anyone can see that.
But the fact that you want to have a discussion about things you don't understand - puts you in an even more ridiculous light than you are.
Pastels
Did you try to say something?
Pastels
Sachtain on the straw man. Please show me where the scientists say there is no comparison between science and religion, then we can talk.
By the way, if you are interested in a comparison between science and religion, I would be happy to do so. It is very easy to point out the countless points where science has a clear priority in its contribution to decision-making compared to religion.
On the one hand, some scientists claim that there is no comparison between science and religion. And on the other hand, they compare science and religion... "interesting"…
What is it similar to? To - the former president of Egypt, Morsi, who does not recognize the Egyptian court but nevertheless files an appeal against the court's decision...
"Hypocrisy" - have we already said that?
It is human to believe in a creator, it is divine to know that he does not exist and to remain human.