It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mrMasterJoe
reply to post by Vandettas
"The laws of nature just exist." is an assumption, a belief. Assumptions can't be proven and are unscientific by definition. Therefore the very foundation of the concept of the Big Bang is amazingly shaky but yet the vast majority has bought it. THIS is what I call a belief / propaganda and it is not any better than believing in some sort of supernatural creator. There is no proof that the Big Bang actually happened as they say themselves that the laws of physics break down (or do not even exist at all) at some point back in time. So everything there becomes just pure speculation.
I find the logic of said episode quite reasonable - they always show both sides of the coin - not just one. And leave it to the viewer how to decide. Just because you don't like one or the other side doesn't make it bad.
Your point of view is typical for the classical physicist. To believe that everything can be explained by maths and science.
Yet the foundation of any theory is ALWAYS based upon ASSUMPTIONS which can NEVER be verified at all. So it makes me laugh when you argument against a creator while it CANNOT be ruled out and while the current mainstream physics also has a lot of unproven / unprovable concepts (string theory, multiverse, dark matter, dark energy, Big Bang etc.).
Take the virtual reality model - which is by far the best to explain all the current anomalies of mainstream physics and other disciplines!! If true this would involve some sort of creator (maybe multiple). And there are many hints that this could in fact be a "simulation" = flow of information according to "programmed" patterns and rules. Quantum physics shows us a lot of signs for that. But it is no regular simulation on a "computer" as we know it.
If you like to know more about a really good model for the virtual reality that we might be living in - look at the work of Thomas Campbell and this "Big Toe" (big theory of everything).
Whether a creator exists or not - the problem that I am having with "mainstream" physics is that they blindly swallow strange assumptions (like the Big Bang just happend out of nowhere and the laws of physics just like a miracle worked) while rejecting other possibilities which are at least equally probable. It's nothing but biased thinking and belief in something that can't be proven. Physics can't prove string theory, can't prove the Big Bang or give a reason for it, can't prove dark matter or dark energy and can't prove that multiverses exist..... and yet they BELIEVE in all this stuff to support their theories. This is not better than any creator based belief. Not at all.
For me the future will show who's "right" and who's "wrong". Meanwhile I bet my money on a consciousness based evolutionary virtual reality system which is creator and experiencer in one thing and at many levels. This is also what Thomas Campbell proposes and it resonates with me the most as it explains MANY unsolved anomalies. Or do you really prefer to explain the results of the famous "delayed choice quantum eraser" experiment by the introduction of "reverse causality" to the physics community if not explained by a virtual reality model? The answer should be obvious...edit on 20-8-2012 by mrMasterJoe because: (no reason given)
The first two episodes were pretty good, but that "Are We Real" video is 95% completely unscientific garbage.
Originally posted by Vandettas
I have some weird feelings about the "Are We Real" video.
It seems as though they mention religion a great deal.
It also seems like they are trying to jam the "were not here by chance" idea into your head.
I don't know if its just me, but thats what it sounds like.
"Scientists don't want to entertain the idea of a creator"
Well obviously not if there is no evidence of it.
I agree 100%!
Originally posted by Vandettas
Many of the questions they claim they know the answers to are so debatable they shouldn't even be in this type of documentary.