It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: glend
When we get older we loose sight of the magic that envelops us because our brain labels everything it observes, causing us to forever see labels, instead of the real beauty of creation.
So even though we exist on a rock, with a smidgen of atmosphere, surrounded by a near perfect vacuum, with 1.989 × 10^30 kg of hydrogen fusing hydrogen into helium nearby, to keep us warm.
People will accept it as normal because they see labels, not the reality behind the labels.
If there isn't a GOD then GOD help us, its all for naught.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: midnightstar
There are more fine-tuned values than just this.
The improbabilities just stretch and stretch, the more you know.
Of course the 'standard' response to this is to say that it has to be this way, or we wouldn't exist to observe it. But this is a non-answer - a 'no think' statement.
At some point, one must abandon the supposition that the universe we find ourselves in, just happened by accident.
A supernatural origin for the universe is not the un-evidenced proposition.
"At some point, one must abandon the supposition that the universe we find ourselves in, just happened by accident." this statement sounds like a supposition to me, keeping in mind that conviction is not certainty anymore than opinion is fact.
Consider this:
In a simple system with few elements, the probability of random actions leading to a particular outcome is small:
Imagine two bricks in an enclosed space (a packing crate). Shaking the space randomises the scenario and one possible outcome is that the bricks will end up with one brick stacked upon another.
Increasing the volume of the space (say to a shipping container) decreases the probability that the bricks will end up one upon another.
Increasing the number of bricks to three also decreases the probability that all three will end up stacked upon each other.
So we can see that increasing the volume and increasing the elements vastly decreases the probability that a particular configuration (even one as simple as stacking) will be the result of randomisation.
Now expand that to apply to the size and content of the universe.
Of course, one may then suggest that there have been innumerable randomisations and that this raises the probability. Yet these randomising events take time. The physical movement of matter takes time. The birth and deaths of stars and the nucleosynthesis that occurs within them, takes time. The 'randomisation' events are far fewer when you consider that some of the most primary steps require stellar lifetimes.
The net result is that the observed universe could not have arisen by random factors in the time-frame of its existence. It is improbable to an enormous degree.
Any paradigm that depends upon actions so counter to reason, mathematics and physics is obviously false.
its fascinating that you have such great difficulty wrestling with improbable scenarios that you default to fantastically impossible solutions. solutions that cant be measured or calculated, solutions that depend on the plot holes in our investigative tools and techniques to retain just a shred of plausibility. how many improbable explanations turned out to be exactly correct?
how many times has religion apologized for punishing the minds who produced those seemingly improbable but very astute explanations? how many times has religion all but plagiarized the credibility of accomplished scientists in order to promote unrelated models of morals and metaphysics as though science isnt disproving religious theory every day?
your skepticism rings hollow in the ears of all of who have eyes to see. for physics and mathematics being so false, it is strange that religion keeps copying their homework. trying to wedge a dying god into any little gap you can find.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: glend
When we get older we loose sight of the magic that envelops us because our brain labels everything it observes, causing us to forever see labels, instead of the real beauty of creation.
So even though we exist on a rock, with a smidgen of atmosphere, surrounded by a near perfect vacuum, with 1.989 × 10^30 kg of hydrogen fusing hydrogen into helium nearby, to keep us warm.
People will accept it as normal because they see labels, not the reality behind the labels.
If there isn't a GOD then GOD help us, its all for naught.
how so? you think god is the only thing that can give us meaning? the only thing that makes existence worthwhile? a good life well lived is its own reward. people buy life insurance in case something happens to them. its basically you betting against yourself. religion is life insurance for people who plan on failing. plan on succeeding and you wont need it.
My previous post suggested scenarios entirely explicable and measurable with mathematical probability, physical metrics and reason.
Religion has unfairly punished a few scientists and theoreticians. In defence of those with a religious viewpoint, how many did the Hiroshima bomb kill or injure? It was built by scientists, not clerics!
The mistreatment of one human being by another is an unfortunate thing but it doesn't actually disqualify either a religious or scientific belief.
The fact that many scientists are also religious underlines that the dichotomy of 'science versus religion' is false and superficial. Science and religion are not constantly disproving each other in some long-standing battle. Both science and religion agree on some things but are essentially not overlapping fields of study. Science will not find God and religion will never split the atom.
A dying god would require existence.
The gaps in our knowledge are not small.
... and just for good measure, if matter can arise from quantum fluctuations, how do those virtual particles become real? What sort of forces are required to 'calve off' one of those supersymmetric pairs of virtual particles?
How could there be any such forces before they existed?
You cant 'make' forces and matter unless you first have forces and matter.
If we were nothingness for 13+ billion years then a 80 year life is a blink of an eye, hardly worth recognizing, adding nothing to the universe. Whereas everything else seems to have function.
Religion isn't life insurance in terms of Hinduism/Buddhism. Life in Buddhism is recognize as a period of spiritual growth, to work out our fears and loves, so we can evolve. It is seen as a dream that we will one day awaken from. Not all that different to dreams we experience at night.
Do you deny the possibility that you are in a dream?
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut
scenarios that are, in a word, improbable. scenarios that are also, theoretically, inevitable. depending on how deeply you subscribe to multiverse theory and a thousand monkeys with typewriters banging away for a thousand years.
My previous post suggested scenarios entirely explicable and measurable with mathematical probability, physical metrics and reason.
the atomic bomb was far more humane than nailing someone to a couple pieces of wood to maximize suffering and publicity. im not defending it as a method, but i am saying that it was an impersonal weapon made to avert far greater tragedy. science may have invented a means of horrifically efficient mass murder,
Religion has unfairly punished a few scientists and theoreticians. In defence of those with a religious viewpoint, how many did the Hiroshima bomb kill or injure? It was built by scientists, not clerics!
but men of god invented a means of inflicting horrific mass terror. the kind of terror that makes you beg for death because death is less terrifying. and many did not deserve it. not just "a few scientists".
many scientists are religious because they may practice scientific methods with scientific tools, but they are still humans. they still experience irrational sensations that defy their logistics and their measuring equipment. they have no solid answer but they see no harm in humoring it. it is as relevant to their work as their sexuality or their diet.
The mistreatment of one human being by another is an unfortunate thing but it doesn't actually disqualify either a religious or scientific belief.
The fact that many scientists are also religious underlines that the dichotomy of 'science versus religion' is false and superficial. Science and religion are not constantly disproving each other in some long-standing battle. Both science and religion agree on some things but are essentially not overlapping fields of study. Science will not find God and religion will never split the atom.
a pedantic response. no less than what i expected from a mind of your caliber.
A dying god would require existence. The gaps in our knowledge are not small. ... and just for good measure, if matter can arise from quantum fluctuations, how do those virtual particles become real? What sort of forces are required to 'calve off' one of those supersymmetric pairs of virtual particles?
How could there be any such forces before they existed?
i dont pretend to comprehend the finer points of quantum mechanics. specialists in the field barely do. and they are perpetually bewildered by their measurements and data. what this amounts to is basically a big neon INCONCLUSIVE. anything else is speculation and hypotheses.
feel free to show the big boys at cern what you can do if you feel like you are up to it. they probably wouldnt mind an extra set of hands.
aaaaand we are circling back around to the infinite regression conundrum. who made the god who made the god who made the god who made your god? since a being of such grandeur and majestic sophistication couldnt just happen on its own....
You cant 'make' forces and matter unless you first have forces and matter.
technically speaking, if we must be absolutely perfectly completely technical, this entire galaxy is pointless. from the cosmic perspective anyway. no more purpose than any other galaxy out of billions and billions and billions...do you suppose an ant serves a purpose? a bacteria? any of the numerous microscopic lifeforms on the bottom of your shoe? do you think cancer cells have meaning?
If we were nothingness for 13+ billion years then a 80 year life is a blink of an eye, hardly worth recognizing, adding nothing to the universe. Whereas everything else seems to have function. Religion isn't life insurance in terms of Hinduism/Buddhism. Life in Buddhism is recognize as a period of spiritual growth, to work out our fears and loves, so we can evolve. It is seen as a dream that we will one day awaken from. Not all that different to dreams we experience at night. Do you deny the possibility that you are in a dream?
originally posted by: TzarChasm
technically speaking, if we must be absolutely perfectly completely technical, this entire galaxy is pointless. from the cosmic perspective anyway. no more purpose than any other galaxy out of billions and billions and billions...do you suppose an ant serves a purpose? a bacteria? any of the numerous microscopic lifeforms on the bottom of your shoe? do you think cancer cells have meaning?
originally posted by: frenchfries
entropy always increases , yet silly people on a blue marble. For me enough proof.
originally posted by: micpsi
1. proof that the sacred geometries of some major religions are isomorphic despite their origins being separated by thousands of miles and years. This has no rational explanation other that they are equivalent representations of a universal blueprint governing all fundamental systems.
2. demonstrations that these sacred geometries are not only equivalent but embody the group mathematics of E8xE8, which is one of the two symmetry groups discovered by Michael Green and Gary Schwarz in 1984 to describe superstrings whose forces are free of quantum anomalies. This proof that ancient sacred geometries and discoveries in theoretical physics contain analogous, mathematical properties has no rational explanation other than that there really IS such a thing as "Divine design" that was captured in geometrical representation of God by mystics separated by thousands of years and miles.
3. precise, quantitative correlations between scientifically established facts in micro-biology, music theory and superstring theory that are so detailed and numerous that chance is absurdly too improbable to invoke as their explanation.
4. Evidence of conceptual coherence and mathematical connectivity between the sacred geometries of different religions that can be sensibly viewed only as indicating their transcendental/divine origin - there is no alternative, more plausible way to account for this absolutely amazing congruity.
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
originally posted by: TzarChasm
technically speaking, if we must be absolutely perfectly completely technical, this entire galaxy is pointless. from the cosmic perspective anyway. no more purpose than any other galaxy out of billions and billions and billions...do you suppose an ant serves a purpose? a bacteria? any of the numerous microscopic lifeforms on the bottom of your shoe? do you think cancer cells have meaning?
Hmm. This statement of yours, at least to me, seems neither technically, nor scientifically, sound. If you really want to be technical (and honest) then I guess we can say we have no idea what a galaxy actually is, in a truly objective sense. Sure, we've defined it on our own terms so that we may try and understand it in our own context. But that ain't no galaxy. And those up there that make up those pointless galaxies, they aren't stars either...
Have you seen the structure that all of those so called pointless galaxies seem to forming?
But it was entirely my point that what science proposes (matter from nothingness due to quantum fluctuations) is highly improbable, so, are you agreeing with me here?
As one increases complexity and spatial volume, the asymptote describing improbability tends towards infinity. This means that, scaling things up, even over vast numbers of repetitions of randomising events, things will continue to move away from inevitability and towards impossibility.
There is no "theoretical inevitability" - it is a concept built entirely on unfounded assumption, not measurement and calculation.
And.. it was the Persians that invented crucifixion and were copied by the Roman armies. It wasn't invented by the religious ones at all.
Oooh, mass terror! Begging for death! ... but wait a minute, all those happy sunday school kids singing their "Jesus Loves Me" songs, that's somehow worse that the threat of atomic war?
Except for cosmologists and other physicists, where it is actually relevant to their work.
Inconclusive, except, of course, when you use it as your argument.
Although we know our physical universe is bounded by temporal constraints (requiring a chain of causality), an atemporal deity has no beginning, end, or even passage of recent moments. The God of the Bible is described as such; having no beginning or end and being the same yesterday, today and forever.
The application of a chain of causality is another reason that we know this universe must have started at some point, the universe is 'time bound'.
But there are many atemporal things, things such as numbers and meanings are not temporally bound, as are many concepts that we rely on for science and measurement to 'make sense'. So an atemporal God is not an absurd concept philosophically, or even from a scientific standpoint. Atemporality is essential in some things.
Why do you say that the galaxy is pointless? Do you have a compelling reason for that, or is it just another unreasoned assumption?
You may call upon the ant as being insignificant but if all ants became extinct, there would be massive environmental damage affecting the whole planet. Ants consume dead biological matter, both plant and animal. Without them decay would become predominantly bacterial and fungal and disease would bloom. Ants also are predatory and many species kept in check by ant abundances, primarily of insects, would assume plague proportions, further damaging the ecology of the planet.
There IS now a direction to evolution. We know how to manipulate the genome and the future will be by our will and choice.
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: TzarChasm
Fair point, but we're not talking about the presumed irrelevance of a galaxy's or cell's existence. This is totally your opinion.
What you said is these things are without purpose. Naturally this was to lend credence to your overall point for the lack of design in the universe. However, irrelevance and purpose are two different concepts.
Tell a dying cancer patient that a cancer cell has no meaning. All it takes is just one cell to go rogue, and look what it can do to the entire biological system which is several orders of magnitude larger than that very cell that started it all...
Never underestimate the power (and relevance ?) of really small things.
Edit to add:
You also mentioned purposeless bacteria. How well do you think you'd fair without your microbiome keeping you alive and healthy?
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut
improbable yes. but still more possible than alternative theories, ie creationism.
an eternal god is built on what is called "necessary presupposition" is it not? as in, suppositions are necessary for the hypothesis to float. suppositions designed to circumvent "measurement and calculation". which sort of flies in the face of the scientific method if Im not much mistaken. the gaps in scientific theory are far less dubious than the gaps in yours.
zoroastrianism, which informed a great deal of christianity in its younger years.
i imagine parents encourage a little bit of tact when it comes to the whole "burning in hell" bit. not to mention that our constitutional rights took care of the inquisition/crusade/witch burning complex that caused so much fuss. you speak as someone who has never experienced the methods used to recruit and convert so called heathens back when there was minimal oversight. easy to be glib about that sort of thing when you only read about it.
but the point was that religion borrows the credibility of science to make its fantastical claims look a little more plausible. not exactly plagiarism but not really honest either. especially when you use one set of data to confirm an unrelated set of data. some people have gotten really good at drawing parallels that look good at first glance. second glance though...
not strictly relevant. perhaps in a pareidolia sort of sense. if they form a sentimental attachment on that basis, i wont judge. but using their research to construct a moral framework complete with metaphysical conjecture is a little outside of their jurisdiction as cosmologists and physicists. the fact remains they are working with measurable phenomenon that can be calculated and mathematically expressed and predicted. anything else is happenstance. unless they can prove otherwise and demonstrate to us a supernatural influence on the celestial bodies.
there is a technical term - null hypothesis - which basically means that the default logical position is there is no connection between phenomenon unless demonstrated.
so god is an idea, rather than a physical thinking actively participating entity. a tulpa perhaps. does that not mean he was created by his followers? some rather unsettling implications in there.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut
... continued from previous ...
answering the last line first, it is arrogant and egotistical to believe that because we can script the future according to our will, we should. that is hubris and folly and a cliche. attempting to establish perfect control is the first step to creating perfect chaos and potentially absolute failure. its one of the ironies of classic literature mirrored by the sadistic humor of our reality. tempting us to engineer our own destruction by making it look like salvation.
I was not even particularly referring to going back to the ant thing, yes ants have a progressive impact on the ecosystem. but the earth does not have a progressive impact on the galaxy. when the sun dies and consumes half of the solar system (or a third or whatever) no one will blink. no one will pause and spare even a second of pity for our world. we will be the tree falling in an empty forest. so make the most of your time here as no one will recognize it even if you fail miserably. how is that for a demotivational meme?