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: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 01:32 AM
link   
To RANT : So if there is no God, what happens to us after we die? How come we can think freely, while other animals can't? How do you explain visions of angels and the accounts from the bible of Jesus? What is your reasoning for events such as OOBE's and NDE's?

please answer these .. and take your time to think through the answers.




posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 05:59 AM
link   
I am sorry for deviating from the topic, but I just wanted to address this issue. It probably even needs it's own thread- oh, wait a sec- It already has its own thread here! It was even debunked in that very thread.
But, hey...I am game-I'll repeat it.
You linked a page, and quoted some of it. Half the page went on to show the results of some excavations, and a bunch of photographs. It then attempts to connect this moon God to Allah.
There WAS a moon god among the 360 some gods worshipped in Arabia in Muhammad's time. It was referred to as Hubal. Allah was also worshipped, as the head God of these gods. Allah is not the same as Hubal. Heck, the site that you linked is not even sure of itself. One second it says that moon worship was a dominant cult and that the moon god was the chief deity of these other gods, and the next second it says that Muhammad brought this relatively unknown god to the forefront as the supreme being. This site is mixing Hubal with Allah.
The Pagans of Arabia were originally monotheistic. They always worshipped the "One true God". It is only later that they built all these other gods around the original God. Even in Muhammad's time Allah was worshipped as the "Top God". It is just that along with Allah, they worshipped many other Gods.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

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.


Okay, so how isn't it relevant?


Originally posted by Nygdan
I agree tho normally, in fact thats the very intent of the 'tornado in a plane factory' arguement.


So you agree then (?)


Originally posted by Nygdan
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.


I think we see the model working two different ways. Natural selection in that case is a fancy word for luck...a religion I don't ascribe to.


Originally posted by Nygdan
Quite. Rather they were formed via evolutionary methods.


Gotta hold on to that word, eh? Who were the 'assemblers'? Evolution? No, evolution is a process. A processes cannot function independent of a worker or workers.


Originally posted by Nygdan

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.


Just my opinion of the people I'd worked with in science. A lot of people are digging so hard for logic, that they miss feeling anything. I break out the defibrillators now and then to see if these people are still breathing. I've come to respect a lot of things you say and wished no personal insult.
I agree the beauty is certainly there and find your perspective on it refreshing
.

[edit on 2-3-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ivanglam
To RANT : So if there is no God, what happens to us after we die? How come we can think freely, while other animals can't? How do you explain visions of angels and the accounts from the bible of Jesus? What is your reasoning for events such as OOBE's and NDE's?

please answer these .. and take your time to think through the answers.


Though it can be a fun and self enlightening excercise, I don't think any amount of time spent pondering these topics ever changes the answers for me (or anyone else being intellectually honest).

That being, I don't know.

Some will tell you they do know. That they have proof (mathematical or otherwise) that there is a God, or that there is no God. And they're both equally deluding themselves. And this is hardly a revelation of my own invention. I believe the responsible "faithful" on both ends of the spectrum acknowledge a lack of proof. Throughout history though, we have examples of theological and philosophical efforts to prove or disprove God, all of which have been soundly debunked (and rather easily I might add).

What's left are a variety of systems of thinking built upon leaps of faith and assumptions made from the pure state of agnostic existentialism. I try not to stray too far from this starting point in matters of stated knowledge, as I'm sure to mislead myself at some point along the journey.

But it's certainly easy enough to "accept" a hypothetical premise, then consider the impications.

The premise you postulated was: "So if there is no God..."

The classic unstated "given" of genuine scientific and logical endeavors that seek to understand or expand knowledge without metaphysical shortcuts or assumptions.


Then you asked a metaphysical question followed by a series from the phenomenological.

The metaphysical: "what happens to us after we die?"

I suppose if we assume your premise that there is no God, the answer is self evident is it not? Nothing.

The phenomenological: "How come we can think freely, while other animals can't? How do you explain visions of angels and the accounts from the bible of Jesus? What is your reasoning for events such as OOBE's and NDE's?"

Are you working from phenomenon here to draw metaphysical implications contradicting your premise? In other words, attempting to use perceptions (including those of Biblical authors) to "prove" God?

Yeah, you can't do that. It's against the rules.
Not mine, the mind's.

That's of course not to say those perceptions aren't real. But rather, perceptions are the only thing we know to be real. A personal phenom, such as an alien abduction experience (to press a point), "proves" the alien abduction experience to be real, but does not necessitate actual aliens or abductions. From my own experience I know this to be the case. I've also had non-alien visions one could ascribe to a spiritual nature as well as several OOBE type experiences (which I've learned to direct in dream state) and one terrifying NDE as a child. They were all real "phenomenon" but serve to point to nothing beyond the trappings of my own mind. Again, there are no adequate conversion proofs of the metaphysical. None. Just faith.

And all this serves to go back and illuminate your first question about man versus animals. Has the trapped consciousness I've described, so riddled with potential for self deception, truly elevated itself above that of animal? And if it one manages to convince himself it does, do we know this to be the case, or just suspect it? I could either argue that dolphins might think freely or man really doesn't here, but the bottom line is I don't know either way.

And nobody else does either.

Where scientific endeavors can transcend the trappings of the mind are in it's pursuit of the physical. Granted an assumption is made that other minds exist and are on equal footing to your own, but to test the phenomenological proofs of the physical one has but to seek and recieve outside validation. And this can be done at any time, repeatedly. (



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ivanglam
if there is no God, what happens to us after we die?

That seems rather irrelevant as to whether or not there is a god.

How come we can think freely, while other animals can't?

DEmonstrate this. Other animals, in particular the ones closely related to man, have intelligence and conciousness. Not as well developed as man tho. But if you notice, their brains are not as well developed as man. If free will and intelligence comes from god, why does it require and why is it coordinated with the capabilities of the brain organ?

What is your reasoning for events such as OOBE's and NDE's?

These and other visions are properties of the mind. They can be reproduced to a good degree in the lab under controlled conditions.

accounts from the bible of Jesus?

What does that matter here?


saint4god
how isn't it relevant?

Because of the ability of natural selection to act with apparent agency. Thus replacing the aeronautical engineers with a natural process.

So you agree then (?)

The 'tornado in a junkyard' type argument is usually used by anti-evolutionists as an anti-evolution argument, on that I agree. I disagree that its a good argument tho. I used my modification of it because its a 'good argument' inso far as its an interesting and 'fun' visual.

Natural selection in that case is a fancy word for luck

? Natural selection has nothing to do with luck. Given a population of individuals that have inheritable traits with varying fitness for those traits and variation of the traits themselves in the population, along with an 'over fecundity' of organisms, natural selection 'will' destroy the unfit and the fit will consequently increase in numbers. Thus the population will come to resemble the 'more fit' individuals. WIthin this new population there will be the natural variation, in all directions about the 'new' mean. This provides further material upon which natural selection will act. In this way organisms become 'designed' in a stepwise process, rather than having new forms 'springing' into being from raw uncoordinated chemicals.

That is why the 'statistical' argument is rhetoric and chicanery, and really, deception. It pretends that 'evolution says' stuff pops up fully formed. The analysis looks at the chances of it comming up in one step, whereas natural selection explicitly acts in intermediate steps with no real 'ultimate' direction.

Who were the 'assemblers'? Evolution? No, evolution is a process

Indeed, the process by which they were formed.

A processes cannot function independent of a worker or workers.

? I am inclined to disagree. The minerals that form out of a cooling magma are dictated by numerous processes. Different processes different minerals. There is no need for superantural agency here.
please answer these .. and take your time to think through the answers.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

saint4god
how isn't it relevant?

Because of the ability of natural selection to act with apparent agency. Thus replacing the aeronautical engineers with a natural process.


*blinks* It asts as an agency for what? Oh, wait, evolution right? We do enjoy that magical word. I see what you mean in that nature beats IQ, we have proof of that....which is why it's miraculous us humans are still around. Also demonstrates when it comes down to it, IQ is pretty bleeding useless if you believe natural selection to be a fact of evolution. There's nothing physically 'fit' about being smart and having only one kid after a 9 month gestation period. As far as organisms go, I'd say we're probably one of the weakest of the bunch. I know I know, "speak for yourself saint..."
. I don't need others to insult me, I can do it myself



Originally posted by Nygdan

So you agree then (?)

The 'tornado in a junkyard' type argument is usually used by anti-evolutionists as an anti-evolution argument, on that I agree. I disagree that its a good argument tho. I used my modification of it because its a 'good argument' inso far as its an interesting and 'fun' visual.


Got it. Thanks.


Originally posted by Nygdan
? Natural selection has nothing to do with luck. Given a population of individuals that have inheritable traits with varying fitness for those traits and variation of the traits themselves in the population, along with an 'over fecundity' of organisms, natural selection 'will' destroy the unfit and the fit will consequently increase in numbers. Thus the population will come to resemble the 'more fit' individuals. WIthin this new population there will be the natural variation, in all directions about the 'new' mean. This provides further material upon which natural selection will act. In this way organisms become 'designed' in a stepwise process, rather than having new forms 'springing' into being from raw uncoordinated chemicals.


Hm, interesting. Designed evolution. That's going to take a while for me to chew on. I guess this means it all works out in the end. Generationally things will get better and better. So does that mean Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were the epitome of human leadership so far? Cockroaches will someday rule the planet? Now there is an evolutionary marvel if you do a side-by-side comparison. Viruses will then catch up and destroy the roaches.


Originally posted by Nygdan

A processes cannot function independent of a worker or workers.

? I am inclined to disagree. The minerals that form out of a cooling magma are dictated by numerous processes. Different processes different minerals. There is no need for superantural agency here.
please answer these .. and take your time to think through the answers.


Sorry, I should've stipulated. Life process changes require workers. A magmatic rock will always cool the same way given the same conditions, no? Not true for life-forms, why not? Also, why is it when we discuss life, an evolutionist has to bring up rocks? I don't tell a physicist how the stars move. Where does Darwin get the idea that he can pawn off geological studies as biological science? I think I'll just go around templating what I've learned about finance and use it for parenting.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Generationally things will get better and better.

'Better'? No, merely that the more fit members of a particular population will have a higher representation in the next generation in terms of offspring.

So does that mean Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were the epitome of human leadership so far?

With only one child or some twins, respectively? Definitely not. And clinton seems to have spilled much seed, certainly an act that doesn't do much for creating offspring!

A magmatic rock will always cool the same way given the same conditions, no? Not true for life-forms, why not?

Indeed magma will, however for life-forms the same conditions are never really repeated. In chemistry, geology, physics; one can usually say that there are 'laws' that govern it, hence the constancy of lots of it. But in biology, we tend to see things as more 'fuzzy', the 'laws' aren't as clear (many would argue nowadays that the other 'laws' aren't laws at all anyway). So a chemical reaction occurs without any agency guiding it, and we see that as 'natural', but have a hard time viewing attributing the same thing in biology to 'natural causes'.

Where does Darwin get the idea that he can pawn off geological studies as biological science?

Intersting way of putting it, because Darwin was much influenced by Lyell's Principles of Geology, which stumped for something like uniformitarianism. It gave Darwin, along with Malthus, so its supposed, some of the kernels for his latter thought.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
'Better'? No, merely that the more fit members of a particular population will have a higher representation in the next generation in terms of offspring.


Oh good, glad you see it this way.


Originally posted by Nygdan

So does that mean Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were the epitome of human leadership so far?

With only one child or some twins, respectively? Definitely not. And clinton seems to have spilled much seed, certainly an act that doesn't do much for creating offspring!


Oh my
. Glad to see you can take this topic as seriously as I do sometimes.


Originally posted by Nygdan

A magmatic rock will always cool the same way given the same conditions, no? Not true for life-forms, why not?

Indeed magma will, however for life-forms the same conditions are never really repeated.


Exactly!


Originally posted by Nygdan
In chemistry, geology, physics; one can usually say that there are 'laws' that govern it, hence the constancy of lots of it.


*nods*


Originally posted by Nygdan
But in biology, we tend to see things as more 'fuzzy', the 'laws' aren't as clear (many would argue nowadays that the other 'laws' aren't laws at all anyway). So a chemical reaction occurs without any agency guiding it, and we see that as 'natural', but have a hard time viewing attributing the same thing in biology to 'natural causes'.


That's 'cause Bio has variables whereas the other sci's have constants because the dang-on organisms can't make up their minds! Can't make up their minds? Humans keep messing up the stats with their free will...hm...free will...


Originally posted by Nygdan

Where does Darwin get the idea that he can pawn off geological studies as biological science?

Intersting way of putting it, because Darwin was much influenced by Lyell's Principles of Geology, which stumped for something like uniformitarianism. It gave Darwin, along with Malthus, so its supposed, some of the kernels for his latter thought.


Oh yes, the universe works off of one equation...umhmmm.... sure. Stick me in the garden with Gregory Mendel then, not on a boat with a geologist please. Sorry so bitter, just felt the whole evolutionary study was a big waste of time I could have used for something more productive. Thanks Nygdan for running the gambit with me. Maybe someday it will make sense.

[edit on 2-3-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   
90% or more of the people on this planet are victimized by the external illusion we all see/live..
stop thinking and you will know the truth..



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   
It is interesting how religious people see God in order of things, order of universe. I actually think that God can be found in chaos, a random event that does not fit into a universe governed by laws.

Uhmm let me try to elaborate a bit on this.

Even to the worst religious zealot it must be clear by now that this universe has certain laws of nature, that they work in certain way all the time, that this universe is more then 6,000 years old... quite a bit more, etc, etc.

The moment this universe was created all the laws came too, and they are self sustaining, they do not need God. Furthermore, all mater in this universe is subjected to those laws, hence its "movement" is predictable. Granted, it is an insanely complex machine, but a machine that follows laws nevertheless.
Cause and effect. That is what guides this universe, every atom of it. Cause and effect. And they are pre-determined by universe itself, pre-determined in the moment of Big Bang.

You know that mind-boggling theory: if we knew what all the pieces of matter where doing at this very moment, we could theoreticaly calculate what will happen in the future.
The only problem there would be the quantum uncertainty of our existence. Of course, the problem might only appear as such because we do not understand the universe completely (though the string theory seems to be on its way to explaining it, so it seems ).

Now, if you think about it, if everything is already guided by existing laws, and everything that exists in this universe is governed by those laws, then there is no God in order, the Order sustains itself and it is subjected to its own laws.
Only something from the outside could bring chaos into order, mess up the system ... or the divine spark in us, our soul, could do it too.

Look for chaos and you will find God.

Mind over matter, as eastern philosophies claim. That might literaly be true. If God started the initial spark of Big Bang, and if he can influence the universe, the the divine spark in us can do it too, to some extent.

Due to vast complexity of universe, we can never be sure that we have found the truly chaotic event that cannot be explained by existing laws.
Therefore, God will always be a matter of faith, and manifestation of divine in us a personal truth.

This concept can also explain the obvious contradiction that exists in all religions: free will vs. pre-determined events.
The material body is pre-determined in its existence, but the free will of our soul can influence it. If we deny that part of us and let our material instincts guide us, then our life is predetermined. If we focus on awakening of spiritual part of us, then we can defy the laws governing the material world and choose our destiny.


Ok, I know this theory is ...well, a philosophical concept that deffintiely needs more work on it, but I think it is interesting



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
nice post clippaper
keep on shining thru



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
How did the universe begin or where did it come from ?

I think the answer to that is only limited by our imagination. It could be anything. Some scientists believe that this universe is nothing more than an advanced simulation created by Aliens running on some Super Quantum computer. Just one example. (Obviously been watching the Matrix, lol)

I personally subscribe to the belief that this universe is an illusion and everything in it is the projection of all consciousness combined, aka GOD or whatever you want to call it. In layman terms the universe is a hologram and on a meta physical level all of us are responsible for its creation. This physical reality is a projection of our combined consciousness and we literally create our own reality through our thoughts. Basically we are all the sum of our thoughts. What you think is what you are and how we think is what defines this reality tha we find ourselves living in.

Interesting theory which certainly makes you think and you never know, there might just be some truth to it.

twm.co.nz... (Check it out)

Take Care
Kindred

LOOK TO THIS DAY.....
FOR YESTERDAY IS BUT A DREAM
AND TOMORROW IS ONLY A VISION
BUT TODAY WELL LIVED
MAKES EVERY YESTERDAY A DREAM OF HAPPINESS
AND EVERY TOMORROW A VISION OF HOPE!



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by kindredI personally subscribe to the belief that this universe is an illusion and everything in it is the projection of all consciousness combined, aka GOD or whatever you want to call it. In layman terms the universe is a hologram and on a meta physical level all of us are responsible for its creation. This physical reality is a projection of our combined consciousness and we literally create our own reality through our thoughts. Basically we are all the sum of our thoughts. What you think is what you are and how we think is what defines this reality tha we find ourselves living in.


Man those must be some good drugs!



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by kindredI personally subscribe to the belief that this universe is an illusion and everything in it is the projection of all consciousness combined, aka GOD or whatever you want to call it. In layman terms the universe is a hologram and on a meta physical level all of us are responsible for its creation. This physical reality is a projection of our combined consciousness and we literally create our own reality through our thoughts. Basically we are all the sum of our thoughts. What you think is what you are and how we think is what defines this reality tha we find ourselves living in.


Man those must be some good drugs!


That's kindred's phenomonological construction of reality from an existenial foundation. It's not bad as theories go. And rather logical.

You're a phenomenologist too, only you go further working backwards from your perceptions to an ascribed origin in a an unseen metaphysical reality.

So aside from the fact it would actually take more drugs to draw your conclusions (using your assertion), I guess the real difference here is kindred thought up his on his own beliefs, and some guy that walked in circles for 40 years made yours.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

That's kindred's phenomonological construction of reality from an existenial foundation. It's not bad as theories go. And rather logical.

You're a phenomenologist too, only you go further working backwards from your perceptions to an ascribed origin in a an unseen metaphysical reality.

So aside from the fact it would actually take more drugs to draw your conclusions (using your assertion), I guess the real difference here is kindred thought up his on his own beliefs, and some guy that walked in circles for 40 years made yours.


You 2 passing the same Bong around?

Remember the seeds explode and you spill your stuff.....



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Rant, please save the Nietzsche diatribe for ignorant freshmen.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reaganwasourgreatest
Rant, please save the Nietzsche diatribe for ignorant freshmen.


Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about.


Theology is a very interesting subject. I'd think a couple of strapping young Christians like yourselves might be interested in it.

I've yet to draw on the reactionary Frederich for any of this discussion as I'm partial to the classics. You know, the guys that developed your cult.

If you don't know you're preaching the metaphysical and working off phenomonological proofs as established by Christian tradition may I suggest you do a little background research in your faith at least?

Sartre aside, most all my favorite philosophers were Christian and spent their lives in pursuit of the Divine. Just because I think you and Tweedle Dee can be rather ridulous in your interpretations and political pursuits as relates to Christianty doesn't mean I don't have the utmost respect for the religion itself and those of faith that happen to have a clue as to why they have faith or practice something remotely similar to the tenants they supposedly hold dear...or at least are reasonable about it.

And for those keeping score Ed is the smart one.
You go Ed.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Alec Eieffel,

There is no proof of an intelligence creating us - we just became intelligent by nothing


In apparent chaos you will find order - there is your god. Now move along.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4GodStick me in the garden with Gregory Mendel then

Damned monks and their gardens. Ah well, at least monks tend to make some good stout beer, there's allways that when the peas get boring!



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Alec Eieffel,

There is no proof of an intelligence creating us - we just became intelligent by nothing
If by "nothing", you mean nature, then yes, you are correct. Natural selection.


In apparent chaos you will find order - there is your god. Now move along.
Cool. Order isnt conscious intelligence, though. I find the universe as wonderous others find their non-existant Gods wonderous.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join