Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I would happy to send them a letter on your behalf.  What would you like your message to be to them?

That there are Christian fundamentalists in America who are profoundly ignorant of modern physics and what can the APS do to bring understanding to these deprived individuals.

And you're fully grounded in physics?

Of all the knowledge contained about modern physics in non-fiction books and scientific journals, what percentage would you say you have as knowledge that you can apply to the world without help from any external sources?  If it's not 100 percent, are you ignorant of the remaining knowledge?

[Jehanne]

That there are Christian fundamentalists in America who are profoundly ignorant of modern physics and what can the APS do to bring understanding to these deprived individuals.

And you're fully grounded in physics?

Of all the knowledge contained about modern physics in non-fiction books and scientific journals, what percentage would you say you have as knowledge that you can apply to the world without help from any external sources?  If it's not 100 percent, are you ignorant of the remaining knowledge?

My knowledge of physics, classical, modern or otherwise, is not the issue here. Fact is that no physicist who is actively publishing in cosmology is of the mindset that a creator god is necessary to explain anything.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It appears you didn't - my apologies.

Please explain how the conservation of mass is a problem for abiogenesis.

Boru

Directly it doesn't, but I don't know that I implied that.  If it was, then it would've been a typing error. I would have to look at the post again.  I thought I was applying it in regard to the "big bang" though.  Abiogenesis would be more in conflict with biogenesis.

Modern science implies these ideas are nonsense and are not observable in light of the Law of Conservation of Mass, and Biogenesis.

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I'm having a hard time finding a typo.

Boru

[T0 Th3 M4X]

And you're fully grounded in physics?

Of all the knowledge contained about modern physics in non-fiction books and scientific journals, what percentage would you say you have as knowledge that you can apply to the world without help from any external sources?  If it's not 100 percent, are you ignorant of the remaining knowledge?

My knowledge of physics, classical, modern or otherwise, is not the issue here.  Fact is that no physicist who is actively publishing in cosmology is of the mindset that a creator god is necessary to explain anything.

Proof?

[Jehanne]

My knowledge of physics, classical, modern or otherwise, is not the issue here.  Fact is that no physicist who is actively publishing in cosmology is of the mindset that a creator god is necessary to explain anything.

Proof?

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Proof?

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/

Thanks. So you were wrong.

Title from your citation: Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists


"Almost all" does not = 0

Also, the whole bit isn't conclusive.  He's stating an opinion and notes that he is.

[Jehanne]

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/

Thanks. So you were wrong.

Title from your citation: Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists


"Almost all" does not = 0

Also, the whole bit isn't conclusive.  He's stating an opinion and notes that he is.

Even among those cosmologists who believe (such as Professor George Ellis), none of them (him) are claiming anything about the existence of God from modern physics; rather, they believe for other reasons.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Thanks. So you were wrong.

Title from your citation: Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists


"Almost all" does not = 0

Also, the whole bit isn't conclusive.  He's stating an opinion and notes that he is.

Even among those cosmologists who believe (such as Professor George Ellis), none of them (him) are claiming anything about the existence of God from modern physics; rather, they believe for other reasons.

They don't need to.  We use science to study the natural world.

I've done peer-reviewed work in the past to include through self-study, to group projects, to doing peer review.  Never did I feel like there was some inherent obligation that I must include an explanation about God.  When you say "physics" you instantly default to the natural world, so you're going to talk about natural relationships.  What scientific study does do is evaluate relationships between two or more variables.  It doesn't attempt to make claims about anything supernatural, because you can't create parameters for such since they don't necessarily adhere to natural laws, which is why you get the "super" before "natural."  I'm certainly not debating whether or not there are a lot of cosmologists who are atheist and believe there was a big bang, but that is their choice.  We can't observe a "big bang" from the past, so it's based on conjecture.  Conjecture doesn't mean something is false, but we can't conclusively state it as being such without further knowledge.  When you start looking at the origins of anything, it's extremely difficult, because if we can't physically observe something, we are forming a conclusion based on insufficient knowledge.  I don't even have a problem with the "big bang" as a possibility, but I would see it as an effect rather than an initial cause.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you see the big bang as an effect, then your silly god has physical effects, and that puts it well within the purview of scientific inquiry. The unfalsifiability of the "supernatural" is what people retreat to..but not what people believe. We're absolute garbage at coming up with genuinely unfalsifiable propositions. Probably has something to do with being a meat mind in a material world. All of our referents are equally material...and so too, do we imagine god to be, even if we bullshit people for pages and pages only to shoot ourselves in the foot with a single sentence.

[Amarok]

Louis Pasteurs idea's only applied to spontaneous generation not abiogenesis .