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.

 

How Did the Universe Begin? The Math

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
10^80+ is one hell of a big number but yet you still think it could happen that way,

Sir, you seem to not understand. The objection is not that the odds are surmountable, its that the 'odds' in fact do not exist. You can't look at an entire genome and calculate the odds of it forming spontaneously from random atoms and think that you have done anything. The 'odds' dreamt up here are completely meaningless. Its like saying 'the odds of all the parts of a plane comming together spontaneously and making a plane are immpossible' and then concluding that planes do not exist. Its absurd. Planes are built in sequence by human agents. Organisms are built in sequence by the agency of natural selection, they do not 'pop up' out of random atoms like this analysis of yours states.

IOW, the calculations are fundamentally flawed.




posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   
What amazes me is that anyone thinks that any particular one concept of God is "correct", since by definition, it would mean other millions (or billions in some cases) are "wrong". So it follows then, that this deity (whichever one would be "correct") would then condemn all of those who are "wrong" when he gave them no reason to believe in him over the others in the first place. What kind of deity worthy of worship would be so cruel? The answer is, not one worthy of my worship.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
"Always was always will be." That is one of many definitions about God.

Now think about that. What scientists talk about and write about the "big bang," they consider nano seconds after the event. This mass of everything is in the dimensions of less than one atom. Most arguments regarding statistics do not consider the compact functions of the deity. So we hear the question from philosophers, "how many angels can you fit on the head of a pin?" Well the creation process, from God, no other explanation fitting into a more Universally applicable and adaptive cultural paradim, is not dependent upon our concepts of mass or size. Consider all events in a timeless viewpoint, project and value such things, so fantastic is the human mind to do so with a few words about it. The reality of all this is staggering. Now consider the God concept. It surpasses such things. It is no wonder that we need faith to bridge our gaps, not only for religion from government, but for science free to inquire on every basis, every stage of an existential process. It does not require faith, although faith may offer a bridge into those concepts of reality.

In the long run and even in the short run, you would direct yourself to the deity as a faith construct only touching upon at best the actual reality it attempts describe. We do that all the time, thinking our leaders have a direct line to the Father in Heaven, when in fact they have next to nothing, not even the deepest thoughts from those who have made contact with their own spirit which is also of that Father.

The point is justifications for power figures, and a kind of submission for those who in all of this appear not to have power. Using what people know in themselves to be real, politics and government has to authorize itself, and believe me by their actions you must ask yourselves, do they show they don't care about finding God? Do they only care about leading others in their plans, programs, and projects.

Believe me neither do I nor does anyone else have but the faintest recognition of what I am really trying to fathom. Otherwise what is faith and why is it necessary?

[edit on 25-2-2005 by SkipShipman]



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkipShipman
"Always was always will be." That is one of many definitions about God.


Can't you see the beauty in that?



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   




The Ray of Creation



Before the dawn of the Mahamanvantara (Sanskrit for "the great cosmic day"), Nothing (No-Thing/Eternal Siety) existed. All that was, was the Omeyocan (Nahuatl), the Absolute Abstract Space. It is here that the womb of the ocean of Divine Mother Space resides, waiting to be fecundated by the Eternal Cosmic Common Father in order to initiate the dawn of creation.

The womb of the Divine Mother Space is the Absolute, it is that which is the Siety, the original point of departure of everything existent.

The Absolute – Three Aspects

1. Ain (Hebrew: Nothing)- the unmanifested Absolute, the womb of the ocean of Divine Mother Space. This is where only the wind and the darkness exists.

2. Ain Soph (Hb: Limitless)- This is our atomic star that sends it’s Ray into the world in order to be cognizant of its own happiness. This is the Star of Bethlehem, that which guides the path of the Bodhisattva. This is the original point of departure, where everything comes from in the beginning of the Mahamanvantara and where everything returns during the Mahapralaya (Sanskrit for Cosmic Night).

3. Ain Soph Aur (Hb: Limitless Light)–The Ray of Creation. This is the Cosmic Christ, Quetzlcoatl (Nahuatl), Okidanok (Gurdjieff), Vishnu (Sans), Kukulcan (Mayan), etc. This is the source of all life and light in the universe. It is the ray that sacrifices itself in order to give birth to the multiple realms and forms upon the eternal Tree of Life. It Sacrifices itself in order to undergo multiple transformations, becoming more and more dense, more complicated so as to give life opportunity upon various planes of existence.

The Ray of Creation begins in the Absolute and ends in the Inferno, Avitchi, Greek Tarturus, or submerged Mineral Kingdom. On the following diagram, which depicts the Tree of Life, the Kabbalah, we see the Ray of Creation as the white line which zigzags down the Tree towards the abyss.....

The Ray of Creation



Now we see where The RZA(for all you Wu-Tang fans
) gets his Attribute: Ruler - Zig-Zag-Zig - Allah.

We half to Zig-Zag-Zig back up The Tree of Life, as to escape suffering and help others to do so; through Supreme Mathematics(Kabbalah).....







PEACE



[edit on 28-2-2005 by Tamahu]



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tamahu

Now we see where The RZA(for all you Wu-Tang fans
) gets his name: Zig-Zag-Zig - Allah.


What does the moon god of the Arabian peninsula have to do with this?

Heck the Arabs had the best mathematics in the world at one time?



The Archeology of The Middle East
The religion of Islam has as its focus of worship a deity by the name of "Allah." The Muslims claim that Allah in pre-Islamic times was the biblical God of the Patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. The issue is thus one of continuity. Was "Allah" the biblical God or a pagan god in Arabia during pre-Islamic times? The Muslim's claim of continuity is essential to their attempt to convert Jews and Christians for if "Allah" is part of the flow of divine revelation in Scripture, then it is the next step in biblical religion. Thus we should all become Muslims. But, on the other hand, if Allah was a pre-Islamic pagan deity, then its core claim is refuted. Religious claims often fall before the results of hard sciences such as archeology. We can endlessly speculate about the past or go and dig it up and see what the evidence reveals. This is the only way to find out the truth concerning the origins of Allah. As we shall see, the hard evidence demonstrates that the god Allah was a pagan deity. In fact, he was the Moon-god who was married to the sun goddess and the stars were his daughters.



Moon God?




[edit on 28-2-2005 by edsinger]



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 06:02 AM
link   
I like Seth's description of the Universe being dreamt into existence, like your dream worlds suddenly coalescing into physicality.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
There are only three possible answers to this question


[edit on 23-2-2005 by edsinger]


How can you limit the number of possible solution to a problem when the very nature of the subject inquestion is currently unknowable. I am no expert but it would seem like poor science to me.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
First of all, Ed I'm glad to see you've abandoned Christianity.


Acknowledging the Universe is at least 30 billion years old and using evolutionary proofs and reversed theorems of the virtual certainty of extraterrestrial life in the vastness of space is an excellent step towards a better understanding of how inconsequential and pointless man really is in the great lack of a scheme of things.

Now that we've dispensed with all that nonsense about a young earth and recent creationism, with your "surrender" of Genesis pushing "intelligent design" back a few billion years we can almost have an intelligent discussion.


Originally posted by edsinger
It amazes me that supposedly intelligent people can look at these numbers and just dismiss them on a whim...


Or rather that supposedly intelligent people would work egocentrically backwards from examples in "our known universe" and apply such a whimsical dismissal of low probablities as "ZERO" probablity" as the article does...


Any event with a probability of less than one chance in 10110, therefore, cannot occur by chance. Its probability becomes zero, at least in our known universe.


Here's the biggest flaw from that cartoonishly argued (and illustrated) website you offer as proof of God...


A man flipping quarters can't reasonably reproduce the Universe so obviously God did.


Like all arguments erroneously stacked in support of some intelligent design behind man's existence, it draws from egocentric sources then works backwards, not only presuming a purpose or goal behind chance (or assumption of "intelligent design" already), but that extremely low probabilities are somehow proof of zero probablitiy given man's inability to duplicate or easily consider the nearly infinite conditions of the Universe (relative to man).

Let's take the most absurd analogy and work from there (the theory's "finishing move" as it were)...


"The probability of life originating from accident (or chance) is comparable to the probability of an unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a print shop."


How clever. And yet TRUE!
Now I encourage you to imagine a vast Universe full of print shops exploding for 30 billion years. Whether or not one of those explosions numbering something approaching infinity actually produces a perfect unabridged dictionary is irrelevant. It could. The probablity is extremely low (not zero as the article presumes in it's leap of faith), but it could. In fact, the vastness of a Universe with no intelligent design behind it whatsoever will produce countless occurances of a "low probability" if the trial base is large enough and long enough. I'd imagine one standing in the midst of one of those "low probablity" zones unable to see or comprehend the vastness of the "high probablity" result of random chance would be given some pause as to the origin of the "perfect unabridged dictionary." Or forget the "perfect" one. Think of the countless "close but no cigars" a vast Universe would produce. Analogously these would presumably be what our own solar system and galaxy are full of... bodies like earth, almost able to spawn and support life...but not quite. Close but no cigar.

Yet all those "failures" (as the presumation of intelligent design would dictate) are ignored. Rather we focus on the ball of wax we seek to validate as a "success" - and aha! Success!

I have found the source of my egocentricity and lo it is a divine Creator that loves me!!!

No, no, no. :shk: That's not even remotely proven here with that bizarre pseudo reverence for statistical probablity only up to the point it serves the theory's purpose but not beyond.

Reverse it. Do the math again. And follow the necessary implications to their actual conclusions. (No rounding!)

Start not from man and work backwards Descatre, but rather what we see the Universe to be made of and demonstratably doing, then consider just it's known vastness and apply the same statistical probablity correctly and you'll see it is not remotely supportive of us being some unique anomoly of directed intelligence, but rather that other 'nearly perfect and perfect unabridged dictionaries' are all over the place (by the math).

Drake's equation even goes beyond to estimate how many similar occurances of "low probablity" chance beings exist in the Universe, and we simply aren't that special.

That's not to say it isn't altogether unremarkable my body produces insulin (as the article would presume as proof of design given it's reverse approach), but it's no more remarkable than a Zeta Reticulan producing gibzoglobin or a volcano producing lava (or most to the point) a dead planet producing nothing but lifeless green rocks. Lifeless green rocks are just as remarkable in the flawed reverse approach of presumed intelligent design, but just as unremarkable as insulin to a non-egocentric scientific approach and understanding.

Descarte is dead. And no matter how modern day proponents of "intelligent design" spice up their proofs with pseudo science and willingly abandon old dogmas of creationism in favor of "compromised" scientific approaches, they really never get far before falling back on the same self debunking dogma do they?

The "executive summary" from your article...


A "self-evident truth" is not debatable. There are no other options. It is true simply because it is true. That is the way it is. The fact that the universe was created by a Master Designer is a "self-evident truth." The human mind is compelled to conclude that there is a creator, a first cause. That thought is a "self-evident truth." Unless you think like an atheist!


Ah, atheists. The vile exception to the "self evident truth" rule. :shk:

And that "conclusion" statement really is the thrust of all that's being said here. It's unproven, faith based dogma only guilded this time with a bit of pedestrian "science" co-opted by the same egocentric perversion that seeks to presume God in the first place.

NO SALE.
Getting better though.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Its like saying 'the odds of all the parts of a plane comming together spontaneously and making a plane are immpossible' and then concluding that planes do not exist. Its absurd. Planes are built in sequence by human agents.


Aha! So there is a creator to bring these parts together



Originally posted by Nygdan
Organisms are built in sequence by the agency of natural selection,


What?
Oh come on, natural selection is a mechanism for change in an ecological population, not for the 'assembly' of an organism. Okay, let's assume I'm wrong and show me otherwise please.


Originally posted by Nygdan
they do not 'pop up' out of random atoms...


Exactly.


[edit on 1-3-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by SkipShipman
"Always was always will be." That is one of many definitions about God.


Can't you see the beauty in that?


Did you just ask a scientific mind to see beauty?

I'm feelin' ya ed, keep up the good works



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   
The basic problem with the concept of "God" is that there is no scientific evidence that he (it) exists--yet. Then, of course, there is the problem of trying to prove a negative--that is proving that there is no God; which is impossible since something that doesn't exist never leaves behind evidence. But then there are hose who say "Evidence! What about life itself? Children? Flowers? ETC ETC ETC". It's sort of like walking alone on a beach and coming upon another set of fresh footprints. Since there's nobody else around and you didn't make them, God must have.

The common theme I see in "believers" is that when they are confronted with something they don't understand, they say it was created by God. But this seems to only apply to those things of "beauty" or that are perceived as "good". I'm reminded of a successful professional golfer who was religious. Whenever he experienced failure in his career it was always his fault and placed the credit for that failure all on himself. However, during his moments of great success, instead of taking the credit for his hard work, he gave all the credit to God.

I simply don't understand. But that doesn't mean it's not true.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
First of all, Ed I'm glad to see you've abandoned Christianity.



Nice try but not even close...I think I have already explained the 6 day stuff at least to my satisfaction.....


Evolution has so many holes that it could be considered Holey by some accounts


So math is irrelevant to the argument of God in your eyes, fine.....as an engineer I can see the design in mathematics, it a language unto itself and we damn sure didn't write it, and neither did mother nature.....


But you fail to recognize that the universe is NOT old enough by your own standards for chance to have even occurred but those like you will never by into it, I suggest since you hold no relevance to odds and chance, then I suggest you go buy meteorite insurance for your car.....I mean it COULD happen and you better get it on your life insurance policy but I bet that already has an act of God clause....


As for Drake, I did that in my Seti Class and I used what I considered conservative numbers and to think we are alone is nuts I agree, but we are special as God saw it necessary to send his Son, maybe he has plans for the Human race I mean after all we were created in His image and that doesn't mean he has a nose etc...

Do you that the Universe age at 15 billion years is far to young for the heavy elements to have yet formed and then even had the remotest chance to line the first and only combination of protein chains to even make RNA and its cousin DNA?

You doubt and don't believe, thats fine but to say that we are here just as a spontaneous space fart is ridiculous and you know it, as an engineer I know how to design things and when I look out into deep space or look into inner space, I can see design......no doubt whatsoever.




[edit on 1-3-2005 by edsinger]



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by RANT
First of all, Ed I'm glad to see you've abandoned Christianity.



Nice try but not even close...I think I have already explained the 6 day stuff at least to my satisfaction.....


Well then it's at least nice to know you're an ally (even reluctantly) in denying the spontaneous creation young earth dogma going around. Let's all work to keep that from being indoctrinated in schools, shall we?. I'd just as soon teach from the Popol-Vuh that a benevolent Feathered Serpent first created man from mud.




Evolution has so many holes that it could be considered Holey by some accounts


Bah, I don't care to get into it, but didn't you just concede at least a hybrid "intelligent evolution" model at a minimum in this proof?


So math is irrelevant to the argument of God in your eyes, fine.....as an engineer I can see the design in mathematics, it a language unto itself and we damn sure didn't write it, and neither did mother nature.....


Not at all, math is the most mystical expression man has in my opinion. I just think arguing about the existence of God is irrelevant, unless someone says they have "proof" then I'm there.



But you fail to recognize that the universe is NOT old enough by your own standards for chance to have even occurred but those like you will never by into it, I suggest since you hold no relevance to odds and chance, then I suggest you go buy meteorite insurance for your car.....I mean it COULD happen and you better get it on your life insurance policy but I bet that already has an act of God clause....


I don't know Dude. I can't say there's no God any more than I can say there's no benevolent Feathered Serpent. But I can say nobody can prove it one way or the other, mathematically or otherwise.

Still though, there's good reason for support of theories I can at least lean towards like evolution, old earth, etc. These are at least things I could possibly know in my life. The existence of God is not one.


As for Drake, I did that in my Seti Class and I used what I considered conservative numbers and to think we are alone is nuts I agree, but we are special as God saw it necessary to send his Son, maybe he has plans for the Human race I mean after all we were created in His image and that doesn't mean he has a nose etc...


Drake, yup. God sent His son, I don't know that.


Do you that the Universe age at 15 billion years is far to young for the heavy elements to have yet formed and then even had the remotest chance to line the first and only combination of protein chains to even make RNA and its cousin DNA?


I know less about the Universe than I do God actually. God I can conceive; the Universe, I really can't. I didn't make the Universe in my image. Whereas God, I think it's possible if not plausible that we did create Him.


You doubt and don't believe, thats fine but to say that we are here just as a spontaneous space fart is ridiculous and you know it, as an engineer I know how to design things and when I look out into deep space or look into inner space, I can see design......no doubt whatsoever.


Well that's fine too. And actually a more compelling arguement to me than that whole website. I still "don't see it" the same way, although I am capable of imagining it. But my purpose here (and in most of the theological debates in which I appear) is to point out there's no proving any of this stuff, and to challenge the rampant BS that occassionaly finds it's way here.


Ed, for what it's worth I think you're a better thinker than some of the stuff you find to post. That's not meant to insult you at all (quite the contrary), but it's much more enjoyable talking to you than some of these articles. Know what I mean?



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Ed, for what it's worth I think you're a better thinker than some of the stuff you find to post. That's not meant to insult you at all (quite the contrary), but it's much more enjoyable talking to you than some of these articles. Know what I mean?


No offense taken at all, I just don't have time to write all of them and I think most do a decent job of explaining stuff...


want to know something? At one time I thought the possibility that God did not SHOW me proof was that He wanted it to be a free and faithful choice, the more I grasped UFO's and Science the MORE I believed in him and His Son......there is just to much information from outside Christianity that confirms that the "guy" was tromping around the Holy Land doing things that just can not be explained, and keep in mind they couldn't today either....we all have our journey to make.....

The fork in the road to me came when I was near rock bottom, not there but on that path, never denied God but wondered 'why me', why not cut me a break? So I got on my knees and 'gave in' the last stubborn bit of me was defeated and that one little prayer that I had was answered and very fast I might add..........

thats when I knew..........

[edit on 1-3-2005 by edsinger]



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   
RANT said: "First of all, Ed I'm glad to see you've abandoned Christianity"...

so you are not a christian???





posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
thats when I knew..........


I'm the reverse. I get "religious" when I have something to protect. Superstition really. Just hedging bets. But when I'm pummeled at rock bottom, I've got nothing to lose. All those arguments about seeing the good in things and just "knowing" as a result work the other way too. You see enough random pointless crap in your life, it's easy to consider random pointless crap being the source of all around you.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by they see ALL
RANT said: "First of all, Ed I'm glad to see you've abandoned Christianity"...

so you are not a christian???




Interesting factoid: Neither was Jesus.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 08:27 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Aha! So there is a creator to bring these parts together

No, i had anticipated that reaction and made sure to formulate it in a way that that wasn't relevant. I agree tho normally, in fact thats the very intent of the 'tornado in a plane factory' arguement.


natural selection is a mechanism for change in an ecological population, not for the 'assembly' of an organism. Okay, let's assume I'm wrong and show me otherwise please.

The very logic of natural selection dictates that its capable of producing complex things that serve a function, ie appear 'designed'. THis was a basic argument in Darwin's day.


Exactly.

Quite. Rather they were formed via evolutionary methods.


Did you just ask a scientific mind to see beauty?

Truly you misunderstand science if you think beauty has no place in it. Modern man's entire idea of beauty probably stems from the rationalistic greek 'proto-scientific' concepts of that very thing.

I do not understand how you find the statistical argument convincing, in light of it not being at all relevant. I know that you are not an unreasonable person, so I would relish the oppurtunity to find out what is convincing about it, or why the fact that it 'doesn't apply' is irrelevant.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join