RE: Wish
June 10, 2016 at 3:38 pm
(This post was last modified: June 10, 2016 at 3:39 pm by Simon Moon.)
(June 10, 2016 at 1:28 pm)purplepurpose Wrote: Fun part is that even scientists struggle with abstract questions. For example "How "nothing" produced something?"(question from audience). Top scientist when was pushed against the wall with this question responded in a very surprising manner "I believe our brains logic is flawed. It has evolved to survive for the most part and cannot comprehend such complex questions". Its only his theory.
First of all, the definition of "nothing" in physics is not the same as "absolute nothingness". It is absolutely impossible for anything, including a god, to act on nothingness. It is an incoherent statement to say that "nothingness became something". But that is not what physicists are saying.
Yes, it is true that our brains have evolved in order to help us survive on the African plains, not to ponder reality. It is possible that we may never be able to completely comprehend the nature of reality.
The problem is when people claim to know what the nature of reality is, like theists for example. The inference and induction that serves us so well in our day to day lives, fails with the nature of reality. But theists continue to use it, despite its failures.
Quote: Its only his theory.
This is intellectually dishonest equivocation.
The definition of the word "theory" in science is not the same as it is used colloquially. What you are tossing off with a wave of your hand as "only a theory" is backed by mountains of evidence and eloquent math to support it. It may not be complete, or completely understood, but it is drastically better than saying "god did it".
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
