Stephen Fry on confronting god after death

Dan_Solo

Akrasia wrote: »

If I have 100 euros and I owe you 100 euros, in accounting terms, I have zero assets 'nothing', but I still have a hundred euros in my pocket.... until I pay you back and then I have nothing again, but I can always borrow more tomorrow...

This isn't really helpful as we're back to discussing "facts" that only exist as abstract concepts. The 100 euro you owe doesn't really exist any more than money the bank owes to you. Computers can also store these representations of euros, but they are not actual euro notes.
If you try to assume these euros that your mind and a computer say exist then we are into the realm of saying anything in our mind really exists.

floggg

timetogo wrote: »

I'm not being smart. I just really can't get my head around this kind of argument.

He knew that Adam would eat an apple and that Jesus would have to be born and crucified to himself to "save" us.
He knew that earth 1.0 would have to be wiped with the flood because people were bad. He knew that Abraham would sacrifice his son if asked which would totally negate the need for the test, in which case we're back to him being a see you next tuesday.

etc. etc.

We're back to the god works in mysterious ways argument so. Very ****ing mysterious.

If I knew a pile of stuff was going to go wrong before I did it, I'd make sure it didn't go wrong to start with. Obviously I'm not omnipotent or anything but that seems kind of obvious.

What's worse is then blaming those creations for acting they way they did, when you knew full well when making them how they would turn out!

Akrasia

dancingchicken wrote: »

There is also no way to prove that free will actually exists. We will never know if we are actually choosing our actions or if we were destined to make these choices anyway.

You're right, it's impossible to disprove destiny, but we can's assume it either, and it's a good working assumption that we have some power to make our own choices and that the actions we perform will have effects on outcomes

Dan_Solo

Akrasia wrote: »

You're partially right on this, we can never intuitively understand all of nature. We can only experience the world through our own senses, but we can measure nature through science and using instruments, that can detect things we can not percieve ourselves, and though these tools (including cognitive tools like logic and mathematics), we can 'understand' the universe in ways that are beyond the wildest dreams of our ancestors (the ones who thought lightning was because of an angry man in the sky)

It has been proposed (can't remember where now) that to truly "understand" the universe we would need to have a complete model of the universe, and our own mind's understanding of the universe within it, inside our mind. The information in the universe can never be stored in the number of molecules in our brains, so true understanding is never possible.
But we do understand that we can't understand the universe in its entirety at any one time, which is fair enough for me.

Dan_Solo

floggg wrote: »

What's worse is then blaming those creations for acting they way they did, when you knew full well when making them how they would turn out!

The theists have gone quiet on this one... god knows all but he doesn't know what we will do therefore he doesn't know all... :-)

Akrasia

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But we can discuss 10000ft ice cream cones falling in a sea of custard if we want. This doesn't make these things real, they are still as hypothetical as the tree until it is specified what particular tree he's talking about. You can't switch between a hypothetical argument and reality at an arbitrary point without specifying its real world existence.

I agree that you can't define things into existence,
I'm only arguing that the format of the statement used doesn't do this.

"A tree falls in a wood somewhere and no-one hears it.

Does it exist?'

It reserves the existence property of the tree until the tree falls. If the tree doesn't exist, it can not fall. If it doesn't fall, then the argument doesn't state that the tree exists

'If a pink elephant walks into a bar, does it exist' Yes. it does. But pink elephants are extremely unlikely to walk into a bar.

"If god created the universe, did he exist?" Yes he does, but we can argue till the cows come home about whether god did actually create the universe.

Dan_Solo

Akrasia wrote: »

I agree that you can't define things into existence,
I'm only arguing that the format of the statement used doesn't do this.
It reserves the existence property of the tree until the tree falls. If the tree doesn't exist, it can not fall. If it doesn't fall, then the argument doesn't state that the tree exists

I don't think that's correct because of course hypothetical trees can fall within the imaginary hypothesis. Hypothetical trees can also turn into ice skating mongooses and to dance the Bolero. We can't pre-suppose the tree's actual existence at any point, therefore asking whether it exists will always be a negative.
"does it exist" is a pointless question to tack on to the end of a hypothetical question. We haven't been told at all if the tree really exists.

Donkey Oaty

Just back to the original story - Stephen Fry was on Radio 4 this morning talking about the storm whipped up by that interview. (Via Independent):

“I don’t think I mentioned once any certain religion, and I certainly didn’t intend, and I know I didn’t, to say anything offensive towards any particular religion,” he said. “I said quite a few things that were angry at this supposed God. I was merely saying things that Bertrand Russell and many finer heads of the mind have said for many thousands of years, going all the way back to the Greeks.

“I am astonished that it has caused so viral an explosion on Twitter and elsewhere. I’m most pleased that it’s got people talking. I’d never wish to offend anybody who is individually devout or pious and goes about their religious ways, and indeed many Christians have been in touch with me and said that they’re very grateful that things have been talked about.”

floggg

Akrasia wrote: »

Lawrence Krauss wrote a book called 'A universe from nothing'
But the crux is in what the definition of 'nothing' actually is. Quantum particles pop in and out of existance 'from nothing'

If I have 100 euros and I owe you 100 euros, in accounting terms, I have zero assets 'nothing', but I still have a hundred euros in my pocket.... until I pay you back and then I have nothing again, but I can always borrow more tomorrow...

The universe has 'positive' (eg light) and 'negative' energy (eg gravity). when we add up all the positive and negative energy in the universe, the total energy content of our entire universe could be zero.

Universes could be created from nothing just like money can be created from nothing by doing things 'on credit'

It's a headwrecker, but at least its an honest attempt to understand reality. Theologans are dishonest and say 'Everything has to have a cause...... Except god'

The thing theists are unable to answer about their "something from nothing" argument is then how did God come into being?

sbsquarepants

circadian wrote: »

Time is a perception. It behaves differently all over the universe. If you have an atomic clock on earth and sync it with a second one and send that into the outer atmosphere, they will go out of sync. This is due to the effect gravity has on our perception of time.

Space and time are intrinsically linked (spacetime) We are moving through both all the time, the faster you move through one the slower you move through the other. Gravity curves spacetime, meaning the distance from a to b increases the stronger the gravitational field, but the speed of light stays the same - to travel a greater distance at the same speed takes more time, therefore time appears to move more slowly the closer it is to a large gravity source - as seen from the distance. If it was happening to you (which it is) - you wouldn't notice, only someone looking at you from far away would cop it.

dancingchicken wrote: »

I mean what if our brains are just perceiving time as a past present and future and maybe it doesn't even exist..

There's a theory called the block universe, goes something like everything is already set in stone past present and future all exist side by side but we can only experience one instant at a time. The "you" reading this word has existed for billion of years and will exist forever, the "you" who remembers it happening last week also exists simultaneously with the you who won't read it for another year. Consciously we basically do laps experiencing one version of ourselves, then another, then another so we perceive time as being linear.
I don't know if I necessarily buy into it, but all the equations work with time in reverse so who knows!

dancingchicken wrote: »

Scientists have proven that tiny insects like flies perceive time at a different rate to us. .

How did they do that?

Dan_Solo

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Just back to the original story - Stephen Fry was on Radio 4 this morning talking about the storm whipped up by that interview. (Via Independent):

That's odd because he was postulating about what seemed to be fairly specifically the Abrahamain god who is assumed by adherents to be "good". Other religions do not assume this.
But most theists are Abrahamaic right now I suppose.

Akrasia

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I don't think that's correct because of course hypothetical trees can fall within the imaginary hypothesis. Hypothetical trees can also turn into ice skating mongooses and to dance the Bolero. We can't pre-suppose the tree's actual existence at any point, therefore asking whether it exists will always be a negative.
"does it exist" is a pointless question to tack on to the end of a hypothetical question. We haven't been told at all if the tree really exists.

If it falls then it exists.

Anyway, this is a silly tangent to argue about a misquoted trope in philosopy

Zubeneschamali

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's odd because he was postulating about what seemed to be fairly specifically the Abrahamain god

He was answering a direct question from Gaybo: "Suppose it’s all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God".

That's clearly the God with the white beard who lives ankle deep in dry-ice fog behind a fancy gate with a crowd of ghosts with wings playing harps.

When Fry says he didn't mention any certain religion, that's true, and Gaybo didn't either, but they are both talking about one we recognize.

Dan_Solo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

He was answering a direct question from Gaybo: "Suppose it’s all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God".

That's clearly the God with the white beard who lives ankle deep in dry-ice fog behind a fancy gate with a crowd of ghosts with wings playing harps.

When Fry says he didn't mention any certain religion, that's true, and Gaybo didn't either, but they are both talking about one we recognize.

True, if you're at the pearly gates then it's "our" god, but it's somewhat deceitful then to say he didn't mention any particular religion at a later date when we all know exactly what religion he was talking about.

Akrasia

sbsquarepants wrote: »

There's a theory called the block universe, goes something like everything is already set in stone past present and future all exist side by side but we can only experience one instant at a time. The "you" reading this word has existed for billion of years and will exist forever, the "you" who remembers it happening last week also exists simultaneously with the you who won't read it for another year. Consciously we basically do laps experiencing one version of ourselves, then another, then another so we perceive time as being linear.
I don't know if I necessarily buy into it, but all the equations work with time in reverse so who knows!

My pet understanding is that entropy sets the arrow of time. Entropy is all about probability. There is more entropy in a deck of 52 cards with billions of possible orders that they can be shuffled than in a single coin which is either heads or tales. So we would be very surprised if a two shuffled decks of cards ended up in the exact same order, than if two coin flips both resulted in 'heads'

For quantum particles, time can go either forwards or backwards because the quantum object itself only has one 'state'. It does not change until it interacts with something else. But when an interaction happens, entropy increases and the arrow of time becomes 'locked in'

The reason entropy tends to increase, is because of probability, if a photon could travel backwards or forwards in 'time' it would be equally probable that the photon is anywhere along any one of it's possible locations at any 'time' and individual photons could collide with each other and move each other off their given path but entropy only increases slightly each time this happens, (this explains why observations can show photons that appear to take multiple routes to get to the same desitnation) but if photons hit specific objects that are particularly receptive to them and trigger chain reactions of events that cause large entropy increases, and it becomes is less 'probable' that the photon could undo this interaction than to just lock itself in to this new 'observed' position

There is nothing in the laws of physics that state a smashed glass could not spontaneously re-order itself back into an intact glass, but the sheer number of partical interactions required make this so improbable that it will never happen. When you're taking about individual quantum particles, it's much more likely that they could 'un smash' themselves

This explains why quantum objects like photons seem to take all possible routes to get to their destination, ie, they are everywhere until they are 'observed' For a photon, time is meaningless until it interacts with something and entropy increases high enough to make it improbable that the interaction could be reversed

This is my attempt at an understanding based on reading books by Lee Smolin, Max Tegmark, Brian Greene, James Gleick, Richard Feynman amongst others

niamhstokes

Ghost Buster wrote: »

She didnt though. She told them to a few wee girleens and then swore them to secrecy. Very poor PR

No, if you look at the tv documentary on it you can see what happened.


I guess this is just another thread for atheists to rant on, as in real life hardly anyone is actually atheist. At least they have this as an outlet haha

Dan_Solo

niamhstokes wrote: »

No, if you look at the tv documentary on it you can see what happened.


I guess this is just another thread for atheists to rant on, as in real life hardly anyone is actually atheist. At least they have this as an outlet haha

Any chance you can tell us what actually happened?

circadian

niamhstokes wrote: »

No, if you look at the tv documentary on it you can see what happened.


I guess this is just another thread for atheists to rant on, as in real life hardly anyone is actually atheist. At least they have this as an outlet haha

lol

Rabo Karabekian

niamhstokes wrote: »

No, if you look at the tv documentary on it you can see what happened.


I guess this is just another thread for atheists to rant on, as in real life hardly anyone is actually atheist. At least they have this as an outlet haha

I can see 'prophecies' being released after the event.

jobbridge4life

niamhstokes wrote: »

I guess this is just another thread for atheists to rant on, as in real life hardly anyone is actually atheist. At least they have this as an outlet haha

Ah ha ha lolz. What?

Atheists may make up a smaller proportion of the population than religious but they are growing and unlike the religious they typically don't really on mystic nonsense to reassure them of the validity of their opinions.

Winkie lol.

ScumLord

Akrasia wrote: »

This explains why quantum objects like photons seem to take all possible routes to get to their destination, ie, they are everywhere until they are 'observed' For a photon, time is meaningless until it interacts with something and entropy increases high enough to make it improbable that the interaction could be reversed

I just don't understand the, it could be anywhere until it's observed. What do they mean by observed? Observed by people, any animal? observable by another particle? When they say it could be anywhere until it's observed it sounds like the universe isn't nailed down until there's people around to observe it which couldn't be true.

sbsquarepants

I have trouble getting my head round it myself.
I think it was Einstein who said "the moon doesn't disappear when I close my eyes"

Turns out the thick fúcker was wrong though!:D

Akrasia

ScumLord wrote: »

I just don't understand the, it could be anywhere until it's observed. What do they mean by observed? Observed by people, any animal? observable by another particle? When they say it could be anywhere until it's observed it sounds like the universe isn't nailed down until there's people around to observe it which couldn't be true.

This is shrodingers cat paradox

While the cat is in the sealed box it is both alive and dead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
When it is opened, the fate of the cat is locked in

The copenhagen interpretation is that the quantum of radioactive substance is in a 'superposition' of both decayed and not decayed until it is 'observed'. Some people consider the 'human observer' to have special significance, but I don't accept this at all.

I consider 'observed' to mean that it interacts with a detector. The detector in physics experiments is a piece of aparatus, but in nature, it could be the choloroplasts in a leaf cell or any other interaction that produces a chain reaction that creates enough entropy to lock the quantum object to a specific path.

Dan_Solo

Akrasia wrote: »

I consider 'observed' to mean that it interacts with a detector.

That's my take on it too. Observation changes something in the system being observed. Everything in the universe interacts at some level, so you can't look at something without something, no matter how tiny, happening to the thing you're observing.
This is also the point I was making earlier to a theist (peublo?) who insisted "consciousness" was changing reality. Since you do not require a person to be the detector/observer, he is insisting everything in the universe has a consciousness. Which somewhat renders the term pointless.

ScumLord

Akrasia wrote: »

While the cat is in the sealed box it is both alive and dead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
When it is opened, the fate of the cat is locked in

I don't like that analogy though because, while I don't know if the cat is alive or dead, the actions that would kill the cat have either happened or not and me observing should have no effect on that process. It's like, if a tree falls in the woods. Whether someone is around to witness it shouldn't have any effect on the daily running of the universe.

I appreciate it's just an analogy but they need a better one I think.

PopePalpatine

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Ah ha ha lolz. What?

Atheists may make up a smaller proportion of the population than religious but they are growing and unlike the religious they typically don't really on mystic nonsense to reassure them of the validity of their opinions.

Winkie lol.

Something tells me she's just a drive-by poster.

Akrasia

Deepak Chopra has made a career out of insisting quantum physics proves the universe is conscious

pueblo

ScumLord wrote: »

The history of religion isn't that simple or straight forward. The first religions seem to be intertwined with the beginnings of civilisation and farming. It's quite likely that people meeting at religious sites where the first to realise that they could make a living at farming. Some historians now think it's likely that people meet at religious sites (which appear to be hunter gatherer sites due to the symbolism used), traded seeds, dropped some, came back a year later to see the seeds had germinated which lead to the realisation they could farm these crops. This could lead them to link farming to the gods pretty quickly.

I think religion was a social construct that humanity used to build trust between larger groups. Trust has always been a big issue with humans trading with each other. We have been developing ways of trusting outsiders that probably started with marriage, moved onto religious reasons, then state.

That's why I think religion was a fundamental part of humans development into the people we are today. It did open our minds to the fact there are systems happening in the world, everythings linked somehow and they explained it in the only way they knew how, a very powerful person is in charge and making things happen. It wasn't until science proposed an alternative that people even considered it to be any different.

Interestingly Gobekli Tepe in Turkey is a temple, which predates Stonehenge by some 6,000 years and is also said to predate agriculture.

It's almost taboo to criticise Fry, but I find him insufferable.

Pompous and condescending.

He is the 'smart guy' for the masses, but is actually nobody compared to others who just wear their intelligence a lot more lightly

pueblo

floggg wrote: »

The thing theists are unable to answer about their "something from nothing" argument is then how did God come into being?

But this is only a valid question if you are dealing with something that is bound by the physical laws of the this universe.

If 'something sentinent' exists outside of this universe then it's entirely possible that this something does not conform to the known physical laws of said universe (ie the law of cause and effect)

Akrasia

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't like that analogy though because, while I don't know if the cat is alive or dead, the actions that would kill the cat have either happened or not and me observing should have no effect on that process. It's like, if a tree falls in the woods. Whether someone is around to witness it shouldn't have any effect on the daily running of the universe.

I appreciate it's just an analogy but they need a better one I think.

Yeah, it's a part of popular culture now because it's such a memorable thought experiment but it does confuse things more than it enlightens. (but with quantum physics, the whole thing is so infuriatingly difficult to grasp, we are sometimes left with very convoluted thought experiments in order to capture the strangeness of it all.

Modern physics experiments have demonstrated that the observer effect does actually seem to work, notably, the double slit experiment has been updated to test for observer effects and the results so far are consistent with the theory that photons are in a super position until they are 'observed' and then they settle into one path
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/feb/15/photons-denied-a-glimpse-of-their-observer

pueblo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's my take on it too. Observation changes something in the system being observed. Everything in the universe interacts at some level, so you can't look at something without something, no matter how tiny, happening to the thing you're observing.
This is also the point I was making earlier to a theist (peublo?) who insisted "consciousness" was changing reality. Since you do not require a person to be the detector/observer, he is insisting everything in the universe has a consciousness. Which somewhat renders the term pointless.

Unfortunately you are misquoting me. I never claimed 'everything in the universe has a consciousness'.

My point about the double slit experiment was simply that not everything science lays down as dogma is necessarily so. Science get's it wrong at times.

Look at Einsteins theory of relativity which does not hold much water now and is still being clung to by some dogmatic disciples of science despite evidence that the speed of light is not constant.

These 'science dogmatists' are so close to their 'religious dogmatist' brethren in their refusal to open their minds and allow the possibility that perhaps we do not have all the answers.

floggg

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Any chance you can tell us what actually happened?

If you were meant to know, Mary would have told you herself by now!

Akrasia

pueblo wrote: »

But this is only a valid question if you are dealing with something that is bound by the physical laws of the this universe.

No it's a valid question regardless

You can't just claim that god doesn't obey the laws of the universe and end the discussion at that.

Theists can't have their cake and eat it. They insist that the universe must have a first cause, but that god doesn't need one.
If god is capable of existing 'forever' then you have to grant that the universe (or multiverse) is capable of existing forever too, and in doing that, there is no longer any justification for introducting a first cause.

Dan_Solo

pueblo wrote: »

Unfortunately you are misquoting me. I never claimed 'everything in the universe has a consciousness'.

Yes, actually you did.
You said that observation alters reality. This is entirely true. However the observer here is merely a word to describe any type of detector. If you are saying a digital camera, which can also be the observer, has some sort of spiritual dimension because it can alter reality then yes, you are indeed saying everything in the universe is spiritual.
But we already know everything in the universe is in effect an observer and interacts with all other things in some way. No god required for this party yet again.

EDIT

pueblo wrote: »

Proof you have spirit may be something that can be demonstrated sooner than you think. The Double Slit experiment seems to imply that reality is created by consciousness... what do you think the implications of that would mean for the possibility of the existence of a God?

Reality is created by consciousness because all objects interact the way physics already explains... nah, that's BS again.

Dan_Solo

floggg wrote: »

If you were meant to know, Mary would have told you herself by now!

What's interesting about Fatima is that quite a few people saw the sun move apparently. Yet just as many seemingly saw nothing unusual at all.
The inference from that is that whatever Mary did it only happened inside some people's heads... strange that, eh?

Akrasia

pueblo wrote: »

Look at Einsteins theory of relativity which does not hold much water now and is still being clung to by some dogmatic disciples of science despite evidence that the speed of light is not constant.

This is nonsense. Einstein's theories of relativity are still universally accepted in science. The problem is that we haven't managed to figure out exactly how to reconcile quantum theory with relativity, both theories are still fully supported within their respective domains and we're searching for the link between them.

These 'science dogmatists' are so close to their 'religious dogmatist' brethren in their refusal to open their minds and allow the possibility that perhaps we do not have all the answers.

No scientist will ever state that we have all the answers. Most scientists and science enthusiasts will state confidently that our knowledge is expanding every day, we are always improving our understanding of the universe, but it is impossible to know everyhing (this has been proven by science )

Akrasia

Dan_Solo wrote: »

What's interesting about Fatima is that quite a few people saw the sun move apparently. Yet just as many seemingly saw nothing unusual at all.
The inference from that is that whatever Mary did it only happened inside some people's heads... strange that, eh?

Or in their corneas as they did themselves permanent damage from staring at the sun

Dan_Solo

pueblo wrote: »

These 'science dogmatists' are so close to their 'religious dogmatist' brethren in their refusal to open their minds and allow the possibility that perhaps we do not have all the answers.

I don't know where my keys are therefore god... again? Do we have to have god pop out of a box giggling every time science hasn't fully explained something?
Maybe in future whenever I get a funny smell I can't identify I'll just assume it's god? OK?

Roquentin

The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.
Socrates

Akrasia

Roquentin wrote: »

The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.
Socrates

Some people know more nothing than others

Call Me Jimmy

Akrasia wrote: »

Deepak Chopra has made a career out of insisting quantum physics proves the universe is conscious

And what's your take on that?

cloud493

cloud493 wrote: »

deficiency in what?

Well it's just such a preposterous argument from the outset.

I'm an agnostic so I'm not offended by Fry's comments. I find them silly. Why should any God rid us of pain? Half the joy of life is toil and struggle.

Have you never taken a swipe of a hurly across the shins, felt a football whack you in the face, or get rough-tackled by a chunky hooker, not knowing yourself alive or dead? How meaningless a victory would be, if pain was banished. The battle of life is fought at the frontiers of pain. Crouching behind the line is cowardice and comfort.

Indeed, the successes of life would be meaningless if this band of silk-skinned and warbling luvvies and ethicists had their way. Our view of life is too precious. We are so preoccupied with losing it that we never live it. Bad things happen, and people suffer. The exciting part is using our ingenuity to address it, not wallowing in self-pity at its sorry occasion.

If God did exist, I'd shake his hand.

Strength is Happiness. Strength is itself victory. In weakness and cowardice there is no happiness. When you wage a struggle, you might win or you might lose. But regardless of the short-term outcome, the very fact of your continuing to struggle is proof of your victory as a human being. - Daisaku Ikeda

Dan_Solo

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Have you never taken a swipe of a hurly across the shins, felt a football whack you in the face, or get rough-tackled by a chunky hooker, not knowing yourself alive or dead? How meaningless a victory would be, if pain was banished. The battle of life is fought at the frontiers of pain. Crouching behind the line is cowardice and comfort.

You're dead right! I'm off to the Crumlin oncology ward to tell those little ****s to MAN THE **** UP!

Akrasia

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

And what's your take on that?

Deepak Chopra is a total fraud who makes his money from spouting incoherent nonsense at gullible people.

Roquentin

Akrasia wrote: »

Deepak Chopra is a total fraud who makes his money from spouting incoherent nonsense at gullible people.

there are a lot of people on both sides of the coin who make a lot of money out of the gullibility of people.

dawkins for instance has amassed a fortune just by being on the atheist side

pueblo

Akrasia wrote: »

This is nonsense. Einstein's theories of relativity are still universally accepted in science. The problem is that we haven't managed to figure out exactly how to reconcile quantum theory with relativity, both theories are still fully supported within their respective domains and we're searching for the link between them.

No scientist will ever state that we have all the answers. Most scientists and science enthusiasts will state confidently that our knowledge is expanding every day, we are always improving our understanding of the universe, but it is impossible to know everyhing (this has been proven by science )

I may be no physicist but this is not nonsense. The speed of light has been proved not to be constant. That the speed of light was constant was one of the main pillars on which Einstein built his theory of relativity.

Also I believe Einstein claimed that nothing could exceed the speed of light however I believe some little neutrinos have been discovered that do just that.

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You're dead right! I'm off to the Crumlin oncology ward to tell those little ****s to MAN THE **** UP!

Too bad for them. While you're wallowing needlessly in others' pain, I'll be pouring myself a delicious vodka.

pueblo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I don't know where my keys are therefore god... again? Do we have to have god pop out of a box giggling every time science hasn't fully explained something?
Maybe in future whenever I get a funny smell I can't identify I'll just assume it's god? OK?

What is really funny about this is that you in no way see the irony of your dogmatic beliefs. You thoroughly lambast 'religious' people for this exact same type of unerring belief in a system or set of ideals, yet this is exactly what you do!

No questions may be asked! I have the truth!!

Sound familiar??

Dan_Solo

pueblo wrote: »

I may be no physicist but this is not nonsense. The speed of light has been proved not to be constant. That the speed of light was constant was one of the main pillars on which Einstein built his theory of relativity.

Also I believe Einstein claimed that nothing could exceed the speed of light however I believe some little neutrinos have been discovered that do just that.

How does this matter? If Einstein and Schrodinger and Heisenberg never existed there would still be no need to say "god" every time we haven't explained something.