It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Evidence of God in physics , MIND BOGGLING

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 06:55 PM

Originally posted by subject x
That guy doesn't understand percentages.
Just because the odds are astronomically against something, doesn't mean it can't happen.
One chance in a "billion billion billion billion" is still a chance, and can happen.

True. Any time you're talking about the universe, probabilities tend to skew either towards the infinitesimally small or zero and infinity. The odds, for instance, that any one of us could exist in the universe, of the billions of quantum and atomic interactions that had to happen just right in order for any of us to exist, are so incredibly high that it might as well be zero. We shouldn't exist, and many potential people don't. On the other hand, when you take everything that happens in the universe into account and an infinite amount of time, almost everything is practically bound to happen eventually, making our individual existences a sure thing.

So, you split the difference between zero and infinity, and you come up with there being pretty much a 50/50 chance of any of us existing. And we did. As to whether or not we're the lucky or unlucky ones depends on your point of view.

P.S. -- Throw in non-linear time, where nothing has to be "created" in any particular sequence, and you don't need God (whatever that might be) at all.

edit on 19-9-2012 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 07:01 PM
reply to post by Blue Shift

So what you're saying is, the smaller of a chance you have at winning at the slots, the more likely you are to play because you KNOW you'll win?

Wow, with that kind of logic, it's no wonder people keep losing their lives and their homes to gambling! That's sure some swell thinking!

Try again. The smaller the chance, the more likely the Fates will draw their scissors with a resounding, "NO!!" And when that happens, game over. No big bang, no creation, no nothing. It's not that hard. Stop fighting logic with illogic - it ill-becomes you.

edit on 19-9-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 07:32 PM

Originally posted by OMsk3ptic

Originally posted by jiggerj

Seems like everything about the creation of the universe has the foundation of what Hubble saw. Okay, the galaxies are flying faster and faster away from us. And if we reverse the process they would come to a singularity. But this point could very well have been a little bang that only created our tiny TINY region of the universe, because those grains of sand that represent what Hubble saw HAVE to be a mere sampling of all that is out there.


If there were other "tiny" bangs whose galaxies are all receding from each other, shouldn't some of those galaxies be coming towards us? We don't see that. I guess you could say they are so far away we can't see them, but if that's the case then it's just wild speculation and there is nothing you could test to prove the prediction.
edit on 19-9-2012 by OMsk3ptic because: (no reason given)

Andromeda is coming right at us. I know it's just one galaxy, but what if our Little Bang (perhaps an exploding black hole?) cleared the area and sent other galaxies flying off in different directions?

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 08:39 PM

Originally posted by subject x
What would be the odds, on a 100-sided die, of rolling 3 1s in a row?
I don't know, but I've done it.

One in a million. Fibber.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 08:44 PM
reply to post by jiggerj

You've gotta admit that the constants that allow for a non-homogenous universe/formed molecules/matter are compelling.

No way around it.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 08:45 PM

Originally posted by domasio
I hate it when people say "evidence" ... When really it is just somebody's opinion.

To the OP, evidence is when there is something that you can experiment on more than once, and get results that back up your hypothesis.

It is evidence, whether you like it or not. He did not claim facts. The values being discussed can be measured (repeatedly).
edit on 9/19/2012 by AkumaStreak because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 08:49 PM

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by ResearchEverything777

I saw Gibborim's post, and was inspired. I came to your post, and was repulsed. Why? Because your post lacks substance.

I do not eat grass, I do not grow wool. I am not a sheep. We do not cultivate sheep at ATS. So stop treating us like sheep.

Everything is pure to those whose hearts are pure. But nothing is pure to those who are corrupt and unbelieving, because their minds and consciences are corrupted. Titus 1:15

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 09:05 PM

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Sly1one

Not if the nature that exists within that infinity has an affinity that leans one way or another. Because if that's the case, unless it is a completely neutral nature, then there is bound to be something that goes against the grain. And since nature that is neutral remains stagnant, it's safe to assume that there IS something that goes against the grain.

Can you guess what it is? No? Let me give you a hint: NEUTRALITY. The universe, and everything within it, is always in motion. Otherwise, EVERYTHING would be cold and dead. And yet nothing is sitting still in space, is it? Even the sun continues to burn and throw off conflagrations. Its atoms are in furious motion.

Welcome to the nature of the universe, my friend. Energy. MOTION.

edit on 19-9-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Nature is neutral...the universe is balanced...there is no extra out or extra in. Law of thermodynamics makes this pretty apparent, although I always leave room for laws to be dis-proven the law of thermodynamics is probably THE most solid and confirm-able law of existence that there is...

As you said...Neutrality...aka balance...

I don't see what this has to do with infinity though...I was using infinity to debunk the probability/possibility claims the guy in the video was claiming were near "impossible" a strictly quantified universe where there are only so many possibilities and so many probabilities the odds would seem amazing, but in an infinite universe the odds are really just an illusion.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 09:51 PM

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by dwarfflex

And I've always said.
If anyone were able to prove that god exists.
It would be a scientist.

Hi Grey580!

I agree with you about that for sure.

When I was a kid, my mom would take my brother and me to a church my uncle pastored. It was good and we learned good base morals, but we were not heavily engrained with extreme religious ideology.

We moved to a new area when I was 9yo and didn't attend another church. I was able to take the ideas of religion from youth and, with an open mind, also learn about science and how reality is constructed up and to adulthood.

I suppose I was naive or a bit ignorant, because I never saw the problem with science and religion co-existing... more than that even... I saw no problem with the idea that science needs religion to be valid at the core and vice-versa.

Still today, everything I learn about science only strengthens my idea that there is something out there greater than what is known. I would call it God, but it may not be the cookie-cutter God that many are presented within their respective religions.

'Is that thing out there what is called God?'

'What thing out there? The Big Bang?'

'No, No, before that... the thing before that'

'Oh, you mean the thing that caused the Big Bang?'

'No, No, before that... the thing before that'

etc., etc...

when we can no longer find 'the thing before that' may be when and where we find 'God' - or maybe not.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:52 PM
reply to post by jiggerj

Right. Well said. Applause for you for thinking outside the box.

So our little oasis here is just a "little bang". I can live with that. You don't hear it often.

Theorists want to believe in one big thing. Usually, processes turn out to be more complex than that.

I have a new theory. I think that all the people on this planet came from one person, all at once. The Big Birth.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:09 PM
reply to post by Vandettas

Could you be a little more specific on that number? Pi, I mean. I have never cared for approximations.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:14 PM
Now if we could just convince all seven billion people on this Earth to not say a word for a whole day I just might be able to hear myself think! Just a thought.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:44 PM

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Stop fighting logic with illogic - it ill-becomes you.

You're not paying attention. We're not talking about ordinary old Las Vegas slots. We're talking about the universe and infinity. To make it easier for you, imagine a slot machine where you could put an infinite number of coins in, and you can pull the lever forever. The only difficulty in hitting a jackpot is that the machine also has an infinite number of dials. Now what are your odds? Feel like playing now?

Here's the cheat, though. Consciousness. The mere act of us perceiving the machine skews the chance of existing in our favor. Observation collapses the wave function. We think, therefore the entire universe exists. We've already won the jackpot, and because time doesn't move linearly, we always won in the "past" and will always win in the "future."

Of course, it only works from an individual perspective. When you die, you lose everything, including the entire universe, but hey, that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Either way, no God required.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:53 PM

Originally posted by esteay812
when we can no longer find 'the thing before that' may be when and where we find 'God' - or maybe not.

The problem with that line of thinking is that it's stuck in the false perception we have that time starts in one place and ends in another, and that it flows from the past through the present to the future. It's an illusion. Everything happens in an all-inclusive "now." A lot of people like to define "God" as the First Thing that Happened, or caused it to happen. But that's not the way reality works. Everything has always happened, and always will, as long as you perceive it. Once you're dead, that's a different story. Or no story, actually. But the universe as it exists and as you perceive it now never needed a "creator." It just is. A lot of people have a hard time with that one.

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 12:06 AM

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by dwarfflex

And I've always said.
If anyone were able to prove that god exists.
It would be a scientist.

Quite the paradox, as Einstein was quoted, "That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 12:47 AM

Originally posted by randomname
the chair you're sitting on didn't create itself, so why would you think the earth and the universe would be any different.

everything in our physical reality relates to cause and effect. nothing happens by itself but is designed to function a certain way.

there is no reason for anything to function the way it does. but it does in harmony and everything has a function.

you have to be blind and ignorant to see that it is not random chance.

it would be like throwing a million lego pieces on the floor and it all randomly connected to form a car.

This is the typical, naive Creationist way of thinking.

I try to keep this simple:

I throw lego pieces at the ground, and each time they form one very specific pattern. You will hopefully not deny this.

EACH, as a creationist, would say that the chances FOR THIS PARTICULAR PATTERN are so slim that there must be intelligent design behind it...since you can, intellectually, not perceive that this specific pattern came up - the chances for it to occur are simply too slim.

You would go on any random planet, and find life-forms, animals, plants of all kinds of shape with all kinds of abilities.

EACH would argue there must be a creator behind it since it cannot be "coincidence" that all this works so perfectly together,

INDEED - it is not "coincidence" neither is it stupid randomness....but i am afraid you do not understand what evolution even means. No scientist would say life, the universe is RANDOM. I am not "random" or a coincidence neither are you.

You underestimate nature and you do NOT understand evolution.

Most of the times, how things EVOLVE there is only one logical outcome: Everything needs to be perfect. An organism must be perfect suited in an environment to survive. THERE IS NO OTHER OUTCOME.

It is not coincidence and it is not stupid randomness, it is the beauty of nature that things adapt and evolve perfectly.

We live from and eat meat and plants. NOT because a god wrote a computer program or designed us to eat meat or plants - because its the LOGICAL thing..what else should we eat here on Earth?
(On a funny side note, let's speculate we would actually eat would also argue what an amazing coincidence it would be that we can eat god must have designed it that way.)

There 10000s of different outcomes, life forms etc. possible and thinkable....and those life-forms who made it will always appear amazingly perfect...because the ones who are not perfect did not even have a chance in the first place to even exist.

We could NOT have evolved with a skeleton/bones which is too weak to carry our body according to gravity here on Earth. So..why did we not develop super fine, fragile bones which would snap the first time a fly sits on your head? We developed strong bones because there was simply no other way. No one "designed" it. It is impossible we would exist now with bones which would not be able to carry our weight. The ONLY logical outcome is that we evolved like we evolved and everything looks (and basically) is perfect..otherwise we would not exist in the first place.

You do it the exact opposite way around: You would look at a human/animal and see ("what a coincidence!!") that eg. our bones are just the right strength, size etc. to carry our weight...and then, based on this, argue there must be intelligent design behind this. It's not, but neither is it "random" or "coincidence". And please stop the argument to assume that everyone who does not believe in creationism thinks it's all "coincidence" or "chance". It just shows that you don't understand.

(Of course, you would keep with your own theories even if the universe would be different, say we would, for some reason, have three heads and four arms...or being much smaller or larger. Rest assured, if it WERE that way, there would be a reason behind it [for example, on a planet with different gravity we could assume life-forms could possibly get very large...or very small] - but you would also argue there must be design behind it because everything "fits so amazingly", regardless).

edit on 20-9-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 01:46 AM

Originally posted by Vandettas

Originally posted by Shadowcast
Pi is all the proof of intelligent design you need. When the same number shows up all over our planet and beyond its difficult to write them all off as coincidence.


I believe he said Phi...not Pi. Two different things.

The Greek symbol π (pi) is used to represent the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle.

The Greek symbol φ (phi) is used to represent the golden ratio of (1+√5)/2.

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 01:57 AM
It is so inconceivable to the stupid human mind, that we are nothing but a freak accident and our existence means nothing in the bigger scheme of things, so we create mythology such as religion to explain our existence and why we worthless beings are exceptional. It's funny if you really think about it.

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 02:12 AM

Originally posted by dwarfflex
Evidence of God in Physics , mind boggling.

So much intelligent design, i question there was a big bang , followed by a sequence of accidents, then hey presto.

here we are.

Yeah, that just sounds crazy.
Now give me a lonely, invisible, magic man in the sky and that is something I can get my mind around.

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 02:22 AM
reply to post by flexy123

You seem a little upset. =(

It is possible for someone to believe in both creation and evolution. I am one of those people. I find it very unsettling at times at the gross amount of generalizations that occurs, particularly in religion, science, politics, etc. etc.

I'll be honest, I don't really care if someone believes or doesn't believe in creation because almost nothing you or I can say will convince someone one way or another. I find that we are the only ones who can change our own minds in these matters. I used to be atheist/agnostic but found good enough proof in my eyes through much research over several years. It may not be good enough for the next person but that's fine.

We must not be too judgmental of each other! We should respect one another no matter our differences or opinions. =)

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in