Following on from the >>God has been evicted from cosmology . . .<< thread.

[RATTER15]

OK, imagine this: It has been proven beyond any doubt with categoric proof that there is no Gods, anywhere or ever has been. even al the religious leaders worldwide have accepted this.

What now?

How would the world take shape?

I think the more extremist cultures and faiths like Muslims would need to war against something, I actually think that if it happened overnight some parts of the human race would never cope and would go into meltdown without their Gods.

Of course I know this could never be proven but just an interesting thought.

[jake-the-peg]

I know a proven scientific fact Naomi doesn't believe in

Virtual particles!

:c)

[naomi24]

Quite right, Jake - and neither will you when science is capable of explaining their existence properly. :o)

[jake-the-peg]

Not quite sure what you mean by that.

I think the problem you are having with virtual particle is a common one - I had it when I first encounterred quantum mechanics and Einstein spent most of the last part of his life fighting it.

None of it makes sense by analogy to everyday experience.

And most of us only have everyday experience to draw on - that's why it doesn't make sense to us.

It's not a question of sciece explaining it - it's an observation we observe them (indirectly of course) in the Casimir effect for example.



But this is where we come down to scientific faith and belief.

I've never done the Casimir experiment and I couldn't show you even how the direct numbers prove virtual particles.

I do however believe that those who have done it are honest and correct and I believe that because I have faith in the scientific method, that competition between scientists, peer review and similar checks and balances prevents fraud and error.

There have been examples of scientific fraud of course which is why reputation is so important.

But in the end I'm willing to change my opinion if new facts emerge and generally religious people are not and that's the difference.

So tell me - would you be willing to change your mind on things?

[naomi24]

Jake. I mean that, as Keyplus so rightly says, science changes - thank goodness - and when it does, you'll continue to agree with it. Having said that, you've just said // I'm willing to change my opinion if new facts emerge// so on that we agree.

I'm not a scientist, as you know, but I'm concerned when I hear science conclude that something comes from nothing, because logic tells me that isn't possible. Science consistently remains the peak of its current ability, which is why it continues to progress, but Quantum Mechanics is a very strange business - and I suspect we have much more to learn than we can possibly imagine.

//"Anyone who says that they understand Quantum Mechanics does not understand Quantum Mechanics"- Richard Feynman//

As many people here are well aware, if I'm wrong, I have no objection to saying I'm wrong, or to apologising, so given acceptable evidence, yes, I would be willing to change my mind

[keyplus90]

Naomi - ////Must we really go over all that again? We've been there, done that, and unfortunately for you, we've got the T-shirt!////

Why not? Or are you taking the escape route again by making some legendary claims again.

Ratter - ////Keyplus, I learned about love and hate through personal experience, I know of morals because I know the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, I can experience these things myself.

Please dont try to tell me that all these things come from a God, this supposed God or your is not nice!!!!/////

You sound a bit guilty. Should I ask now that where the personal experiences came from? And yes all of the sense about right and wrong, morality comes from religion. Otherwise I still am waiting to see a book of science that talks about morality. Then how would you decided what is right and what is wrong? What are your criteria?

[keyplus90]

Now we would see real Naomi. As someone else (Jake in this case) asked her a question now you see what happens?

Naomi- one more thing you can prove here today. Give me a single thread where you did not agree with someone initially (on any subject) and they managed to convince you.

[naomi24]

Keyplus, you seem to forget that your legendary claims - and our proof that they are wrong - are all well documented - and I've answered Jake's question - or haven't you read the posts again?

//Naomi- one more thing you can prove here today. Give me a single thread where you did not agree with someone initially (on any subject) and they managed to convince you. //

My pleasure. Here you are: http://www.theanswerb...Question680876-3.html

From Naomi: //Chakka, ...... I therefore concede that you're probably accurate in your conclusions. .....//

From Chakka: //Bravely and intelligently said, naomi.//

From Naomi: //Thanks Chakka, but not brave to my mind. When I'm mistaken, I'm happy to hold my hand up - and on this occasion I think I was mistaken.//

[naomi24]

Oh, and by the way Keyplus - you always see the real Naomi. Never doubt it.

[sandyRoe]

Naomi, having read your answer to Keyplus, where you admitted, 'and on this occassion I think I was mistaken', may I beseech you in the bowels of Christ to think it possible you may also be mistaken about the existence of God?

[keyplus90]

Naomi – Thanks for giving me a link from 2008 to prove that you did admit to someone that you were at mistake. Old enough but perhaps that is the only link you could find. But what I could gather from there was that you never had disagreement with Chakka but a mere misunderstanding because he could not understand your “tongue in cheek” expression. My question was,

///Give me a single thread where you did not agree with someone initially (on any subject) and they managed to convince you.////

Rest assured I also read this (on the same thread),

////Naomi - Everton, you're after another senseless argument, and I've no intention of obliging you. A very Happy New Year to you.////

///123 Everton I'm not after an argument, I'm after an answer.
It is a question and answer site after all, is'nt it?///

And of course I read all after that too.

[naomi24]

Sandy, I've never denied the possibility of the existence of a creator - however remote I think that possibility is. The problem I face here is one that you people who are voluntarily allowing your own intellect to be drowned in the superstitious nonsense of organised religion refuse even to think about - and that is that you're giving credit to the wrong bloke. Of that I have no doubt. If there is an almighty, all-powerful creator, it isn't Allah, God, Jehovah, Elohim, or whatever else you want to call it. That fellow's track record provides ample evidence that he wasn't 'God'.

If there is a real creator, it has to be something much bigger than that charlatan.

[sandyRoe]

You've forgotten that my answers need to be taken cum grano salis.

[naomi24]

I sometimes have my doubts.

[naomi24]

Keyplus, //And of course I read all after that too.//

Well, if you did, you somehow managed to leave this bit out. Strange.

From Naomi: //If you want an answer to a different question, dont ask me on this thread. Post the question separately and then anyone who's interested can have a go at answering it.//

There was no tongue in cheek expression. It was all perfectly straighforward. Chakka and I had a discussion, he persuaded me that he was right, and I conceded that he was. That's what you asked for and that's what you got.

NEXT!

[RATTER15]

Keyplus, morality was around a long time before religion and no one needs a book of science to learn morality!!!

why do you think I feel guilty, I haven't suggested I feel guilty at all!!!

Brainwashed or what!!!

[jake-the-peg]

Indeed Keyplus, Naomi said she would change her mind with sufficient evidence


What about you?

[sandyRoe]

Naomi... " I sometimes have my doubts."
Don't know if I should see that as a backhanded compliment to my duplicity or an insult. What worse, I wonder, could one atheist accuse another of than theism?

[naomi24]

God! That's worse than blasphemy, Sandy. Wash your mind out! :o)

[keyplus90]

Here is Naomi now,

Naomi - ///There was no tongue in cheek expression.///

And here is Naomi on her given thread,

Naomi - ///It was merely a tongue in cheek comment - and something that, had I been with you when it was said, would have been accompanied by a chuckle and a light elbowing in the ribs. Poke!////

Can anyone spot something there?

Ratter -////Keyplus, morality was around a long time before religion and no one needs a book of science to learn morality!!!////

Really? When did the religion start?

Jake – Naomi did say she would change her mind but so far I have to see that happening on this website. As for me, I have said that so many times that but just in case here you go I would say in inverted comas “If it is proved without a doubt that God does not exist, I, keyplus (and whatever my real name is) would change my mind”. Anything else?

[jake-the-peg]

Yep, there's one more step to being rational

You have to be able to state what that evidence might be - even if it is a hight bar.

So in my case with virtual particles it's quite easy for me. I believe in them due to a consenus in the community of physicists. If a majority of them were to say there had been an error I'd change my mind.

God's a harder one because I have to distinguish between God and some super-intelligence for me that means the test must involve showing the human soul was a real concept.

So let's say God started raising lots of people from the dead (and not just a few days "dead") - all who gave the same detailed account of the afterlife and scientific examination before and after were available.

There's a reasonable test for my changing my mind.

Now - what proof would you need to accept God does not exist?