The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by business_kid No. The Bible is not specific, and it makes sense to me, until a better idea comes along.

Hmm, even though it seems to involve gravity creating something?

but Ireland shows in polls as 90-95% Catholic. The percentage is nearer 20-30%.

Do you mean people lie to the pollsters, or what?

Originally Posted by business_kid A toddler who is introduced to any God by his parents (when he comes asking why this & why that) can get to believing anything - no option is closed to him/her. But a child (heaven forbid ) raised by Richard Dawkins will not have God introduced to him/her. God is nonsense. For a child, parental influence is vital at a young age; Answers are required by teenagers. But God is not an option considered by teenagers raised by atheists, because there's no God; they know, because Dad/Mom told them when they were toddlers, and that usually overcomes the spiritual pre-programming Hazel talks about.

You're suggesting that spiritual pre-programming to believe in God can be overcome more easily than spiritual pre-programming to disbelieve in God? Seems a bit unlikely to me. Where's the asymmetry coming from?

Regarding the children of atheists I have a Son who is now 41 years of age. His Mother is roughly agnostic and you know my position. We always taught him when deep questions were asked that we think it was chance but a high percentage of people disagree and think some Creator is responsible. We encouraged him to make up his own mind adding that is because we firmly believe that spirituality should be personal and ultimately private. My Son and I are very close despite that he is something of A Believer... thankfully just not of any organized dogma. Do I wish he was an atheist? It's complicated but in general I'd have to say yes, though it is no major issue. Given that he did exactly as we taught, made up his own mind. I'm proud of him and he knows unquestionably that I respect him and his right to his own views. He is a good Man.

Hey business_kid I have a gift for you. The below link is to a scientific video done very well in mostly layman's terms that explores the actual problems with Big Bang Theory. Im confidant you will find it enlightening and maybe even useful since actual problems do exist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDmKLXVFJzk

Which is why the bouncing theory works better.

Originally Posted by YesItsMe Which is why the bouncing theory works better.

If you're referring to cyclical Big Bang > Big Crunch, yeah it does solve a lot of issues but there is zero evidence that even with Dark Matter there is enough gravity to slow and reverse Dark Energy. Additionally Inflation would still be required. I hope you watched the whole thing. It's quite good.

Originally Posted by business_kid For a child, parental influence is vital at a young age; Answers are required by teenagers. But God is not an option considered by teenagers raised by atheists, because there's no God; they know, because Dad/Mom told them when they were toddlers, and that usually overcomes the spiritual pre-programming Hazel talks about.

Well, it didn't in my case. Both my parents were atheists.

Originally Posted by enorbet If it is logical and true that because Dawkins is not a Biblical Scholar we should rely on Rabbis and Priests, does it follow that we should rely on Druids to inform us of Wood Faeries?

If I thought the existence of Wood Faeries was worth considering I'd certainly want to ask someone who believed in their existence. If nothing else they could save me time by giving their responses to the more common non-believers' objections, some of which are likely to be the same as mine.

@Hazel: That's intriguing. It's so often the case otherwise. They evidently raised you to have an open mind.

Originally Posted by ntubski Hmm, even though it seems to involve gravity creating something?

I have no fixed views there, that's all. I do feel the earth was prepared for human habitation. The Bible details that. But I don't have fixed views to what extent other things were managed. It appears God doesn't micro-manage, but sets processes in motion.

Originally Posted by ntubski Do you mean people lie to the pollsters, or what?

The Catholic Church claims ≅90% or more, and nobody does surveys of the population. The last Census put Catholics at 78.3%. But parents write in their kids as 'Catholic,' when the kids would write themselves as 'no religion.' All the small religions shrink (except us, actually) because the kids are inclined to end up with others. There's not the critical mass required to survive. We're different, for a plethora of reasons, mainly because we're big international travellers.

Ireland is a socially complicated country. After independence in 1921, it seems the ruling influences were:

1. Catholic Clergy
2. Catholic Matriarchy
3. Government.

It sounds ridiculous, and it was. The clergy couldn't be crossed, and the Matriarchy couldn't be crossed by politicians, because the first rule of politics is "You've got to get elected before you can do anything." Governments were thrown out of office by the clergy & matriarchy. Referendums swung on the clergy's say-so. The influence of clergy & Matriarchy was waning in the cities, but intact in rural parts. So atheists went to mass on sundays just to keep peace in the family. A huge degree of hypocrisy went on.

In the early 1990s, the clerical child abuse scandals broke. Not only did they break, they just kept coming. So the priests were deposed, the matriarchy largely retired (in cities particularly) and Ireland became hedonistic. In rural Ireland, some of the matriarchy still tries to act the part, but the kids are in cities. It seems people's idea of a good night out now is to get drunk and get laid, so disorganised young girls end up with several kids, and they don't know who the fathers are. It's sad, but true.

Originally Posted by ntubski You're suggesting that spiritual pre-programming to believe in God can be overcome more easily than spiritual pre-programming to disbelieve in God? Seems a bit unlikely to me. Where's the asymmetry coming from?

I think it's much harder to build a strong faith in the unknown and unprovable in grown kids who have spent their formative years listening to atheistic science. But I wouldn't contest the point.

Originally Posted by business_kid I think it's much harder to build a strong faith in the unknown and unprovable in grown kids who have spent their formative years listening to atheistic science. But I wouldn't contest the point.

Science does not oppose Spirituality or even Religion at it's base. There are reputable scientists still that are Believers, at least in that base, the existence of a Creator. It seems to me the major conflicts began right at the beginning or soon after, certainly with Galileo. The writing was on the wall when not only did The Church demand a public retraction to "save face" instead of Truth but placed him under house arrest. It is unconscionable that it took over 300 years to issue a formal apology but it does represent that Religion took on the adversarial position in areas in which it is doomed to lose.

Modern Religion should wake up to the fact that it will be a VERY long time, maybe never, that Science will even attempt to discover The Prime Mover and stick to those basics where it can then do what it actually does best, create a sense of community and cooperation. Oh wait... on second thought, that also means giving up on the arrogance ofthe whole "chosen people syndrome". It should have been and still could be effortless and a win-win solution to embrace, for example, Evolution assuming that "that's how God made it". What does it say to young people growing up in a highly informed, increasingly technological world to oppose repeatable objective evidence? I think it says "Lost Cause".

Face it, much of the tenets of almost all Religions began with both Moral and Political agendas - keep the Great Unwashed ruly by wielding Love, at least on the T Shirt, and an overbearing smite with both hands. That simply can't play today anymore than Divine Right Kings will... or should The Church oppose democracy instead of just subverting it?

@enorbet:
I actually did wake up youtube, and had a look at your video. It certainly was an attempt to dumb down what has been complicated beyond belief. When he came to the interesting bits though, though, he's say something like: "It's thought there was <name> <name> <something> transition into a <something> <name> <something> ....." and was on to the next point as fast as he could, and I was left there saying:"Huh? That was his explanation?"

I'd have had to go back, pause the video, and grok the scientific gobbledygook for 10 minutes minimum to figure out what he said. By which time I would have forgotten his point. But I gather the issues he highlighted were after the Big Bang, with the theoretical physics. I've more or less left that alone, and pointed out the obvious holes before the big bang, and the lack of any reason for inflation starting or stopping. I also feel a Divine 'matter --> energy' conversion over a larger area than the Singularity and converging at or near current inflation guesswork at some point before the CMB might be closer to the real explanation.

Now you're full of skepticism. But, like the Ptolemaic explanation, the Big Bang is actually full of holes, some of which your video laid out, and others which I did. My 2 line explanation certainly has the virtue of being simpler.

I won't dig deep into heavy stuff like your video tried to, because it's always shifting sands, and rarely helps people to appreciate God's Qualities. I prefer something that people with poor education can grasp and appreciate. There is a very true saying: "The truth stands alone; A lie needs companions." And it's true; lies need more lies to fix them up. It never stops. The Big bang is beginning to look that way.

So, business_kid, if you or one of your family needed brain surgery you'd prefer a plumber's assistant because he could explain it in terms you could grasp without doing any research?

You seem to want pat, closed shop, no contest, effortless answers handed to you while the Universe has no obligation to make sense to you intuitively. It's like asking a microbe on a breadcrumb to describe the solar system.

Despite that what you characterize as a failure, events show it is actually a steady progression much like a ship at sea making slight course corrections to arrive at the correct destination. Just a handful of years ago nobody was certain that black holes actually existed... now we have a photograph of one and it looks just like we expected it could IF they actually could exist. We wondered if planets commonly formed around stars or if ours was unique and we got a clue using very indirect methods of occlusion and gravitational wobble. This year we got the first infrared photo of a planetary system.

Please allow me to lighten the mood with a funny story.

It seems a research psychologist wanted to study how children learn to deal with extreme events. So he placed a young boy in a room full of toys and left him there for an hour. Upon his return he was surprised to find the boy weeping in an empty corner. When asked why he was so sad while surrounded by so many wonderful toys, the boy replied in halting gasps between sobs, "Yes but it's obvious that you're just going to take them all away at some point"

So the psychologist tried the opposite tack and placed a boy in a room with tons of horse crap. After an hour he returned and was astonished to find the boy exclaiming "Wheeee!" while he tossed "biscuits" off into the empty corner. When asked why he was so happy in the midst of all this stinky stuff, the boy excitedly exclaimed "With so much in this room there just has to be a horse here somewhere!".

Lemons or Lemonade is a matter of creative perspective.

To call such progress a failure on the whole is simply Confirmation Bias and it is somewhat understandable. After all facing one's own non-existence, that the world will still turn without you, that one will never see dead loved ones ever again except in one's imaginative memory is a hard pill to swallow. It is terribly difficult, but it is also very likely Reality. If you can accept that, maybe you can grasp just how actually precious Life is and embrace "Carpe Diem".

enorbet, please grow up, and stay vaguely on topic.

@hazel: Here's the final & much delayed Installment 6:

Besides the standard theory, another option I have heard advanced is a quantum phase change peeling atoms off the singularity from the outside in. As I understand it, three sets or rules apply in physics depending on size & distance:
1. Quantum Mechanics applies to the smallest sizes & lengths.
2. Newton applies in the middle, in everyday sizes & lengths.
3. Relativity deals with the largest sizes & lengths.
There is a great desire for ways to incorporate features of more than one of these sets of rules, particularly Quantum Mechanics, & Relativity. Nevertheless, Wikipedia’s article on Planck Units makes this (for once) plain statement.

Describing the universe when it was less than one Planck time old requires a theory of quantum gravity that would incorporate quantum effects into general relativity. Such a theory does not yet exist.

So Quantum Relativity seems a non starter. The universe is seriously macroscopic. This is not quantum amounts of matter. Quantum effects deal with quantum particles of matter insulated from each other. Your CPU processor cores deal with matter as small as 7nM (=7e-9 Metres); they are typically fabricated with a ‘fab size’ of 0.7 nM to 0.14 nM (per PN junction). Your CPU doesn’t suffer from Quantum effects. Under an excitation as low as 0.8V, they will transfer electrons or ‘holes’(the lack of an electron) very dependably. In the singularity, You’re dealing with matter in it’s entirety, in a singularity. Quantum effects on such a small scale won’t reach to any meaningful size, much less overcoming the gravity in the singularity.

EditOmitted this Also, effecting a quantum phase change would require alteration of a physical property – magnetic field, or pressure, for instance. And who is going to alter that physical property for you? Considering the gravity in the singularity, all the gravity of the entire universe, the force required of the phase change must be near infinite. You’re back to looking for Someone with enormous power and wisdom outside the Universe to alter the laws of Nature.

Originally Posted by business_kid enorbet, please grow up be like me, and stay vaguely on MY topic.... as long as you don't disagree

There. Fixed that for you.

Originally Posted by business_kid Installment 6: Besides the standard theory, another option I have heard advanced is a quantum phase change peeling atoms off the singularity from the outside in.

You still equate Singularity with Black Holes despite being shown that there are several different kinds of Singularities. If you "can't be arsed" to click the link or type in the term to discover the range of the usage of Singularity it would be wise to stop using it, though I doubt you will. It seems your agenda is sacrosanct, facts notwithstanding.

Originally Posted by business_kid As I understand it, three sets or rules apply in physics depending on size & distance: 1. Quantum Mechanics applies to the smallest sizes & lengths. 2. Newton applies in the middle, in everyday sizes & lengths. 3. Relativity deals with the largest sizes & lengths.

The above is vastly oversimplified and misinterpreted. One example is that Newton's formulae were involved in calculating orbits and gravity assists as far away as Pluto while Relativity is what makes GPS possible here on Earth. Saying Quantum Mechanics only applies on very small scales is like saying we could have easily constructed the Eiffel Tower from trees. While borders can be useful, they are also imaginary. Reality is a continuum.

Originally Posted by business_kid There is a great desire for ways to incorporate features of more than one of these sets of rules, particularly Quantum Mechanics, & Relativity. Nevertheless, Wikipedia’s article on Planck Units makes this (for once) plain statement. Originally Posted by wikipedia-Planck Units Describing the universe when it was less than one Planck time old requires a theory of quantum gravity that would incorporate quantum effects into general relativity. Such a theory does not yet exist. So Quantum Relativity seems a non starter. The universe is seriously macroscopic. This is not quantum amounts of matter. Quantum effects deal with quantum particles of matter insulated from each other. Your CPU processor cores deal with matter as small as 7nM (=7e-9 Metres); they are typically fabricated with a ‘fab size’ of 0.7 nM to 0.14 nM (per PN junction). Your CPU doesn’t suffer from Quantum effects. Under an excitation as low as 0.8V, they will transfer electrons or ‘holes’(the lack of an electron) very dependably. In the singularity, You’re dealing with matter in it’s entirety, in a singularity. Quantum effects on such a small scale won’t reach to any meaningful size, much less overcoming the gravity in the singularity. EditOmitted this Also, effecting a quantum phase change would require alteration of a physical property – magnetic field, or pressure, for instance. And who is going to alter that physical property for you? Considering the gravity in the singularity, all the gravity of the entire universe, the force required of the phase change must be near infinite. You’re back to looking for Someone with enormous power and wisdom outside the Universe to alter the laws of Nature.

The above makes no sense. It is a complete misunderstanding or misrepresentation. First you leap from "a theory <of Quantum Gravity> does not yet exist" to "Quantum Relativity is a non-starter" to outright stating a falsehood that CPUs don't involve quantum effects. They do!

Here is a report from a manufacturer of semiconductors regarding quantum effects in all kinds of semiconductors including even CMOS and of course CPUs ----

https://semiengineering.com/quantum-effects-at-7-5nm/

.... and then we're back to the misguided "concept" that all singularities are in effect Black Holes AND your sole conclusion is that "Someone with enormous power and wisdom outside the Universe to alter the laws of Nature" is absolutely required for Quantum Phase Transition when this IS Nature, IS within our Universe and there IS no evidence any of it requires a Supernatural being.

Nobody can prove or disprove the existence of a Supreme Being with Science (THAT'S the non-starter) nor by abrogating Science. Once again that is like saying "It was an Unidentified Flying Object, therefore it MUST be crafted by aliens from an extraterrestrial source". It's a non sequitur. It's safer and actually unassailable to just go with Faith.

Don't edit text and then post it as my quote please. You mislead people. I welcome constructive criticism. That's why I'm posting this stuff. So your edited quote is false.

Originally Posted by enorbet You still equate Singularity with Black Holes…

This quantum stuff is not my theory. You're blasting me as if it was essential to my position. It isn't. I'm not particularly a follower of it, in fact. You're just swinging blindly at everything I say, and you lack specifics in your criticism. You can say what you like about that particular idea, just don't treat it like it's my idea.

Originally Posted by enorbet The above is vastly oversimplified and misinterpreted.

It's supposedto be simplified. Simplification inevitably loses detail. And I must dismiss your criticism because you are not specific. How would you correct that, without resorting into gobbledygook, or leaving the relatively uninitiated with the feeling they have to do a year's science to find out what you meant?

Don't try me on electronics, enorbet - you usually lose. Wafer fab size is integral to IC performance and I've followed it from early TTL & CMOS with fab sizes in µM down to today's figures. It was seen far off that 5nM posed limits in physics, quantum effects being just one of many. There are others, so Samsung’s 7nM fab was a smart buy, because the ‘impossible’ has to be done now. Your article reflected the state of knowledge at the time - 2018. It’s now out of date. There are only two 7nM facilities in the world, IIRC, and 5 nM was seen as impossible by many experts in 2018, when your article was written. If quantum effects affected a commercial manufacturer's cpu performance in any way, nobody could or would run the affected cpu, returns would be 100%. So I am correct in saying that you don't randomly get one when you should get zero out of you cpu. Whatever quantum effects are in there stay in there.

Now the sights have been set on sub 5nM wafer fab machines. Now the battle begins again to keep quantum effects out, when they’re getting to a size when they look likely. But although they’re aiming at sub-5nM, they haven’t got there yet. They know it can't be done because of limitations on the current transistor design. More transistor designs are being researched. This is not a quick operation: there was a great desire for low voltage Mosfets, but the early ones of any size needed 15V; logic level fets (5V) took decades. Several innovative designs are now being experimented with. But win & lose designs are also possible. Switching from Fets to SITs or HEMTs might make sub 5nM work but with a larger transistor size, which defeats the purpose. Doping at each point is like searching for the lost chord. Now the meaningful information has dried up, while (I think) two competing teams of engineers grapple with the intractable issues involved in shrinking wafer fab more. Wafer fab is proprietary, so the rewards are huge. Nobody will want a solution that is only valid at 4nM, if they can have one valid at smaller sizes, which would probably be the next step. The whole future of IC manufacturing is at stake, and meanwhile the 7nM machine owners like Samsung can charge for fabricating chips on their 7nM machine. There's a lot of gambling in that size of an investment; If your fab size is overtsken, you lose; but Samsung's gamble paid off. They make chips for AMD, Nvidia, and anyone else who wants it. If they had 0.5% success in CPU manufacture (= 1 in 200 wafers passes QC), they'd probably be chuffed.

I frankly don’t expect anything at 3nM yet, if at all. Samsung may be aiming at gate all round fets, others are trying flatter designs, but this is incredibly hard. There’s a lot of marketing ‘blowhards,’ as we (Irish) call them, shooting their mouths off to some magazine because company stock prices are low. It’s tested, reliable products with no quantum effects that count. Nobody wants any less.

Now I won't return your "compliment" by calling you ignorant, by saying you don't understand or implying a failing on your part. I don't want to come across like a grouchy old man who has had his corns trod upon, as you do. Instead I simply provide an accurate account.

If you think I'm in error, correct the facts with less ad hominem. That will allow us to keep debate respectful. It wasn't your (lack of) interest I sought in any case.