Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Hasanuddin

  1. When I first came on to what was going to flow into this thread I said I was quite serious about being hesitant. The reason is that arguing theology is a zero sum game. Actually, the result is usually a loss rather than a gain. Emotions usually run very high. Winning an argument, especially between two people of faith, could mean shaking your “opponent’s” belief system, which has more negative repercussions than positive ones. Besides, I meant what I said earlier: we’re all born alone; we all die alone; and (I believe) we are all going to be judged alone. In other words, the only life I can
  2. Dear InfinitieNow, I hope you realize that the tenor of your last two posts feeds into my assertion that the notion of God is very similar in form to the belief held for the existence of the Higgs. Note: I am not saying that either one does/doesn’t exist All I’m saying is that the type of belief for these two different unverified “things” is based on faith. In post 59 you were as rabid and insulting as an evangelical being told there is no God. You expressed dismay and outrage that I dare compare the yet unverified equation-based predictions to ancient scripture. Question: are all equation
  3. Hi InfiniteNow, Let’s see: Yes, I am suggesting that with regard to scriptures used to support the notion of God there are sharp parallels to the equations used to prop-up the notion of the Higgs. And yes, you did correctly read that numbers, statistics, charts, and complex equations are often used in persuasion theory (whether consciously or unconsciously) to argue points, justify conclusions, or assert power over others. Persuasive effects of story and statistical evidence | Argumentation and Advocacy | Find Articles at BNET Okay, now the burden of proof falls to you InfiniteNow.
  4. Hi Modest, You posted while I was replying to InfiniteNow. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe we are more in synch with each other than not. First, you are correct to point out that the supposition that each major religion possesses some aspect of absolute truth is a firm belief of mine, based on my understandings of quranic narratives. Although this belief cannot be directly supported, other than through the Quran itself, this belief is tangentially supported by the fervor of some individuals, religious wars, and the mass-appeal of these religions as discussed previously. I can see
  5. Good morning InfiniteNow, Actually, sir, the reference to the Higgs boson was in comparison to the notion of God, not unicorns. You see, belief in God and belief in the existence of a Higgs particle have a lot in common. 1: Belief in either God or the Higgs is to submit one’s perception of reality to include a concept that has never been directly measured. 2: The existence of both God and the Higgs is supported by a complex framework of assumptions: scriptures for one and equations for the other. 3: Both scriptures and equations possess attractive, yet fallacious allure. Scriptures h
  6. Thank you InfiniteNow, let me try in replying to Moontanman, First off, I am proselytizing no-one. I honestly don’t care what you believe; I don’t care what you do with your life; I don’t care what you build/destroy, help/hurt, whatever. That is you business. Just don’t try to impinge, infringe, impede, or undermine me. We were all born alone; we’re all gunna die alone. The only reason I entered this fray at all was because Boerseun was evoking categorical terms when professing his atheistic zealous and dogmatic views Which was posted on a thread on the Astronomy board (now wisely moved to
  7. Hi Modest, Before I reply, could I make a silly and small request? Please teach me how to make the button-quote that are actually hyperlinks. I’ve just been typing in html, but that doesn’t give the hyperlink. Sorry if I misunderstood you, I couldn't tell which side of the fence you were on. You’re your last post, it appears you understand both sides. Personally I find it quite hard to follow someone’s reasoning if the intent behind the words is not known. For example, To me, following such a quote is quite tricky without knowing what your actually predisposition is. I mean, the first pa
  8. Eric, Please try not to focus around I's and you's. One thing I've learned from this forum is that if those words can be avoided, they should be. Honestly, criticism was never intended. Simply I am trying to understand your meaning. For example, in this last post it was said: Sorry, but I am completely unaware or this position and also this example. What I was referring to was gravitational lensing, e.g. Gravitational Lensing Next it is stated Okay, how, why, and supply a hyperlink or some other evidence to back this assertion up. Or, go back to what I posted earlier, and give reason
  9. Hello All, If you’ve been following along these thread you’ll know that I am the author of a modern cosmologic model that is revolutionary, both in terms of its methodology and its primary hypothesis. Although several popular, yet unverified, existing assumptions are over-turned by the new model, all of the experimental and observational data is both compatible and explained by the new Dominium model—even data that is without explanation under traditional approached, e.g., the massive antimatter cloud at the center of our galaxy, See thread: http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-and-cosmolo
  10. It was good that this topic was moved. Actually the whole question asked by the title "god or no god," is implicitly a theologic one. Also, in terms of these types of questions we must all retain absolute respect for one another. There is no way that either side (atheist or believing) can know the answers to these questions with any degree of certainty. That is why it is called "Faith." Let is also be noted that atheism is just another belief system. The premises are slightly different, but just as unverifiable.
  11. Hello Rade, I’m sorry I’ve been slow at response, I was ending the school year. Grades dues, etc. I want to respond to post 114 but you’ve got me confused. I thought a basic premise of the RAD model was the idea that protons, for example, are a conjoined conglomeration of 5-qcs. However, in the opening of post 114, you state that He-4 is made of only 12-qcs. I’d agree with that if we were talking in terms of concensus understanding He-4 is assumed to be made of 12 quarks. But under the RAD-model, shouldn’t He-4 be composed of 20 qsc for a grand total of 60 individuals, where 36 are quarks
  12. I apologize Boerseun, as I mentioned earlier, it appears this thread has split three ways. Perhaps the religious posts could be bundled and split off. But with your leave, let me respond to Modest. =================== Modest, I am very aware of the teachings and practice of both Christians and Moslem. I can tell you first-hand, that Christains do not do as you project: Huh? No. Haven't you heard of the Protestant work ethic? The Puritans were workaholics. You’re making stuff up for the convenience of a fanciful projection. Nowhere have I heard of anyone praying to move mountains. The u
  13. Hi Boerseun, Yes, science and religion are truly incompatible on some levels. This is especially true if one is an atheist. To say that science and religion are completely incompatible would lead to the conclusion that the two could not exist logically within a person’s mind, i.e. and therefore, there should be no religious scientists. Some of the greatest of all scientists were also highly devote. Some scientists had epiphanies as they conducted their research, viewed the natural “beauty,” and gained a religion. Einstein was one who started out semi-atheist and became devote as continued to
  14. My apologies, my eyes must have been playing tricks because I totally misread post 179. It turns out I'm in 100% agreement with you. What'd Gilda Radner say as SNL character Emily LaTilla, "Oh, that's different, never mind."
  15. Though I probably should leave well enough alone, there were a couple statements I can’t ignore: I totally disagree. Who are you to say that you “know” the limits of God or the nature of God’s ability to interact? How dare you? Honestly, you are trying to unhinge the only known categorical “truth” of God, as determined by the only true consensus between the five/six greatest (numerically) religions: The Catholics say “God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.” The Protestants say “The Lord is my shepherd.” The Jews say that “God is eternal.” The Moslems repeat hundreds of times a pray
  16. Hi everyone, cool thread… but it looks like it is splitting into two, perhaps three, different lines of thought. One line of thought moves down the line of who are we within the Universe. That is a cosmologic question… one that I am particularly fond of (just see my posting signature.) The second line of posts that splits this thread deals with where do we belong with relation to God, which is a theological/metaphysical question. Very cool, but it should be on a more specialized board. The third line begins at post 17. I agree with freeztar’s assessment in port 18 that too many questions not a
  17. Hi phillip1882, Doesn’t the question depend on several other things? First, how much fun do you enjoy playing the game. If you’re having a really good time with friends you’d be swayed to draw out the game. Next, how badly do you need the money? To me, either $3 or $27 I don’t really care, neither one of these amounts matter to me at this stage of my life. I'm right in the middle of refinancing... it's going through and freeing up a lot more than 27 dollars a month (PS, everyone, you homeowners, I help you taking advantage of the Obama refinancing deal... it's the "stimulus package," b
  18. Hi Eric, As to the question of why photons are attracted to matter. Well, such a question is practically a moot point because it is a known fact that has been verified many times over. Using ultra large masses, like a black-hole, we have been able to see light bend—this data all points to an “attractive” nature. However, using kitchen objects, magnifying glass and a stopwatch, you would never be able to see those photons bend within your because of gravitation between objects. Even so, there are a lot of empirical observations of shimmers in cosmologic data that are directly implicated by th
  19. I agree with you 100% InfiniteNow, This is a definite molehill, teacup-storm, and nothing-something. The only reason there is an issue is because people create there to be an issue. And on that note, I think I will say "goodbye" to this thread. Personally I think there are way too many laws on the books in the USA to consider that actual freedom and liberty still exists in the USA. I remember one year it was reported that California adopted over 3000 new laws onto the books. Although it could be argued that among those laws were legitimate causes, many were there simply to curtain the free
  20. Interesting notion that gay-men don’t fornicate… I’d beg to differ. But whether or not fornication occurs and the merits of fornication are not really on topic to the question of same-sex marriage. Believe it or not, Jway did encapsulate most of the arguments used to denounce same sex marriage in Post 55. I know that was a bit back there, but there are folks who have convinced each other of the merit of each of these points. When Massachusetts’ State House was involved in deciding how the commonwealth would weigh in on this subject, busload of demonstrators were bused in from places far away
  21. Dear InfiniteNow, Let me hone what you just stated, "science has yet to identify an angry gene or a gay gene." That statement is correct. The oversimplification in post 179 is incorrect, i.e., not 100% certain by any measure. Actually there is definite suggestion that genes and demeanor are related. All one need do is look at breeds of dogs. Anyone who knows anything about dogs knows that certain breeds have certain temperaments. There is actually a lot of exciting gene research going on right now within and between purebreds. When I started on this thread I brought up the fact that the
  22. Sorry to tell you Larv, but you're going to be a pretty hard-up little drone. Though you might fantasize about lazy days hanging around the hive doing nothing but bopping with the queen, but that is not the case. The queen only mates in midair, and she only wants to mate with drones from other hives. So basically, your whole life would be spent flying high with your glands ready on search for the chance whiff of a virgin queen. Quite a lot of drones are produced each year to make up for their low probability of finding a virgin queen. However, if you do come across a virgin queen, stand in lin
  23. True, many within society live their lives with as much care as your typical drone or infertile worker. That is very true; some lives appear hardly worth living. To the absolute cynic there is no difference between man and termite. The passing of another human, might seem unimportant as the death of a termite, to these callous few. Even the most famous of the famous of humans (after a couple decades) are as memorable as any individual worker killed when spraying the swarm with insecticide. True all very true. But these are philosophical and metaphysical questions—not scientific ones. Personall
  24. Hi InfiniteNow, What a great lead-in! I was actually considering your previous sarcasms about wolves, monkeys, and such. The reason I was thinking about those two examples is because both of them display characteristics worth noting. Both types of animals exile young males (the lone wolf or the single-roaming bachelor monkey.) The reason why I think of this behavior is because it does not exhibit kin-supportive behavior. So the question becomes, does lone-wolf/bachelor-monkey behavior relate more to gay men or are they normally doting aides to their sister’s children?? I can only speak fro
  25. Move 16 As the stream of positron MPP flow into inersteller space, they will continue to drive electrons along with them. Gravitational repultion would continue to accelerate the MPP, which in turn will accelerate the electrons. Because both the MPP and electrons will be traveling at similar relative speeds, conditions maintaining immiscibility would be expected to hold between these two types of particle packets. The electrons would be accelerated by the MPP in two different ways. Push from behind: Because of immiscibility, MPP can be considered discrete objects compared to the space o
  • Create New...