What does science have to say about atheism? [Spirituality & Religion]

@JoeyFoxx About abiogenesis, it´s amazing how a a researcher in Physics can omit to put in his probabilistic reasoning the fact that negentropy is as much a physical force as the 2nd law of thermodinamycs.
More complex elements and chemical compounds were once inexistent in the earlier stages of the Universe (same as stellar structures).
And, along time, they become to be as an older prebiotic Evolutive trend.
The rise and Evolution of life seems (at least, seems) to be a particular case of the interaction between Entropy and Negentropy.

There are also other omissions, forgivables in people whose activities are not related to Science, but not for a scientist.
You can easily observe the autonomous auto organizing proceses even in so simple things like hypercritical states when we boil wáter.

As you said, nothing really new.

@CharlieZ Nice speculation you got going there. Too bad you don't know what you don't know.

@hippyjoe1955 Hippy, read some basic physics books, please.

@CharlieZ Do some thinking please. A book is only as good as its author. If the author engages in pure speculation for which he has no evidence he doesn't know what he doesn't know.

@hippyjoe1955 Negentropy is something you will find in well known educational physics, biology and general science texts.
Individual authors don´t mean a too much.
It´s about science, not about personal believes.

@CharlieZ Regardless of where it is found since we didn't experience the dawn of the universe any theory we cook up is speculation because we don't know. We don't even know what we don't know.

@hippyjoe1955 [quote]A book is only as good as its author.[/quote]

I hate to be snarky here (actually, no I don't), but it sounds like you could be talking about a book, written thousands of years ago, by some men, who talk about burning bushes and dreams in a desert...

@JoeyFoxx If you think I believe the Bible because it is the Bible you are mistaken.

@CharlieZ I appreciate what you are trying to say, but this is still very hypothetical at this point without a great deal of measurable data to date to develop a truly workable theory.

@hippyjoe1955 Where did you pick the confuse idea that only personal witnessed events are real and knowable?
Or that science is an idividual entreprise?
Hippy, be serious.

@CharlieZ Have you ever noticed the number of discarded theories the litter the hallways of academia? You don't even know what you don't know.

@JoeyFoxx I understand your point and partially agree.
But negentropy and it´s role in a changing Universe is not precisely new nor speculative.
It´s, at least, what it´s called "convergence to the best (avalable) inference".
And, even if not yet enough, there are data about.

@CharlieZ If you choose to believe it you choose to believe it. That doesn't change the fact that it is speculation and always will be.

@hippyjoe1955 Of course.
Science discard theories for better ones, along time, based on serious systematic data. Is in it´s very nature to do it.
And yet, scientific knowledge, is not at all a "drunken walk".
Trying to portrait changes in scientific knowledge as a random game of opinions do not reflects the history of Science.

@hippyjoe1955 It´s not about believe, bud.
It´s called Science.

@CharlieZ No that is not science. That is speculation since we have no way of proving what happened long ago. No one witnessed it or wrote it down so anything we say about it is on the face of it speculation. That you choose to believe it doesn't make it science no matter the terminology used to describe it. It remains and always shall remain speculation. You don't even know what you don't know.

@hippyjoe1955 Hippy, let´s do something.
Marcello Glaser is a theoretical physicist working in cosmology.
It´s easy to get his mail.
Send him one saying exactly what you´ve said in your previous post.
About cosmic evolution that "... is speculation since we have no way of proving what happened long ago. No one witnessed it or wrote it down so anything we say about it is on the face of it speculation"
Ask him his opinión about such assertion.

And honestly, post here his answer.

I suspect he will disagree with you based on his scientific formation.

Else, if he agrees, I promisse to distribute his oppinions with my comments on academic scientific institutions and media to which I have access.

Someone, in each case, may got a surprise.

@CharlieZ Do you know that "argumentum ad verecundiam" is a logical fallacy don't you?

@hippyjoe1955 [quote]we have no way of proving what happened long ago.[/quote] We have no way of proving something happened five minutes ago - but we may have evidence.

[quote]No one witnessed it or wrote it down [/quote] For example that is evidence - the worst, most unreliable form of evidence - but evidence nonetheless. The funny thing here is that you think it’s the only sort that counts.

@hippyjoe1955 Right, it is.
But I am not using now formal symbolic logic. There is too little substance to apply on.

But, as long as YOU brought Marcelo Gleizer´s article and his merits as scientist as arguments, you are the one, and not me, who in risk of such fallacy.

What I´ve proposed is rather something more personal.
To let´s us know which may be the opinion of Marcelo Gleizer, who works in cosmic physics, if you tell him (by example) that our knowledge on the changes along millions of years shown by the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram are merely speculative.

Will you please ask him?
It would be not only relevant but quite interesting!

@CharlieZ Nice dodge. The old maxim remains true. Regardless of the man's 'expertise' he too can be wrong as have so many experts before him.

@hippyjoe1955 Let’s sum up your various views on science.

Theorizing about past events is useless regardless of how much evidence we have, because nobody was there to write it down. This includes stellar events that we are observing now after they occurred millions/billions years ago and their light finally reached us.

Any scientific theory needs to explain EVERYTHING, including how the universe originated to be useful, even if it’s only examining a particular process.

Lol, compiled together we have total paralysis 😂

Classic hippie.

@hippyjoe1955 Right.
He may be.
Includding on the article of your post.
Right?

I still would like his opinión on what YOU said about the nature of scientific knowlegde and inference.

As long as you gave as the original link and was you who haves a very particular view on science (not the one that scientists use to), may you send that mail? Please, do it.

If not, may be I´ll do it for you.
Of course, being strictly textual when quoting YOU to him.

@QuixoticSoul You are completely wrong. Theorizing about anything is a wonderful undertaking. Testing those theories are also wonderful to do. However when ever someone proclaims 'This theory is absolutely true' science dies.

@QuixoticSoul Oh no, not a hippie, not like the ones I knew.