The history of physics and its methods have nothing to do with the arbitrary assertions of religious mysticism. Nothing. Physics does not arbitrarily dream up fantasies in the name of "hypotheses" about which there is no evidence and proceed to look for "tests" of that for which there is no evidence. (And Blarman's attempts to describe different stages of physics are cartoon substitutes as he desperately attempts to invoke analogies to demand respect for his mysticism).

Someone "wanting" immortality says nothing about a supernatural "higher power" or that it "could be", only someone's fantasy. What "could be" is not arbitrary; what is possible is not whatever one feels like until the "entire universe" is impossibly "searched and understood" to show otherwise. He has the whole intellectual process backwards in a giant floating abstraction designed to keep his game going indefinitely, with no possibility of rational refusal to take him seriously in his open-ended fantasies based on feelings.

Even most theological debate is not obsessed with immortality the way Blarman is. Neurotic obsession is not a rational basis for desired "hypothesis".

"Hehe" followed by a strawman is not an argument. The arbitrary utterances of mystics "can't be debated" because there is no cognitive content to debate, not because of anyone's evasion or inability to argue logically.

Physics isn't wrong; new discoveries require new concepts and explanations to expand the scope of what is known in physics. That does not make previous knowledge wrong. Unlike in religion, there are at least real phenomena in outer space that need to be explained, but rationalism with mathematical "constructs" isn't a substitute.

This has already been answered several times in detail, and several times before that on previous threads. Blarman ignores it. He misrepresents the concept of atheism and the reasons for it. There is no "first cause" "problem". Theological "problems" are not the province of physics and not relevant to any rational thought. Trying, in particular, to account for a cause of existence from 'outside' existence is a self-contradiction. Science is not "stuck" over such "problems"; it ignores them as meaningless.

You respond with the knee jerk reaction of a mathematician: when the numbers from your calculations don't work, try to find an as yet unmeasured "constant" to make them work, rather than accept the possibility that something in your math isn't right.

Prior to Einstein, scientists taught Newtonian physics would scoff at what his discoveries predicted. "Physical laws cannot be violated?" Who says we really understand the forces that drive the universe? The "darks" are a possible explanation for what makes the universe behave contrary to our accepted constructs, but fixating on a single solution may be getting in the way of a more open search for multiple possibilities, which is not very scientific.

There are many as yet unexplained human senses. The recent discovery that humans can detect the Earth's magnetic field was unexpected. There may be connections to elements of the universe about us that we aren't consciously aware of. Whether some of our "feelings" are in fact information that we decipher incorrectly as divine force (or maybe not incorrectly?), or are nothing more than an emotional reaction remains unknown. Science is about discovery, and we are discovering that we really don't know as much about ourselves as we thought.

Religion is not a "way of life according to a set of principles". That does not characterize religion. Religion requires belief on faith in the supernatural. Trying to pass off religion as essentially adherence to "principle" is a vicious package deal. Understanding and living in accordance with objective principles is not an instance of religion; it is the opposite.

Blarman's demand that rational people must "disprove" his arbitrary assertions are irrational and false. Contrary to Blarman, living in accordance with mystical dogma and ritual posing as "principles" does not make the dogma and rituals true. There is no requirement to "disprove" them in order to reject faith as cognitively worthless with no meaning and no logical claim to truth. Blarman demands that his faith be disproved before rejecting it, then claims it can't be because "proof of a principle is in the exercise of that principle", with his presumed "exercising" supposedly preventing their disproof.

It's double talk demanding immunity from logical criticism. His discussion is outside the realm of logic. Rejecting his faith is not "ignorance", nor is it "hypocritical" to reject contradictions as impossible; the law of identity is axiomatic. No discussion is possible without it.

Contrary to Blarman no one has said that "there is no purpose to life". See "The Objectivist Ethics" and Atlas Shrugged. Incoherent mysticism does not fill a supposed void with a principle for "purpose to life"; irrational individuals adopt mysticism as their subjective purpose.

Blarman once posted here that he would go crazy if he couldn't believe in his own immortality, which is not an argument for anything other than a need for psychological counseling . Now he says that he "looks for a higher power" to answer his desperate quest to "continue to exist (after death)" and asks "if so, in what state?". Contrary to his claim that "those are the answers religion holds which 'science' [sic scare quotes] can not - and never will be able to - answer", raving mysticism answers nothing, and only reason, in particular science, can answer questions -- valid questions in terms of valid concepts about reality, not mysticism.

Blarman's dramatic demeaning of science for not providing a neurotic satisfaction of immortality as he evangelizies his faith here is irrational and contrary to the purpose of the forum. His preaching and his presumptuous suggestion that others seek his "help" is inappropriate and obnoxious. This is a forum for Ayn Rand's ideas of reason and individualism not promotion of faith while denouncing, with Blarman's "help", reason and science as inadequate for human knowledge.

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/

The electric universe theory does not need dark matter or dark energy. See project thunderbolt.

The other possibility raised (and I think someone else posted here in the forum about it) is that the initial calculation of the mass of the universe was wildly wrong. If I recall correctly, a new theorem was presented which revised the calculation, lowered the resulting mass, and eliminated the need for "dark matter" entirely.

"You are playing word games"

Always the excuse of someone who can't debunk the actual statement - resort to ad hominem.

"What am I ignorant of, given my statement?"

You claimed to know what I know, yet you turned right around and asked: "What experience of yours confirms what belief of yours?"

Now if you were asking that question with any sincerity whatsoever, I would be inclined to tell you. Since you aren't, I'm not going to cast my pearls. You've made it abundantly clear that your mind is made up. That's your choice. But since you aren't interested in an honest conversation either, I'm Ignoring you from this point out.

"One cannot test for something for which one has no evidence."

Uh, the entire purpose of testing is to uncover evidence which either proves or disproves one's hypothesis. One can not presuppose that no evidence can possibly exist, however, and claim an "objective" analysis. If one asserts that no evidence can possibly exist, one would have to have searched the entire universe and understood the entire universe such that one could know their search was thorough and complete. In doing so, one would effectively become exactly that which the atheist denies may exist. It's an argument untenable to the atheist's position either way.

"How do you learn about something, a god, that does not exist."

One must first abandon the preconception that a god can not exist. As pointed out above, such an assertion is pure bravado at best. Existence is not subject to one's will, desire, or preconception. Atoms existed even though they were not postulated until Bohr's model. Then we discovered that Bohr's model was incomplete because the electron shells weren't simply spherical. Then we discovered that the nucleus wasn't homogeneous, but consisted of protons and neutrons. Then we discovered that quarks underlay both protons and neutrons. Now it is postulated that strings underlay quarks. But in all of this, people postulated what could be and then went looking for it. The search for "god" is precisely the same way. You have to study out what could be and test for that.

Does that mean "listening to every opinion" out there? No. There are thousands of religions out there and I quite agree that the quantity is prohibitive to do an exhaustive study of each. So what you have to ask yourself is this: do I want to continue to exist after death and if so, to what end? That is the discussion of god: the state of one's being after death.

They are not mathematical constructs. Physical laws cannot be violated. Unless the laws of gravity have been revised, some have tried to revise them without success, observations show that there must be other not seen matter that exists but not visible and other energy sources to have jerked the acceleration of the observed expansion of the Universe. Subsets of mathematics are used to describe the possible properties of those existents.

"You understand you are working on a false definition, right?"
I'm defining things just fine. You are playing word games to avoid conceding to the logical positions of those of us who are not using false definitions.

"That you are ignorant of something does not mandate that I am as well."
What am I ignorant of, given my statement?

"If you choose to believe that there is no purpose to life and no existence after death, that is your choice."
The first point in this sentence is a non-sequitur, the second one is a contradiction.

"My experiences are concrete evidence to me that confirm my belief - my hypothesis."
What experience of yours confirms what belief of yours?

"Why should I look for something - a higher power?"
You shouldn't. You shouldn't do anything arbitrary.

"Ask yourself these two questions: do I want to continue to exist (after death) and if so, in what state?"
There is no life after death, that's a contradiction. This is a not a question you need to ask yourself, you need to clean up your thinking.

"Those are the answers religion holds which "science" can not - and never will be able to - answer."
Religion has no answers and you're not asking any questions, you're making random, contradictory assertions.

"Hehe. So because you can't debate it, you dismiss it."
Because it's arbitrary I dismiss it, as should you.
There's nothing to debate.

"If you're going to wade into a logical debate, at least come prepared."
I did. The basic logic was explained in the very next sentence. The idea of a first cause is a contradiction.

"I have never heard the argument that "the idea of the supernatural violates the law of identity". I'm wondering where you heard it or if you just made it up."
You're one of the top voted posters on an Objectivist forum and you don't know what the law of identity is? Hmmm.

"The atheist starts with the premise that there is nothing. "

That statement is shear nonsense. The verb 'is' indicates existence. There can be no premise that there 'is' nothing. An atheist begins with the premise that that something must exit before one can use the verb 'is'. One cannot test for something for which one has no evidence. To view objective reality as something which one arbitrarily must test for something for which one has has absolutely no evidence, is not rational. Suppose I went looking for an extraterrestrial alien who landed in Wisconsin at some time in history without any evidentiary reason for doing so, I would most likely be wasting my time and may even have a mental illness.
How do you learn about something, a god, that does not exist. An agnostic pretends to know what properties a god would have without any evidence for any god. Making up an arbitrary definition does not save one from being irrational, it is irrational.
Even mathematics that exists only in minds requires mathematical relationships for something to exist in the mind.
The opinions of others about supernatural events are just opinions and most atheists have long ago given up on pretending that every belief by others need have time spent on checking out the belief. I have a somewhat friend, who believes that back in his drinking and drug days, he was at a lunch counter when two demons sat down next to him. He will not discus that belief of his. He more recently believed that when he fell on his face in his driveway with a heart attack, that god was giving him a chance to straighten out his life. Now apparently god must have not been happy with his progress and gave him 4th degree liver cancer. He does not want to discuss his beliefs. Am I to investigate the make believe demons and god that he keeps from seeing that they are figments of his imagination.
Agnostics don't even have any evidence and somehow believe in a possibility with zero probability since no god has ever had any evidence for its existence given, just mysteries in some minds.
Atheists do not regularly dismiss those people and events. They mostly do not want to waste time on an unlimited number of non-objective anecdotal opinions.

A very clear article by Nathanial Branden in the April 1963 "The Objectivist Newsletter' deals with the rationality of agnosticism.

So what do you say to his assertion "Atheism is a belief in non-belief. So you categorically deny something you have no evidence against."

Or his observation "Science can give answers to certain questions, up to a point. This has been known for a very long time in philosophy, it's called the problem of the first cause: we get stuck."

There is no "assumption" that his arbitrary assertions are opinions. Assertions made without evidence are opinions -- baseless opinions. People who "experience real events in their lives" claiming that "only the presence of a supernatural world can provide explanation" are irrational: Mystical appeals to the supernatural are not a logical explanation of anything. Explanation is conceptual integration of what is already known about reality with what is being explained, not mystic appeal to the incoherent assertions posturing as objective facts outside existence. That is why such mystics are dismissed as outside the realm of rational discussion.

Blarman continues to misrepresent atheism as "premise that there is nothing". That is not true. There is no "premise that there is nothing". The logical principle is that arbitrary assertions of the existence of something require valid concepts and evidence of the existence asserted. Without that they are dismissed out of hand as cognitively worthless. Rejection of gibberish is not an assertion about the purported subject matter at all let alone a sweeping "premise" that "there is nothing" (which is the nihilistic opposite of the axiomatic concept of existence).

HIs claim that "in order to learn if a god exists, one must actually learn about that god. And that in a nutshell is religion" is confirmation of his arbitrary approach. He arbitrarily assumes on feelings that there is something unspecified to "learn about".

"Investigating" "properties" of an undefined entity with no evidence of existence "so as to determine what tests will be efficacious" is a circular floating abstraction that makes no sense at all. "And that in a nutshell" is his religion.

Award winning physicist Marcelo Gleiser, physics and astronomy professor

The award is the Templeton Prize, $1.5 million. This prize is to promote religion.
Other winners include theologian Desmond Tutu, better described as marxist racist.

If the quotes are correct, then Gleiser is ignorant of the role of the scientific method over past centuries in showing that nature can be understood rather than repeating myth and superstition.

As for what Socrates said and meant, it is unlikely that he defended willful ignorance. He was attacking the support of current fads by those who pretend to know.
Socrates was defending intellectual honesty, not ignorance. This view accords with his reputation as far as it is known as he refused to support the religious fads of his time.

"You understand that religion can't have evidence because then it wouldn't be religion, right?"

You understand you are working on a false definition, right? Religion is a way of life according to a set of principles. If you want to disprove any given "religion", you must disprove its principles. The proof of a principle is in the exercise of that principle.

"As such you KNOW there's nothing there. No evidence is required. It's SELF-evident."

That you are ignorant of something does not mandate that I am as well. I also find it interesting that you are so willing to assert on your side of the argument that no evidence is required, yet demand that I produce evidence on mine. You don't find that argument even the least bit hypocritical? I do.

If you choose to believe that there is no purpose to life and no existence after death, that is your choice. My firsthand experiences and knowledge tell me otherwise. My experiences are concrete evidence to me that confirm my belief - my hypothesis. But I do not ask anyone to rely on my knowledge. I simply encourage them to find out for themselves. Whether they choose to do so is up to them - as is whether or not they choose to ask for help.

Why should I look for something - a higher power? Ask yourself these two questions: do I want to continue to exist (after death) and if so, in what state? Those are the answers religion holds which "science" can not - and never will be able to - answer.

"An atheist does not claim the matter closed since it is impossible to prove non-existence of a nothing, one can only point out flaws in positive statements."

The atheist starts with the premise that there is nothing - an untestable hypothesis. Then they sit back and claim that since they can't prove a negative that their argument is sound. As the subject of this article points out - that's not the scientific method. I am in total agreement with you that one can only posit something that then may be proved via testing. What is inconvenient to some about the atheist vs deist argument is that in order to test for something, you have to investigate its properties so as to determine what tests will be efficacious. That means that in order to learn if a god exists, one must actually learn about that god. And that in a nutshell is religion.

"Opinions of others are not a valid basis for an individuals rational conclusions about the existence of anything. Only observation of objective reality with reason and logic can one understand what exists."

Ah, but you assume that they are merely opinions and not objective facts. And that is what I am pointing out: there are many people who have experienced real events in their lives for which only the presence of a supernatural world can provide an explanation. Yet atheists regularly dismiss these people and events. Why?

"I would say, "you're fired."

Hehe. So because you can't debate it, you dismiss it.

"There is no problem of the first cause. There simply is no first cause."

If you're going to wade into a logical debate, at least come prepared.

"By knowing the proper definitions of words and concepts."

You didn't answer the question. I have never heard the argument that "the idea of the supernatural violates the law of identity". I'm wondering where you heard it or if you just made it up.

Dark matter and dark energy fall outside of the normal realm of theoretical physics in that they seem to be nothing more than gigantic "fudge factors" to explain a huge discrepancy between our observed and measured universe, and what our mathematical constructs tell us. There is more evidence of the often scoffed at zero point energy (Casimir Effect) than of either dark matter or dark energy. So far, experiments aimed at better identifying and observing dark matter or dark energy have failed impressively. Until better explanation, I consider the "darks" to be superstition growing from a refusal to consider that our whole mathematical physics construct may be very wrong.

You make a good point. One shouldn't even get into the specifics of an arbitrary assertion, it should just be rejected.