The Atheist Perversion of Reality

April 5, 2009 | Jean F. Drew

[hosepipe]

[ Math is just a tool that we use to try and describe reality, it doesn't create reality, although some mathematicians may think otherwise. ]

Reality does not need to add up.. be logical.. or compute..
Reality is not trying to prove anything.. like science fiction..

[Alamo-Girl]

Truly, fiction like performing art needs the reader to "suspend reality" and thus must appear logical on the surface.

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

[betty boop]

LeGrande: "Math is just a tool that we use to try and describe reality...

Alamo-Girl: By this statement, perhaps you are revealing yourself to be an Aristotlean with regard to math. I am a mathematical Platonist like Penrose, Tegmark, Godel, et al. For instance, the mathematician doesn't invent the geometry, he discovers it.

Count me in as a Platonist too, dearest sister in Christ! For I do disagree with LeGrande here. For two reasons. (1) In the hands of a mathematical formalist, Math is not some passive tool. The mathematical objects selected to express the formalism "shape" any model the formalism constructs. The result may be that the model generated therefrom may not "map to Reality" too well. (2) I believe the foundation of the universe is mathematical or, more precisely, geometrical. The universe is what has evolved from that geometry.

Plato is "alive and well" with us, dearest sister in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

Yes indeed. Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

[hosepipe]

[ Truly, fiction like performing art needs the reader to "suspend reality" and thus must appear logical on the surface. ]

Good Point.. Science can be a performing art.. like a shamans show/performance..
The word Hypocrisy comes from the greek word for Actor..
Some science fact has been, and some no doubt still is science fiction..

[Alamo-Girl]

Hmmm... Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

[Fichori]

I'm not avoiding your question, I was just waiting for the thread to die down ;-)

“Do you seriously disagree with astronomical measurements since the 1960's?”

I just might.

I'll explain.

It has been said [as scientific fact] by various people and institutions, that, among other things:

• A process called Vacuum Fluctuation™ created a Singularity™ which barfed out the universe.
• Everything was formed by processes of the Natural™ laws of physics.
• Life arose from non life due to Natural™ processes.
• All living things [including humans] Evolved™ from a single first life from.
• Global Warming™ is a Man Caused Disaster™ and we are all going to die. (and all the polar bears are going to drown)
• Comets come from the Oort Cloud™
• The Infinite Centerless Universe™ is Expanding™ along as many dimensions as needed to Explain™ everything.
• Space/Time™ is Expanding™ along as many dimensions as needed to Explain™ everything.
• Most DNA is Junk DNA™ leftover from Million And Millions Of Years™ of Evolution™
• The ~2% of human and chimp DNA not discarded as Junk DNA™ is ~98% similar. (which proves humans are related to chimps [which have a 10-12% larger genome])
• The Moon was created when a huge object struck Earth and broke some dirt off.
• All the Dinosaurs™ died off when they got hit in the head by a Low Flying Asteroid™
• Albert Gore is an honest, skinny, wise, and humble gentleman with a minimal Carbon Footprint™

I could go on, but I really don't see a point.

Basically, when someone says, this is scientific fact, I like to see their claim demonstrated before I accept it as fact.

They say the evidence proves it!, but what I usually find is that an interpretation of evidence [that fits a predetermined model] is all there is.

The evidence may be sound, but the interpretation thereof must be taken on faith.

So yes, I'm skeptical.

I place my faith in Christ alone, that He died on the Cross for my sins, that He rose from the dead on the third day, and that His Word is true.

So, when someone asks me to believe something as scientific fact, that depends on having faith in their interpretation of evidence which may have been influence by some preconceived ideas that may or may not reflect reality, I get the urge to start putting For Sale signs on bridges.

To me, astronomical measurements since the 1960's is a red flag.


We can use laser interferometry to make a ring laser gyro to measure the Earth's rotation.

Or we could demonstrate the non-instantaneous speed of light with a spinning mirror and a laser.

Can you with equal objectivity demonstrate the Expansion™ of Space/Time™?


FYI ping to mrjesse.

[Alamo-Girl]

Can you with equal objectivity demonstrate the Expansion™ of Space/Time™?

LOLOL! Your use of the trademark symbols and the exhaustive list of eyebrow raisers suggests that it will be a complete waste of time to present this evidence to you.

Nevertheless, you asked. So I give it to you in several parts, the background and the latest mission (WMAP.) The third link is for technical reports (LAMBDA.)

WMAP: background information

WMAP: mission results

WMAP: technical papers

If you wish to ignore all of it, that's your choice.

[Fichori]

“LOLOL! Your use of the trademark symbols and the exhaustive list of eyebrow raisers suggests that it will be a complete waste of time to present this evidence to you.” [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]

Oh contraire!

I find the evidence fascinating.

“Nevertheless, you asked. So I give it to you in several parts, the background and the latest mission (WMAP.) The third link is for technical reports (LAMBDA.)” [excerpt]

Based on the raw data, what we objectively know is what wavelengths are coming from a given direction.

I do not doubt that the scientists who collected the data, did their utmost to gather it accurately.

However, I find that their Explanation™ is lacking objectivity.

Their framework for interpretation is unverifiable.

“If you wish to ignore all of it, that's your choice.” [excerpt]

I don't ignore the verifiable data, however, I do not place my faith in their interpretation of same.


So, on the topic of Space/Time™ Expansion™, I'm going to remain skeptical. (sans objective verification)

On the topic of the very cool WMAP data, one conclusion that I find likely is that objects (ie, systems, galaxies, etc) within Space/Time™ are moving away from a central point.

But I am unaware of any way to objectively demonstrate that as a verifiable scientific fact ;-)

[Alamo-Girl]

On the topic of the very cool WMAP data, one conclusion that I find likely is that objects (ie, systems, galaxies, etc) within Space/Time™ are moving away from a central point.

From the inception - "In the beginning, God created..." - Gen 1:1

By "within Space/Time" are you suggesting that space/time pre-exists?

If so, what is your evidence?

[Fichori]

“By "within Space/Time" are you suggesting that space/time pre-exists?” [excerpt]

'Within' = 'subject to the constraints of'. (ie, physical objects)

“If so, what is your evidence?” [excerpt]

What evidences lead me to find it likely that objects are moving away from a central point?

Quantized red shifts and the WMAP data.

However, that conclusion is speculative at best. (as I indicated in what you replied to)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for sharing your views, dear Fichori!

[Fichori]

Welcome ;-)

[betty boop]

BTTT

[mrjesse]

Said mrjesse:
"For an observer on earth at a point in time when Pluto is 6.8 light hours away and the earth rotates 102 degrees in 6.8 hours, when Pluto appears directly overhead, will it really be 102 degrees off - and not even really in the night sky? "

Replied TXnMA:
Yes

Greetings and a wonderful day to you, TXnMA!

Say, did you get a chance to look over some more of my color coded questions? Perhaps you might be so kind as to take a whack at another! Anyway, hadn't heard from you in a while, hope you're doing well and all.

Have a wonderful day,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande:
You are correct Zero Sum. I mistakenly thought they were relative, your explanation of the inertial-noninertial frames is what did it for me. That and when I tried to shoot your LAZER at the sun and make both frames equivalent. They aren't.

Mrjesse and Fichori you were essentially correct too and I would like to apologize for cavalierly dismissing your arguments and I would like to thank you both for your persistence in helping to show me my error : )

This is a very good day. I have been humbled a little bit and I have learned a couple of valuable lessons : )

Thank you, LeGrande.

*Sigh* [Big sigh of relief.]

Looking back, Wow. what an experience. And what learning. And for almost a year. This discussion started Mon 30 Jun 2008, and finally came to a close Sun 14 Jun 2009, just 16 days short of its first anniversary.

You know, it's been about 4 months since I introduced my list of color coded questions. You know, that was almost providential that you had the foresight to not answer any of those. How did you know, anyway? In an honest days course, I do wonder if maybe you somehow knew. Like I said, what an experience. I will never be quite the same again, but I'm glad. I learned a lot of fascinating stuff along the way. Thank you.

Anyway, if I recall correctly, we were discussing waves of nothing, when we got sidetracked. I would enjoy taking up where we left off, if you too would enjoy it. Maybe we can all learn even more. Wouldn't that be fun?

Have a wonderful day,

-Jesse

[TXnMA]

"Say, did you get a chance to look over some more of my color coded questions?"

~~~~~

Although I'm "retired" -- as Texas Archeological Steward and Chairman of the Cass County (Texas) Historical Commission -- I have an almost-too-busy life apart from FR... so my time for FReeping is quite limited. Your questions are fun - but they are a diversion from my primary quest for understanding re Creation, Scripture, and our Creator God.

You, apparently, understand the basic relationship between the speed of light, distance, and the relativistic effects on an observer in a universe where everything is moving -- and some things are moving with respect to themselves (rotating on their own axis). You seem to get it right on the small scale, so I am interested in where your reasoning falls apart so badly as to allow you to be suckered into to the concept of a young universe. Especially so since the data from the Hubble telescope and the COBE experiments are readily available.

Remember that I am a Christian and a firm believer in our (infinite, timeless, eternal, all-powerful, omnipresent and un-bound by space and time), Creator God and His incomprehensibly mighty works. What I am seeking is an understanding of why otherwise intelligent and thoughtful folks still insist on diminishing their concept of Him and his mighty creation so as to deprecate them into the man-centered YEC model -- when His works shout, "I AM far greater than your finite minds can comprehend!"

There is a huge difference between the truth of the words of "I AM" in Scripture and the ego-centered and geo-centered hubristic (mis)interpretation of His words by mankind...

IOW, what (aside from sinful ego and fear of being wrong) drives folks to cling to Ussher's 16th-century mind-burp misinterpretation of Genesis -- when they are literally "surrounded by so great a cloud of Witnesses" in what we can now see of His Creation?

Remember, I do not doubt the truth of Scripture; I only question the rationale of those who would deny clear evidence in order to belittle Almighty God down to a puny "thing" that their minds can "wrap around". And, I especially question those who go to great lengths of effort and expense to proselytize and try to force that (to me, sinful) belittlement of God on the rest of mankind.

~~~~~~~~

Sorry, although I would enjoy doing so, I haven't time to spend "playing with" your little "puzzles". If I interact further on this thread, it will be to return to the question of the "Universal Now" and how only a Being ("I AM") Who is outside of and unconstrained by time and space can comprehend the truth of that instantaneous totality of reality... (...and why any creature within that Creation can not -- by definition -- comprehend it...)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gotta run; a rancher a few counties from here has just unearthed another 10,000-year-old "Indian" site, and has asked my help in evaluating it...

[TXnMA]

BTW, great article, BB! However, from my perspective, it would be better titled,

"The Atheist and 'YEC' PerversionS of Reality"

'-}

[hosepipe]

Beautiful effort(the post) for so little obvious gain..
I would call it a sacrifice.. for a neigbor..
The wording was quite subtle.. and intricate..

[TXnMA]

Thanks - but let’s give it a bit more time to “work” before we declare the effort to be “wasted”...