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.

 

The Case for an Intelligent Designed Universe

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by andersensrm
 


The nature of the universe is far more complex than the tool of logic with which we use to try and understand the universe. You in my mind are barking up the wrong tree with your thinking..


Okay, so should we just not think about it at all, until we are capable of understanding???




posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by boot2theface
reply to post by andersensrm
 


That's why Christianity teaches faith, because it ultimately comes down to what an individual wants to believe.
There are some things we aren't supposed to know, and we as a species needs to understand this badly.
edit on 20-1-2012 by boot2theface because: line added


Makes sense. I guess I've always believed that our existence isn't dictated by sombody else. And that we have far more power than we know of.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


I believe we actually have less power and brains than we give ourselves credit for. For one thing dolphins aren't going to destroy the earth with nukes anytime soon.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by boot2theface
reply to post by andersensrm
 


I believe we actually have less power and brains than we give ourselves credit for. For one thing dolphins aren't going to destroy the earth with nukes anytime soon.


No but dolphins cant send a call out, and within a couple of minutes have everybody understand whats going on around the world. I think that we are in an evolutionary "danger red zone" where we are smart enough to destroy our planet, but too stupid to get along with each other, and combine our resources. Do we have the potential? Yes. Its just a matter of putting it into place, which right now seems unfathomable. Thats the position I see ourselves in today. We have the potential, but we dont live anywhere near it.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


The potential for what? The potential to become gods ourselves? I personally don't think we need 6 billion people running around thinking they are mini gods or such.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by boot2theface
 


The potential to live in a world, or universe, where you don't have to pay to live. In this world if you don't pay, you die. Simple as that. Thats the world we live in today, and I think its extremely primitive, and we are beyond it. Do I think it would be good if we all suddenly had powers of god, no that would be chaos. But I think that we do have powers we are unable to use, because we lack the knowledge to use them. We will only gain this knowledge through experience and evolution, and when we get to the point where we remeber how to use them, we will be in a completely different society. So I can't say as to what would happen.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


Oh. Well I can agree with what you are saying. We need to get rid of the capitalist system and adopt pure anarcho-communism. Not necessarily evolve more or less. We just need to oust the evil corporate bourgeois world leaders. Sorry if this is getting to be a bit off topic,lol.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by boot2theface
reply to post by andersensrm
 


Oh. Well I can agree with what you are saying. We need to get rid of the capitalist system and adopt pure anarcho-communism. Not necessarily evolve more or less. We just need to oust the evil corporate bourgeois world leaders. Sorry if this is getting to be a bit off topic,lol.


Yea, but the problem is, as long as we have greed, and other factors affecting us in such a way that we make childish and destructive descisions we will never be able to live up to our potential. So when we evolve to the point where these things are no longer necessary then we will.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


But it's the capitalist system that encourages and rewards greed. Just change the system and greed will not be necessary any longer. Standing naked in a field the Rothschilds and Rockefellers are just the same as you or I. With no governments or laws they would have no choice but to help and share in order to survive.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by boot2theface
reply to post by andersensrm
 


But it's the capitalist system that encourages and rewards greed. Just change the system and greed will not be necessary any longer. Standing naked in a field the Rothschilds and Rockefellers are just the same as you or I. With no governments or laws they would have no choice but to help and share in order to survive.


Exactly, thats why they're doing everything they can to keep us distracted, so we'll always stay the same, and they'll be the ones with power. There will always be greed, as long as we have a monetary system. The only way to rid a monetary system is to have acess to free energy. We found out a way to create free energy back in the 20's, possibly before that, but its all been put underwraps, to keep us going down the path we are now. The other problem is getting everyone else to go along with it. You can't do it with just one guy, you need collective agreement from society as a whole. Right now, I don't think we're ready for collective agreement. A lot of people don't even want it. They'd rather us keep separated into groups, white, black, hispanic, asian, male, female, kids, adults, this way that way. Were too busy fighting with ourselves, and now we don't know how to do anything esle, so we assume that this is just the way it is, and always will be. And as long as we carry that type of mentality it will always be like that



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
It's all well and good if you simply assume time is linear and that things always happen in a past to present to future sequence. Then you need a consciousness and mind to explain entropy reduction. I'm of the opinion, however (which is shared by many quantum physicists), that "time" as we know it is not linear, and that ordered energy and information is always moving and exploding forward and backward and all other available directions. In that case, you don't need intelligence to make things happen. They just happen.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


I agree, but can you please elaborate on how time not being linear explains that "things can just happen". I sse time as an illusion, and that everypossible outcome, in every possible existence all happens now, simultaneously, but it is our individual consciousness that percieves it as linear.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


You can see with science some of the greatest minds of science trying to graple with the world of quantam physics and being unable understand it within the remit of logic.

For me personally a spiritual understanding through meditation has helped understand the universe without logic. Even to stop thinking for 10 minutes or so and observing the universe around you will put a better understanding of the oneness of being than any thought ever can.

Personal experience is not something that can be measured with scientific instruments. The deepest truths are ones that exist within us and that which truly exists cannot be measured in words.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


I understand, but I love to feed my logical brain, it feels good too



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by boot2theface
reply to post by andersensrm
 


That's why Christianity teaches faith, because it ultimately comes down to what an individual wants to believe.
There are some things we aren't supposed to know, and we as a species needs to understand this badly.


The Roman Catholic Church was aggressively opposed to many of the findings of the nascent sciences, If they had their way, we would still be in the dark ages, ignorant and fearful.





There are some things we aren't supposed to know, and we as a species needs to understand this badly.


Who decides what it is that we aren`t supposed to know ........ that's a lot of control to hand over.

Can you give me an example of something we shouldn`t know ? And why we shouldn`t know it .....


_________

I believe that there are most probably limitations to our ability to grasp the complexity of our universe - however, I don`t see the need to place arbitrary obstacles in our path to greater understanding. We face enough obstacles as it is.



edit on 20-1-2012 by UmbraSumus because: add



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Nothing new here.

Typical new age intelligent design religion.

Some of the comments I see how are rather funny. Many of you creationists are literally advocating for the stoppage of thinking, the stoppage of logic.

First they tell you to stop thinking; Than they tell you a God must exist. This is called brainwashing.

We know SO LITTLE about the Universe. While we know a great deal compared to 400 years ago, we know JACKSH!T in reality.

To tell people that because the Universe is complicated and because its complicated you must stop thinking and blindly accept a fabricated Overlord as the answer to all questions it's small minded and nit-witted.

If 100% of people that were ever born bought into this, we would still think the Earth is flat and that the Sun revolves around us.

"Stop using your mind, or else you will go to hell" = Creationist Argument



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
The only thing that can survive falling into a black hole is information.
Where do you come up with this stuff?

This is an unsolved problem in physics (according to physicists, but as the following summary shows, the resolution may be quite simple: information is lost in a black hole, so deal with it):

TOP TEN UNSOLVED PROBLEMS IN PHYSICS

What is the resolution of the black hole information paradox? According to quantum theory, information -- whether it describes the velocity of a particle or the precise manner in which ink marks or pixels are arranged on a document -- cannot disappear from the universe. But the physicists Kip Thorne, John Preskill and Stephen Hawking have a standing bet: what would happen if you dropped a copy of the Encyclopaedia Britannica down a black hole? It does not matter whether there are other identical copies elsewhere in the cosmos. As defined in physics, information is not the same as meaning, but simply refers to the binary digits, or some other code, used to precisely describe an object or pattern. So it seems that the information in those particular books would be swallowed up and gone forever. And that is supposed to be impossible. Dr. Hawking and Dr. Thorne believe the information would indeed disappear and that quantum mechanics will just have to deal with it.
I tend to agree with Dr Hawking. I'm serious about that.

On a lighter note, the TV show family guy addressed the type of intelligent design believed by creationists in a humorous way:


At least I think they were joking, though I can't be sure; could they have been serious?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You said:


I tend to agree with Dr Hawking. I'm serious about that.


Well, if you agree with Hawking, you need to be up to date with what he's saying.


In their bet, which was made in 1997, Hawking -- who is based at Cambridge University -- and Thorne argued that information was lost in a black hole, whereas Preskill said that it was not. The winner or winners of the bet had to provide the loser or losers with an encyclopaedia of their choice "from which information can be recovered with ease".

Now Hawking has conceded defeat by saying that information can escape from a black hole and therefore is not lost. If he is right, making a such a significant breakthrough in the search for a quantum theory of gravity should overcome the disappointment of losing the bet and having to hand over an encyclopaedia of baseball to Preskill. "It is great to solve a problem that has been troubling me for 30 years," said Hawking, "even though the answer is less exciting than the alternative I suggested."

Hawking presented his solution to the 17th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation in Dublin. His solution relies on a black hole being able to have more than one topology at the same time, and when he performs a quantum mechanical "path integral" over all the topologies, he finds that information is not lost. "The way the information gets out [of a black hole] seems to be that a true event horizon never forms," said Hawking, "just an apparent horizon."


physicsworld.com...



edit on 21-1-2012 by Matrix Rising because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You said:


I tend to agree with Dr Hawking. I'm serious about that.


Well, if you agree with Hawking, you need to be up to date with what he's saying.


In their bet, which was made in 1997, Hawking -- who is based at Cambridge University -- and Thorne argued that information was lost in a black hole, whereas Preskill said that it was not. The winner or winners of the bet had to provide the loser or losers with an encyclopaedia of their choice "from which information can be recovered with ease".

Now Hawking has conceded defeat by saying that information can escape from a black hole and therefore is not lost. If he is right, making a such a significant breakthrough in the search for a quantum theory of gravity should overcome the disappointment of losing the bet and having to hand over an encyclopaedia of baseball to Preskill. "It is great to solve a problem that has been troubling me for 30 years," said Hawking, "even though the answer is less exciting than the alternative I suggested."

Hawking presented his solution to the 17th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation in Dublin. His solution relies on a black hole being able to have more than one topology at the same time, and when he performs a quantum mechanical "path integral" over all the topologies, he finds that information is not lost. "The way the information gets out [of a black hole] seems to be that a true event horizon never forms," said Hawking, "just an apparent horizon."


physicsworld.com...



edit on 21-1-2012 by Matrix Rising because: (no reason given)


And Arbitrageurl get's owned.

Good job



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by boot2theface
reply to post by andersensrm
 


God could not have been created. God is all. Pure and indescribable.




Impossible. Everything has a beginning. It's not good that you won't even consider the possibility of a beginning, it shows you have closed your mind off to other more likely explanations under the name of 'faith'. The problem is that you have been brainwashed into religion and now won't accept any other viewpoints. Believing in religion severely limits your thinking into a very little box, you need to look outside that box.

How do you know God (if it exists) was not created? What are you basing this belief on? And please, do not quote scripture to me if you choose to answer as part of your answer.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join