₦airaland Forum

Admittedly, religion, much like culture, promotes certain evolutionarily advantageous traits in terms of norms and taboos. Yet, you're wrong to attribute things you lack an understanding of to theism. Many old religions are silent on endogamy, yet incest has always been a social taboo in societies where these archaic religions were practiced.
This makes it clear that religion and culture are merely secondary reinforcers of our aversion to incestuous relationships. In fact, this aversion isn't just human, there is insurmountable evidence that it is panmammalian (see Pusey, A. and M. Wolf (1996). "Inbreeding avoidance in animals." Trends in Ecology & Evolution 11(5): 201-206.).

Clearly, the underlying common denominator here is that incest avoidance is patently a consequence of natural selection. Murray R.D. has addressed this exhaustively in his peer reviewed article (see Murray, R. D. (1980). "The evolution and functional significance of incest avoidance." Journal of Human Evolution 9(3): 173-178.). In his conclusion, he suggests that:
"...the primary function of incest avoidance is rooted in the origins of biparental reproduction in that it serves to maximize genetic variability necessary for adaptation. In accord, the human incest taboo is likely an extension of this biological predisposition, which does not exclude its incorporation in a multitude of additional social functions that have been addressed previously by several authors (Levi
Strauss, 1970; Slater, 1959)."
Obviously, from a natural selection viewpoint, pregnancy (that is, reproductive viability) is the natural factor from which the morality of mammalian aversion to inbreeding is derived, not any culture/religion. So you can't just whimsically assume it is ruled out and then proceed to debunk a hypothetical argument.

That said, having consensual sex with your family members will not cause any kind of far reaching damage to society, nor will it destroy civilisation (except your definition of civilisation has got something to do with sexual practices).

To answer your 3-pronged questions on incest (supposing pregnancy is ruled out, like you say):
1) It is an acceptable way of life.
2) It should neither be encouraged nor discouraged.
3) It was implicit in my explanation above, that morality is a by-product of evolution. Incest is no more (im)moral than exogamy.

While you're apt to contemplate the moral dilemmas of incest, be mindful that it is not a topic to be brushed over with partial reflectiveness. For one, it doesn't help to oversimplify complex human behaviours into religion/culture/morality; and it sure as hell helps to understand the role of cognitive bias in your musings and thought processes.

Finally, atheism has no stance on incest! You may find many atheists opposed to it, as you may find ones favourable towards it. The only stance of atheism (and all atheists) is that there is no evidence for god. The clue is in the definition of the word "Atheist".

Gift101:
Yea that's what i was thinking...

AgentOfAllah try and check you settings in the MS Edge and see if you disable your cookies. If it's disabled, then try and enable it and test it again.

---

Have you tested this stuff on facebook ? Does facebook log you out too ? If it does, then it means the problem is coming from your browser/phone.

My cookies option is enabled; and it works with Facebook and the panoply of social media platform I use, except Nairaland. I have adapted to other working browsers. The problem might be with MS.

It is unclear to me why these guys feel compelled to mindlessly transpose American democratic norms with all its flaws, and pointless rituals to the Nigerian system. I suppose we should also adopt the electoral college system and proclaim Trump as our supreme leader.

It is said that slavery has been abolished, but that's only on paper. How do you abolish a diabolic activity if its victims feel inexorably compelled to remain victims?

I mean, even the use of the phrase "international best practice" stinks of inferiority complex! What makes something best practice? That it makes the lives of the practitioners better, or that the would-be practitioners feel themselves inferior to the people they are trying to copy?

These guys are a monumental waste of space, an unconscionable waste of our national resources and an insult to our collective intelligence...Let's abolish the bloody senate!

How can a house be responsible for your predicaments? Even if your hocus pocus bogus were true, and your landlord had magical powers, have you considered that it is in your landlord's best interest for you to be successful enough to pay your rent? Why then would they curse you?

Please, stop looking for people and things to blame for your failures. Of course, people can be unlucky sometimes...it's probabilistically plausible. So accept your failure as one of those things life throws at people, shed that foolish ego that makes you feel entitled to a job in an oil or any other company, do away with stagnating superstitions, move out of the house to a cheaper place to make life less difficult for yourself, keep looking for jobs or become creative with worthy business ideas that would save you from being at the mercy of employers.

Life happened to you my friend, so start telling yourself the cold hard truth!

One again, your god shows what a monumental asshole it is, killing dozens of people just to prove that if you read the bible you might make it to the ICU.

My girlfriend is a divorced mother of 1 teenager, and she's 7 years older than I am. We're both happy with each other...that's love!

Charlesdock:
Because that is the truth. C'est fini

How is that the truth? I mean, is there anything that asserts this truth, aside from an arbitrarily imposed assumption?

Charlesdock:
I don't acknowledge the possibility that the creator could be more than one.

So may I ask why?

Charlesdock:
I don't believe

I never asked if you believe. I asked if you acknowledge that possibility. My question is important since you feel it compulsory to accept the existence of some "supreme creator" as fact.

Charlesdock:
Hardmirror has answered the question. When I was young, I always imagine the supreme God has the invisible force that create and binds the Universe as one entity. I don't want to argue based on what someone believes in but that point that there is no creator is what I don't agree upon. Am a christian because I choose to be one. Hardmirror is entitle to his ideas so am I.

So do you acknowledge that there could be more than one force that created and binds the universe? If so, does this not contradict the idea of a "Supreme creator"?

Charlesdock:
The greatest delusion in this life is that there is nothing like a supreme God. How can there be a creature without a creator. I won't deviate into religion but explain things with my free mind. Note a freethinker is would purposely not be an atheist or an agnotic. Back to what I was typing earlier. Can a car spring up from nothing? Did Nairaland just appear from nowhere? If you don't believe in the christian god, believe a God exist, you don't just know what or who that God is.

I think you've jumbled too many unrelated concepts, therefore fallen inexorably into the same abyss religions have been stuck in for centuries. I'll try to break down your fallacies so you can modify your "free" thoughts to more accurately represent facts.

1) What, in your mind, is the definition of a supreme god, and why is it a delusion to disbelieve in its existence?

2) You asked how there can be a creature without a creator. This question has a big problem: Claiming that the existence of "creatures" explains the existence of a "creator" is about as strong an argument as claiming that the spleen is the part of the body from where anger originates.
Your question seem to have sprung from a poor understanding of the word "creature". That word is an unfortunate contraption that carries the burden of an a priori acceptance that the the deliberateness in animal behaviour points to delibrateness in the existence of animals, but the presumed link has never been demonstrated. To therefore, use it as the basis for the claim that a creator exists is to commit the logical fallacy known as "circular reasoning". That word is just a stubbornly persistent synonym for animals, so one might as well rephrase your question as follows: "How can there be animals without a creator?" And I believe the theory of evolution has adequately addressed it. Does this mean the theory of evolution is accurate? No, but it means there is another possible way for animals to exist without a creator.

3) I assume the reason you believe a car or nairaland didn't just spring into existence is because of their intricate complexities. Your position seems to be that since such intricately complex entities necessitate a creator/creators, how much more then, natural phenomena with their seemingly complex structures? But if you wish to make an argument from complexity, one may then point out that the creator, if it were purposeful, is itself, complex; therefore necessitating its own creator ad infinitum.

4) You conclude that one should believe in "a god", but have not stated why the idea of god precludes many of them?

Apart from the fact that this is well written and delivered in digestible nuggets, what I appreciate the most about this story is that HardMirror meticulously sketches an elaborate picture of his background, effectively diminishing the potency of the go-to platitude that religionists usually invoke to dismiss people who have renounced faith: "you were never really a true believer". As an atheist, I know that being this meticulous about my religious background, no matter how strong, is actually very difficult. Well done!

This definitely counts as one of my all time Nairaland favourites.

Congrats to Madam Trump, I guess! She should visit SCOAN for testimony.

ever811:
thank you...

You're welcome, bud.

ever811:
if I understand you very well,even if I provide all the information you need you still cannot answer my question base on some factors that are beyond you,me or any human....cause you will still hang on such excuses as ,"I have not been honest with my information" ..how is it possible to give you the exact number of times I have prayed in my life?..do I go to my clients to ask them what they think about my work so I can tell you,? ...this impossibility is where I think the supernatural fits in,don't you think so?..

I wouldn't say you understood me very well. In fact, I doubt you understood me at all! If anything could explain the difficulty of the task you've set, it would be your sloppy attention to detail, and there's nothing supernatural about that!!

Op, it's impossible for anybody to give any meaningful explanation to your experiences and I'll demonstrate why to you:

1) Your experiences were uniquely yours, so you'll have to provide more than those three instances before any conclusions can be drawn. You simply haven't provided enough information. For instance, I don't know how many times you've prayed in your life, and how many of those prayers were answered. I don't know how long you've been a private contractor, how many clients you have, and what they think about the quality of your jobs. I don't know how many jobs you've executed without prayers since you became a contractor, etc.
2) After all of the information, I would still need some control samples to check how much your experience diverges from the norm, so I'd have to compare your experience with that of contractors of other belief systems, e.g. Muslims, Hindus, Jews, atheists, Buddhists and so on. Only this way will I be able to know that your prayers have enjoyed an unusual amount of attention from god.
3) Even after you provide me with all required information, I have no guarantees that you have been completely honest, so I might be able to come up with a scientific number, but that does not mean it wouldn't have been sullied by disinformation.

I hope you can now appreciate the difficulty of your request. However, I can offer you clarity based on probability theory:
Consider a scenario where ALL of your prayers aren't answered. This would be an improbability which could be given the interpretation that a sentient, purposeful god truly exists, only you've been praying to the wrong one.

The bottom line is that as far as my experience goes, the 'answered prayers' illusion has an above-zero probabilistic value, and is thus, not an unusual phenomenon.

I'm okay with polygamy too...as long as it goes both ways.

BankeSmalls:
Tales by the moonlight.
Why not get the coal in Enugu to power the light and give power to the whole middle belt?

Actually, Fashola has literally been screaming about the intention to diversify Nigeria's primary sources of energy, in what he calls "Energy mix"
See HERE, and pay attention to the part where he says "Our ministry has recently publicised our energy mix and coal forms a large part of our target fuel source,”

adajiboyy:
We are blacks...we are warriors...we are the greatest...we can do all things.

All this because you feel entitled to another man's achievements? Na wa oo!

Scholar8200:
Threatening? Of course not! Would you consider it a threat if a teacher told a student, " If you dont study, you may fail your exams and repeat the class while others are being promoted"

Nope, but I would consider it threatening if the teacher says: "if you don't kiss my ass and worship me everyday, I'll fail you, irrespective of how well you actually perform."

Edenoscar:
Am curious were those people atheist or it was just acting,cos non of them asked him any question whatsoever it was a case of just sit let me teach you

They may very well have been atheists, but that doesn't mean they gave any more thoughts to their lack of belief than say a cow or a cat, nor are they obliged to! It is enough justification that one is atheist due to the absence of evidence for theism. The only demand I'd persistently make to Comfort is "give me the evidence for this god of yours instead of mindfarting me into surrendering that somehow, the absence of explanation for for universe is proof that your god is responsible".

ColdHardTruth:
...and that the alternative to not knowing everything is automatically Christianity.

That’s perhaps the biggest logical failure in the film. Comfort argues evolution is impossible, and then claims that “establishes the Bible” as true. How’s that for a leap of faith? He goes from “We don’t understand this” to “the Christian version of the story is totally accurate,” jumping from Point A to Point Z without any steps in between.

This is the reason I stopped watching it after the first 15 or so mins. It's also the reason I kept watching it up until the said time...I kept waiting for the interviewee who would ask how he made that leap, assuming even, that his claims of an intelligent book writer is true. He introduced a quote attributed, supposedly, to Bill Gates that the DNA is like a computer program, only more sophisticated (or something like that). We've all used Windows PCs at some point(s) in our lives (I imagine), yet, at no time do we ever see these remarkable inventions glorifying their inventor. Imagine how off-putting it would be; indeed, how megalomaniacal Bill would seem if every time you turned on your computer, the boot screen had something like: "Hail Bill Gates, my supreme creator...Windows is Now Booting".

I am left to conclude that it is either by supernatural providence or an effective job of selective editing that there was not even a single interviewee that asked "Okay Comfort, but how did you make that leap?"

That still isn't the biggest failure of the whole thingumajig though. Methinks its biggest failure is the assumption that because I am atheist, I should give a damn about biogenesis or chickens and eggs (beyond the occasional protein nourishment therefrom).

gaelllic:
My concern is:



1. You asked for evidence of lightspeed variation.

2. I provided it, from mainstream publications.

3. You suddenly decided you didn't 'wish to pursue this line of conversation any further'.

So, off you go.

Take homework -

https://www.amazon.com/Higgs-Fake-Particle-Physicists-Committee/dp/1492176249

The Higgs Fake: How Particle Physicists Fooled the Nobel Committee
-Alexander Unzicker

_{Dr. Alexander Unzicker is a German theoretical physicist. He has degrees in both physics and law and a PhD in neuroscience from Munich University. Unzicker published papers on Einstein's unified theory and on a cosmology with a variable speed of light. His current field of research is Mach's principle and tests of gravity. Unzicker became known for his popular science book....the book was awarded “Science Book of the Year” by leading science journalists in Germany.}

Yes, I didn't want to pursue the line of conversation that sought to detach physics from mathematics, and I still don't want to! It'll be a waste of my time.

This book looks interesting, however. I shall purchase and read it.

gaelllic:
Therefore. Any non-penetrative bestial act is firmly within each Canadian's Constitutional rights. QED.

How do I put this? Bestiality is illegal in Canada...what you disagree with is the definition of bestiality.

As for the bill 'protecting animals' we'll see how that goes. You should know the drill by now. People will gradually be

'sensitized' to bestiality, and it will become a 'human rights' campaign. Films portraying the practice are already receiving positive

reviews at prestigious festivals.

So your conclusion about how the Canadian parliament will react to the law expanding the definition of bestiality is summed up by 'films portraying the act' and what not? WOW! Did you even read the Canadian parliament link I shared? You don't need to draw spurious conclusions when you can get the position of the parliamentarians directly. Go read it!

It is already legal in Texas, Japan, Finland, Hawaii among others. It is officially banned in Germany, but that country's main bestiality

website has 1.2 million members. 1.2 million. On a single subject.

So

You need a telescope to see what I see.

This probably explains your poor grasp of astronomy. You've been pointing your telescope at the wrong things! I'll pass

If one believes that homosexuality is to be despised, and is forced to 'marry' a homosexual couple who believe

their 'union' is good, is he not coerced into practising another's beliefs?

Yes he is coerced, and if this coercion is coming from the state, that state isn't secular.

If one believes 'that male and female He created them, and is compelled by law by to call men women and

vice versa, is he not coerced into endorsing contrary beliefs to his own?

I don't understand this question.

Humanism is Socialism-lite.

And Liberalism is Satanism-lite.

This doesn't deserve a response

You will always practise someone's religion.

You can try to make me!

You'll live to regret that.

So far I haven't. I'm willing to take a chance

Oh, and yes, the more liberal societies are the more laws they eventually need.

This is an illogical statement. By definition, the less liberal society is, the more laws are needed to define the stringent boundaries of their social transactions. A country where homosexuality is illegal needs a law to explicitly state that. The opposite isn't true!

USA has the world's largest prison population.

The US isn't the most liberal society, however, I can draw examples from its history that contradict your claim. (a) The DADT was repealed as a law, (b) Slavery was abolished, and all laws concerning the issue were rendered obsolete, (c) Segregation laws were abolished. There are hundreds more example to show that liberalism leads to reduced interference from the state.
As you can see, in the given examples, as the US became more liberal about a subject, laws were abolished to reflect this new position. How can you then claim that a liberal society requires more laws?

Keep dreaming.

I will!

gaelllic:
On light.

- As far back as the 17th century, Olaf Roemer (Denmark) observed decay in the speed of light over time.

Ridiculous! While Roemer laid the ground work for the determination of the speed of light, he never actually calculated it himself, so how you got the idea that he observed the light's decay is curious. Please do your research!

- Trevor Norman and Barry Setterfield (Stanford Research Institute, 1987), postulated speed of light decay.

After your epistle about how mathematics and physics are mutually exclusive fields, you now consider esoteric mathematical abstractions to be proof that light decays? Stunning volte face!! Anyway, this crap has been widely discredited, even by a creationist website! I do not wish to waste my time on it.

- In 1987 Dr. V. S. Troitskii (Radio-physical Research Institute, Nizhniy Novgorod, Russia), postulated that a huge decay
in the speed of light had occurred over time. See British journal Astrophysics and Space Science 139 (1987) 389-411
"Physical Constants and Evolution of the Universe."

This is actually a very interesting paper. Long, but interesting. I tried to attach it, but unfortunately, I couldn't attach it here.

It concludes thus:

"Three models of the Universe may be developed on the basis of the hypothesis of the light speed variation:
(1) the static model with the light speed decrease (2) the compressed one with the light speed decrease, and (3) the broadening one with increase or decrease of the light speed."

I love this paper because it presents a hypothetical alternative model to our current view of the universe. However, it has not "postulated that a huge decay in speed of light had occurred over time" as is claimed by gaellic. This paper hypothesises as its initial premise, a situation where the speed of light is considered variable, and then comes up with a number of possible states of the universe which will satisfy this hypothesis. Although, one of the more stringent requirements for the resultant universes in this work is the author's admission that there must synchronously exist, the "evolution of a number of other fundamental constants with the variation of the light speed". This, in conjunction of course, with the fact that the weight of evidence is against such a claim, makes it a tenuous proposition, since it requires a more improbable assumption than the current model. Remember Occam's razor? Discounting the attempts before the 1900s due to their imprecision, Numerous experiments have been carried out to determine the speed of light, and there is no evidence that it has changed!

- In the February 18 1999 edition of Nature, a scientific paper was published that detailed an experiment in which the speed of light
was reduced to 17 meters per second. The experiment was conducted by the Lene V. Hau and an international team from Harvard and
Stanford Universities. They sent light through a sodium vapor that had been cooled to an nanokelvin temperature.

Okay, it is ridiculous to use this as proof that the speed of light has decayed over time. It also calls to question, your physics credentials if you don't know that the phase velocity of light can change in a material medium (read on refractive index)! I don't think you read the paper that was referenced. A Bose-Einstein condensate is a large group of atoms that are acting in phase so that they effectively become a single massive atom (call it super atom). L.V. Hau cooled her gas of Sodium to a few nK below T_c, the critical temperature before a gas of atoms start to behave as Bose-Einstein condensate. At this state, the super atom is unable to effectively dissipate absorbed energy, which causes its constituent atoms to absorb and re-emit the light (as opposed to being transparent to it), causing it to slow down. A German group has even achieved something more impressive! They stopped light for 1 minute. Here, the super atom is even more opaque and less absorptive, so this causes light pulse to be trapped inside of it (as if to be surrounded by a spherical mirror). The reason they are however unable to trap light indefinitely is the same reason absolute 0K is an unattainable theoretical value, a perfect mirror will need atoms to be perfectly still, and this is impossible! Hence, the light energy will always dissipate, even if this takes a thousand years. Note that when the light is eventually released, it continues to travel with its original speed unaltered. The fundamental constant 'c' is speed of light in vacuum, not in a material medium. Speed of light in material media is neither fundamental, nor is it constant!

gaelllic:
Mathematics is the study of abstractions.

Physics is the study of actual physical objects.

Mathematical abstractions are proved by mathematical proofs i.e. equations written on pieces of paper.

Physical objects and phenomena are proved by physical experiments. i.e. actual actions in a lab.

One may not prove abstractions with physical objects.

One may not prove physical objects with abstractions.

Whether we apply inductive or deductive reasoning is irrelevant, as long as it is grounded in physical objects.

i.e A stone which makes sound when thrown in the dark, proves the presence of a wall ahead, even if the wall is not seen.

But our deduction is grounded upon the actual objects and actual phenomena i.e. the stone, and the sound.

There is no object, no interaction between objects and no phenomena that prove the Big Bang Theory. Period.

Therefore it is not Physics. Period.

It is, at best, a kind of inductive speculation.

This is my general philosophical opposition to your position.

In a subsequent post I will treat your points one by one, as well as obliterate any notion of a purely inductive

basis for the Big Bang.

To be honest, I don't know what your philosophical musings on these disciplines has got to do with the falsifiability of the big bang theory. I really did not get your point when you went about your definition exercise of 'Falsifiability', and this hasn't made your point any clearer.

For the avoidance of doubt however, your philosophical position - if it could be called that - is far detached from reality. You seem unaware that mathematics can be used to make accurate predictions about physical phenomena. You do realise that the Higgs boson was mathematically predicted before it was finally experimentally discovered in 2010?

I encourage you to spend some time re-formulating your philosophical conclusion about the relationship between mathematics and physics. While you are at that, think about what role mathematics played in our discovery of the invisible parts of EM waves, why wireless communication works and how it is possible for us both to be able to communicate through electromagnetic waves (outside of the visible spectrum). If you find difficulty coming to a better conclusion than your naive and, frankly, preposterous attempt at compartmentalizing mathematics and physics, I'll spell it out:

Mathematics is the language with which physical phenomena can be precisely communicated, tested and predicted.

If you still don't grasp the importance of this relationship, then I don't wish to pursue this line of conversation any further.

gaelllic:
Secularism is a dream.

One worth pursuing.

Talk realpolitik.

Someone must make the rules.

The rules will come from Divine Revelation, or the will come from a man or a committee.

Since secularism is defined more appropriately as separation of state and religion, I now prefer to replace it with the generic term "Liberalism", which more accurately describes my dream of inclusiveness. The ultimate goal of liberalism is to keep rules to the barest minimum, so as to allow everyone espouse what ever values they believe in, without coercion from authority. Of course, with the caveat that they cause no harm to others in the process. Many, including myself, strongly dispute the existence of any such thing as "divine revelation". And if the bible/Quran is what you refer to as divine revelation, then I would argue that the divine revealer is most certainly out of touch with the present realities of mankind; and thus, isn't fit to make rules on my behalf. So I'll settle for a committee.

And what else will that man or committee enshrine, other than that which pleases himself/themselves?

Why do you think the Canada Supreme Court recently upheld bestiality as a constitutional right?

Okay, it is untrue that any Canadian court ruled that bestiality is a constitutional right. You should be wary of sensational headlines! Here's the RULING, for your record.

The ruling was specifically related to what acts constitutes bestiality, after a man made his pet dog lick peanut butter off the genitals of his stepdaughters. For this, the man was convicted of sexual harassment and bestiality. He appealed the case, and was subsequently acquitted of the bestiality charge; but is still serving 16 years in jail for sexual harassment. In the ruling, the court concluded that the constitution only identifies penetration as an act of bestiality, and further asserted that "Any expansion of criminal liability for this offense is within parliament’s exclusive domain". Basically saying that the constitution is outdated, but the court cannot make up rules that don't exist. This case has brought to the fore, a flaw in the Canadian constitution, and if you must know, there is a bill in the Canadian parliament that seeks to extend the definition of Bestiality, to correct the flaw; and it's called "Modernizing Animal Protection Act". You can click on the link to follow the reactions of Canadian Parliamentarians to the bill.
If anything, this is an exemplary testament as to the self-corrective nature of secular laws; that makes them superior to the anachronistic and immutable "divine laws"

You will always practise someone's religion.

This statement is patently false! Even supposing Canada actually legalised Bestiality, I am not obliged to practice it, so how am I following someone else's religion, assuming bestiality is another sanctioned act in the long list of absurdities promoted by religion?

gaelllic:
Hello. And I applaud you for your cordial tone.

Hi again.

'Falsifiability means 'can be/is able to be proven wrong'. In other words, it has to be testable.

E.g. When Ferrarri boast, "our car can hit 300km/h", thulations as evidence (and neither would we accept them).

They give a test-driver the keys. And everyone can watch. This is what falsifiability means.

Thanks for the lesson in definitions. However, I fail to see your point.

Name one piece of direct evidence for the Big Bang. Direct. Yes, you can measure CMB, but we are required to presume that it is relic radiation. Yes, redshift, but again we are required to assume the speed of light has been constant since Creation. And so forth.

I can't offer you any piece of direct evidence for the big bang. Scientific theories depend on both deductive and inductive reasoning. Big bang, due to temporal limitations, is one of those theories that is heavily dependent on inductive evidence. This means there is no direct evidence for it, however, we can observe elements within a body of mutually exclusive facts and by induction, conclude that the Big bang is most probably true. It can however be falsified, and you are invited to falsify it by proving it has insurmountable flaws, and/or proposing a more descriptively compelling theory. Divine orchestration is unacceptable as a scientific answer because it lacks the requisite definitions to make it falsifiable.

As for CMB, do you have any other suggestions/ideas as to what kind of radiation it can be?

As for light, do you have any example(s) in nature that suggest its speed has ever been altered in time?

...I'd have to explain to you why the entire structure on which you stand, beginning from Newton, is all manifestly wrong.

Please begin to explain! I'm not paying lip service, I'm truly interested in your evidence for this claim. We might just be having a genius in our midst!

Modern physics is not simple.

It is a weird arcana of crazy mathematicians who draw daydreams in the air and produce equations as

evidence. This is what Science has been reduced to.

Who ever said modern physics is simple? You misunderstand the principle of Occam's razor. It doesn't state that all explanations must be simple, it states that "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected" or, otherwise, "the simplest one should be selected". The simplest explanation is NOT always a simple explanation, it's just the simplest among competing hypotheses. Sure, the big bang theory comes with its body of assumptions, but like I mentioned in my first post, it has helped to explain many of the cosmological phenomena we observe, so we'll continue to carry out research to ascertain the other assumptions, refine the theory or come up with a more robust theory. It's certainly not the end all and be all of scientific theories!

gaelllic:
...This is why every single society that has wilfully pursued an Atheist policy has descended straight into dictatorship.

As has every society that has willfully pursued religion as a policy!! By definition, trying to impose ideologies on any society would necessitate descension into dictatorship. Think about it. The most inclusive system is secularism (i.e. an ideologically apathetic society)!

akintom:
Let me assume, you are ready to engage me on this religious beliefs, from standpoint of intelligence and sincerity.

If you have followed my line of debate from my different posts or comments, you would have read, where i said that i can intelligently debate from stand point of medical/neuroscience knowledge, to disprove religious claims.

On your big bang question, i advise that you contact AgentofAllah.

But if you want to engage me, outside astral physics, be my guest.

Hi Gaellic, I'm not sure if you have a physics background. However, In order to fully appreciate how we came about the big bang theory, there are a few basic concepts in physics that you will need to have an understanding of. These include knowledge about spectroscopy, waves waves in general, electromagnetic waves in particular and the red/blue-shift phenomenon. To fully appreciate why the big bang remains unfalsified, you'll need to understand a few more things, including: Black body radiation and cosmic microwave background. If you understand these things, we can discus Big bang. If not, we'll have to start from those before we arrive at the big band. And I really don't mind spending my time discussing those with you.

One thing that needs emphasis though, is that the big bang is a theoretical model for the initial state of the universe It does not yet explain everything. Ideally, it is possible to come up with other theories that will explain parts or even all of the phenomenological observations in whose light we understand the big bang; and indeed, many have already done so. However, so far, these attempts have fallen short for one of two reasons: They are falsifiable, but do not account for all of the observations big bang already explains, or they are unfalsifiable, which means they cannot be tested.

For scientific endeavours to progress, we necessarily need a falsifiable theoretical framework upon which to base our efforts, and so far, only the big bang theory has given us a robust framework to explain the reasons behind a lot of our mutually exclusive observations. I'll be the first to say this: You may be more intelligent and insightful than I am. I really don't know you, but I can give you one guarantee: If you can come up with a more simple, elegant and falsifiable theory that surpasses the descriptive power of the big bang, believe me, we'll adore you in the scientific community, almost to the point of worship, and you'll win a Nobel prize on top of that. This is for sure!
Let me just say on the side: If such a theory is cooking up in your head, I wanna work with you so we can both develop it. I have a decent physics background, and I might be able to help with the mathematical formalisms too! It would be an achievement of a lifetime if I am identified as the guy who co-authored the groundbreaking work that upstaged and rendered obsolete, the Big Bang theory!

However, according to the deep-cutting principle of Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is always the right explanation, and we have no reason to settle for a more complex one when a simple one is staring us in the face.