The Science of God

Originally posted by alienbennit
I've been reading about god being hard-wired into the brain recently. Current thinking points to it being evolutionary tactic that brings together groups and tribes to increase survival it also acts as an anchor for the mind. Check out the article in New Scientist.

The spookyness of the quantum universe makes my head spin. We are at an instant everywhere. Our particles are blurred across the universe as well as sitting in a superposition until observed. My personal thought is we interpret, experience and interact within this state because our brains have adapted to experience time, our position in space and the visible spectrum etc because that works for us in our environment.

Take for example a bee, its personal clock is faster, It sees ultraviolet light and exists in a hive mind. Its perception of this environment we both share is very different.

Your world is very much what you make it.

Please quote article?

Yes subjective individual perception of reality shared via communication with other subjective viewpoints creates over time a perception of objective reality that in truth is simply a collective subjective perception.
Those bee's share data, but there is a low probability of them ever comprehending what the stars are, or even noticing them.
The environment the bee shares with you is the same, however perception is different. The same can be said for me and you.
THat is a very good point, the environment a priest shares with God may well be percievedas different as the environment an atheist percieves to live in, however in truth to be able to really tell, you would have to be omniscient to truly breach the limitations of subjective viewing of reality.
I really do think, that if you come at a problem with a preconcieved conclusion, you are likely to simply try and prove your conclusion, regardless of evidence to back you up, as compared to keeping an open mind, I view this as a slight shortcoming of both science and religion, or rather the human mind-set.
We like to think we are always correct

Originally posted by DaMod

Originally posted by optimus primal
i have to correct you here DaMod, before the thread gets huge. it is not matter that cannot be created or destroyed, it is Energy .

when matter is destroyed, it turns into energy.

interesting thread over all, but you're going to have to rework the matter part.

I will reply to this one though before I go to bed. I think the rest I'm going to have to spend a bit of time on.

for you however.....

First law of thermodynamics.

yes , the first law of thermodynamics clearly states, energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can neither be created nor destroyed.

if you don't think matter can't be destroyed....then apparently hiroshima was never destroyed by the bomb.

so i fail to see how stating " for you however.... first law of thermodynamics" when i was correcting you as it's clearly about energy not matter, makes any sense at all.

reply to post by DaMod


there is such a thing as over-thinking, to try to get the minute details in the operation of God and how he thinks, is like a clay pot saying i know who made me, i know how he thinks, and i know why he formed me this way

reply to post by optimus primal


Hiroshima was blown to smithereens! There is still rubble to account for and I'm sure the blast wave destroyed man made structures, but on the atomic level I'm sure the atoms that made those man made structures still exist.

Matter is energy and can be converted into energy.

Fusion and Fission work differently however. Fusion does not convert the matter to energy, it simply releases atomic energy when it is converted into helium and then helium to carbon.

Originally posted by DaMod
GOTCHA! The universe is not young! It is infinite!

Do you have any evidence for this? I'd love to see it.

Besides, even if it were infinitely extended in space (which is possible), it isn't in time.

What was before that 14.4 billion years? There had to be something!

Why? What makes you think time existed before the Big Bang?

Are you familiar with any violent chemical reactions? Some of them are very very explosive.

What do chemical reactions have to do with anything? Somebody already explained to you that it's thermonuclear reactions that fuse elements into other elements. Chemical reactions combine elements to make compounds - later in the game.

Plus you have to think that if a ball of matter existed that contained all of the elements in the universe, it would also contain all the hydrogen in the universe correct?

No. Better brush up on your cosmology and nuclear physics.

If all the matter in the universe where contained in a singularity, then why did it go off 14.4 billion years ago instead of 60 billion years ago? Need to understand what infinity is...

There are no infinite quantities in nature. None that we have found evidence for, at any rate.

that first part is not an assumption, it is a logical thought. If the universe is uncaused then it would have always been there.

How do you deduce this? Why could it not have come into existence on its own accord? Can you show how the principle of causality must exist beyond the universe?

I applaud your interest in these matters and your eagerness to share your thoughts about them. There's a lot to learn, though, before one can even begin to start theorizing at this level. I think you need to expand your knowledge. Go for it!

* * *

Originally posted by SugarCube
As you say, time appears to be intrinsically associated with mass and what I would deem as the local event of the oscillation, therefore, time is encapsulated as an attribute of the the local event without being an attribute of The Idea per se.

By that logic, since time is also intrinsically associated with space (from v = s/t), wouldn't the Idea have to be extrinsic to space as well as time? If so it acquires the lineaments of fantasy, so far as inhabitants of this cosmos are concerned.

* * *

Originally posted by WickettheRabbit
Just a small flame to notreallyalive. You may want to check your zipper. Your ego is showing.

I see you have apologized for this. The OPs theorizing is riddled with scientific errors. For example, check out this dilly:

Originally posted by DaMod
If matter becomes unconstituted during the singularity then it would become so dense (unbelievably dense) that it would create an instant black hole. If the subatomic particles separated it would basically become a massive atom. All the neutrons and protons would stick together under the immense gravity.

How many physics howlers can you spot in there? For example, notreallyalive is correct in pointing out that

All the elements were not around from the "beginning".

In fact, none of them were. See here for more about the Big Bang and the infant universe. DaMod, I think you'll find it fascinating, if not very hospitable to your theory. But there you go: it's a tough universe.

Originally posted by DaMod
You cannot say gravity did not play a role because you just do not know these things. However we do know that gravity associates itself with matter. If a supermassive star can create a black hole, why couldn't a super massive mass of subatomic particles pressed together under the immenseness of all the matter contained in the universe?

I agree completely with this statement up to the point that we cannot determine what happens when it all goes up the swannee. Super-massive may equate to super-critical and so could conjecture that a critical event occurs that may cause the destruction of the universe (or the singularity that has been created) and gives rise to a new big bang. We're perhaps 80% in agreement

Originally posted by DaMod
Why is everybody always picking on me.

Hehe, I wouldn't say that I am picking on you - this is one of the best threads in recent weeks - yes WEEKS! It is all good for enlightened debate!

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by optimus primal

 

Hiroshima was blown to smithereens! There is still rubble to account for and I'm sure the blast wave destroyed man made structures, but on the atomic level I'm sure the atoms that made those man made structures still exist.

Matter is energy and can be converted into energy.

Fusion and Fission work differently however. Fusion does not convert the matter to energy, it simply releases atomic energy when it is converted into helium and then helium to carbon.

which all does nothing to answer my question. you state matter cannot be destroyed, trying to tie it to the first law of thermodynamics, which is patently untrue. then go off on a tangent about the difference between fusion and fission.

true matter is a form of energy, but matter can be destroyed. for instance take a piece of paper....light it on fire. it is destroyed, some of the matter is broken down into carbon and other elements, some of the matter is transformed into thermal energy. but the piece of paper is still, by any definition destroyed. that piece of paper no longer exists.basically, when matter is destroyed, it turns into energy(or rather another form of energy)

and by the way...on the atomic level energy is still comprised of particles

In physics, energy (from the Greek ἐνέργεια - energeia, "activity, operation", from ἐνεργός - energos, "active, working"[1]) is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force, an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law. Several different forms of energy exist to explain all known natural phenomena. These forms include (but are not limited to) kinetic, potential, thermal, gravitational, sound, light, elastic, and electromagnetic energy. The forms of energy are often named after a related force.

energy

as an example of particles causing a form of energy i'll put out gravitons. right now they're still theoretical, but i daresay we may just find them with the new collider

In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravity in the framework of quantum field theory. If it exists, the graviton must be massless (because the gravitational force has unlimited range) and must have a spin of 2 (because gravity is a second-rank tensor field[clarification needed]). Gravitons are postulated because of the great success of the quantum field theory (in particular, the Standard Model) at modeling the behavior of all other forces of nature with similar particles: electromagnetism with the photon, the strong interaction with the gluons, and the weak interaction with the W and Z bosons. In this framework, the gravitational interaction is mediated by gravitons, instead of being described in terms of curved spacetime as in general relativity. In the classical limit, both approaches give identical results, which are required to conform to Newton's law of gravitation.[4][5][6]

graviton

so in conclusion, my total point is thus : matter can be destroyed. it's destruction results in a release of energy.

Hmmmmmm You didn't read very much did you? And if you did I don't understand how you took what I said the way you did...

What do chemical reactions have to do with anything? Somebody already explained to you that it's thermonuclear reactions that fuse elements into other elements. Chemical reactions combine elements to make compounds - later in the game.

I was the one that brought up thermonuclear reactions and inside a star here is how it goes... AGAIN!

Star converts hydrogen into helium...... Then when it runs out of hydrogen starts converting helium into carbon.

However, some people are saying that the "big bang ball" is already assembled elements in thier already existing state crammed together in a big ball. Others say that they are sub atomic particles massed together in a big ball. Eaither way it wouldn't work, I have already tried to point that out.

Heres where I get into the laws of conservation.... Matter / Energy cannot be created nor destroyed therefore it could never have been created........................................................................................... If it was created out of nothing at all well then I'll quote myself...

If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.

In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding that your TV set and Computer not work! Your television set and computer may not work, but that is not the reason! In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science.

What was before that 14.4 billion years? There had to be something!

Why? What makes you think time existed before the Big Bang?

What makes you think it doesn't? You have to think about constants. To the universe time does matter. Stars die, galaxies die.. etc etc. The universe literally rips itself apart over time..

But for the sake of argument we will say you are right. There was no time before the beginning of the universe. Then how did matter arise from nothing. (again refer to me quoting myself) Something would have had to create the matter from nothing which would strengthen my argument. (if you would have actually read enough you would already know that) In case you didn't, my argument is time did not exist before the big bang and it was created. (you really should already know this)

Originally posted by DaMod
GOTCHA! The universe is not young! It is infinite!

Umm I think I was just being a butt hole here. AKA sarcastic.....

Plus you have to think that if a ball of matter existed that contained all of the elements in the universe, it would also contain all the hydrogen in the universe correct?

No. Better brush up on your cosmology and nuclear physics.

I know how a nuclear reaction works first off... and if the "big ball of matter" did contain all the elements in the cosmos in their form this statement would be correct because when you begin to think about all the sub atomic particles being put into a super dense ultra gravitational ball whose effects would collapse space time around it you begin to see my picture here.

The first model would work if time had not began until the big bang. I can't really see how the 2nd model would work at all. So we either need a third model or matter came from nothing in which case would have to be created and therefore would strengthen my arguments. And instead of telling me I should brush up, why don't you instead explain where I went wrong. I can take criticism when it is constructive.

Here's something we can agree on!! I like cheese!

To the OP. This a BRILLANT thread and one of the best I have read on ATS.

Alot of time ,effort and thinking has gone into it and thank you for putting your ideas and views across in a simple, clear and understandable manner!!

It is such a pity that some members being full of their own self worth are here not to put forward constructive critisim and comments but to try and show what they think is a superior point of view and nit pick every word written by the OP.

The sooner this stops on ATS then it might be more enjoyable reading the posts rather than spending ages getting rid of the crap so we can read the honest comments!!!!

The OP stated EVERYTHING in the first few lines of his post but yet again selective reading came into play!!!

Originally posted by SugarCube

Originally posted by DaMod
You cannot say gravity did not play a role because you just do not know these things. However we do know that gravity associates itself with matter. If a supermassive star can create a black hole, why couldn't a super massive mass of subatomic particles pressed together under the immenseness of all the matter contained in the universe?

I agree completely with this statement up to the point that we cannot determine what happens when it all goes up the swannee. Super-massive may equate to super-critical and so could conjecture that a critical event occurs that may cause the destruction of the universe (or the singularity that has been created) and gives rise to a new big bang. We're perhaps 80% in agreement

Originally posted by DaMod
Why is everybody always picking on me.

Hehe, I wouldn't say that I am picking on you - this is one of the best threads in recent weeks - yes WEEKS! It is all good for enlightened debate!

My only problem with that is if that event where to destroy the fabric of the universe that would mean all matter contained within would be destroyed also. In order for it to give arise to a new big bang new matter would have to be created from nothing. We both know you can't do that unless this matter was created by something (aka god if you will).

[edit on 22-5-2009 by DaMod]

Originally posted by Irish Matador
To the OP. This a BRILLANT thread and one of the best I have read on ATS.

Alot of time ,effort and thinking has gone into it and thank you for putting your ideas and views across in a simple, clear and understandable manner!!

It is such a pity that some members being full of their own self worth are here not to put forward constructive critisim and comments but to try and show what they think is a superior point of view and nit pick every word written by the OP.

The sooner this stops on ATS then it might be more enjoyable reading the posts rather than spending ages getting rid of the crap so we can read the honest comments!!!!

The OP stated EVERYTHING in the first few lines of his post but yet again selective reading came into play!!!

Yes sir. In a nut shell. Also thank you for the compliment, I am glad you enjoy this thread. I was hoping it would turn into a valuable discussion, and for the most part it has. For the most part...

Also I think everyone should remember. People are always smarter than you give them credit for.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by DaMod]

reply to post by DaMod


I dont see where this "big mass ball" comes into play. That would Mean You have a ball () and then that ball exploded...(X). I personally feel that oscillating universe theory explains this better. I.e. the ELASTIC band analogy.

An infinite conversion of energy > matter > energy. What is to say what started from a singularity goes back into that singularity and "out the other side" for clairty sake?

How would gravity affect this? Please explain...either my knowledge is lacking or yours is wrongly applied.

Gravity is tied in with matter yes, at a singularity, space and time cease to exist as we know them. The laws of physics as we know them break down at a singularity, having no volume but infinite density.

How is it illogical to believe that the universe expands, contracts, expands, contracts expands. Your points about hydrogen have proven to be nil. So please explain the flaws in this theory?

Starred and flagged !! Great post.

Originally posted by Irish Matador
It is such a pity that some members being full of their own self worth are here not to put forward constructive critisim and comments but to try and show what they think is a superior point of view and nit pick every word written by the OP.

What, then, do you regard as 'constructive' criticism? The premise of this thread is riddled with errors. It begins with a fallacious assumption and reinforces it with fallacies and distorted, misunderstood facts. Is setting that right 'destructive' criticism? I suppose it is to the wannabelievers.

The OP is to be applauded, as I said, for trying, and I, for one, do not mean to discourage him from speculating or theorizing; I show him where he goes wrong so that, next time, he will get it right.

The sooner this stops on ATS then it might be more enjoyable reading the posts rather than spending ages getting rid of the crap so we can read the honest comments!!!!

I would say exactly the same - with bells on - about posts like yours. Do you imagine your smelly little puff of hostility adds anything to the discussion?

Originally posted by Toughiv
reply to post by DaMod

 

I dont see where this "big mass ball" comes into play. That would Mean You have a ball () and then that ball exploded...(X). I personally feel that oscillating universe theory explains this better. I.e. the ELASTIC band analogy.

An infinite conversion of energy > matter > energy. What is to say what started from a singularity goes back into that singularity and "out the other side" for clairty sake?

How would gravity affect this? Please explain...either my knowledge is lacking or yours is wrongly applied.

Gravity is tied in with matter yes, at a singularity, space and time cease to exist as we know them. The laws of physics as we know them break down at a singularity, having no volume but infinite density.

How is it illogical to believe that the universe expands, contracts, expands, contracts expands. Your points about hydrogen have proven to be nil. So please explain the flaws in this theory?

Will I ever get to rest.

Ok first of all as a big ball of stuff how would time cease? There would still be space time in an infinite blanked with a big ball of stuff in the middle correct? How can you say time would stop existing? Space time would still exist in a vacuum... Ok we have a big ball of sub-atomic particles kind of like a neutron star. These particles would become super super dense because the gravity coming off all the stuff in the universe would be much larger than anyone could imagine. Eventually it would become so dense that it would collapse in it's area of space time....... How do people not understand this? And how can they say just because all matter is condensed in a ball time no longer flows.... And my hydrogen statement hasn't proven to be nil because it has never been proven that the big ball of stuff was made of subatomic particles and not elements in their assembled form anyway! Plus the expansion of the universe is speeding up. That's right we are flying away faster and faster every second. For the elastic theory to work we would be slowing down, and will eventually stop and go back the other way......... JEEZE! We should be loosing velocity instead of gaining it! If we where destined to head back to the center we would not be accelerating... What about that is so hard to understand?

Oh almost forgot, if we where accelerating back towards the center, galaxies in the universe would be getting closer together not further apart (except for Andromeda that is due to ram us in a few)

[edit on 22-5-2009 by DaMod]

reply to post by Astyanax


But your criticism isn't constructive.. You need to tell me in detail where I went wrong and perhaps a suggestion for the future. You should not just say well this is wrong and that is wrong, well can you prove this? You should learn more about this and this.. Educate me if you will, otherwise why say anything at all?

Saying it the way you did makes you sound like you think you know everything. If that wasn't the goal then maybe you should try a different approach?

Also to be curious, what degrees do you have to make you an expert on the subject? What formal education do you have at all? What books have you read that strengthen your knowledge about the cosmos? It would be nice to know something about someone that tells you that you are wrong.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by DaMod]

reply to post by DaMod


in reply to your comment on the elasticity of the universe, and the fact that we are accelerating:

the thought occurs to me, how would we even know how elastic the universe is? It's entirely possible that the universe could begin to slow down in a couple billion years and then stop, then a couple billion more start to retract. to be honest we haven't been observing long enough to tell if this may happen, or how elastic the universe may be. interesting.

reply to post by optimus primal


Yes but before something stops.. it slows down, not speeds up... The universe contracting on it self would be a result of a force, the force would play on us today and tomorrow before the stop ever happens. We would not be gaining speed in the wrong direction....

reply to post by DaMod


so you're saying it's impossible that we may slow down sometime in the future? that it's impossible that we are are still in the stretching phase and haven't started on the slowing phase of elasticity? that we know the exact elasticity of the universe? i don't know about you, but for me i find that impossible to believe as absolute fact. the universe is 13.7 billion years old, to me it's entirely possible that the lifespan of any given universe may be two or three times that meaning that we're still in expansion and will eventually come into stopping and reversal. heck to me it's entirely possible that we may come to a point where the universe just wont expand anymore and then we'll become sort of a steady state universe. i won't pretend i'm omniscient enough to know so

I am going to post this video, because I think we need a voice of reason in here..



Ok continue with the discussion.