The conspiracy to elminate a Supreme Creator.

reply to post by Mike_A

I’m not putting any spin on it, it is what it is. A sequence of numbers doesn’t suggest a god any more than it suggests that we’re living in the matrix. Until it is explained then ascribing any origin story to it is futile.

spoken like a true computer, with an analogy to boot. you can deny your instincts all you want. you can play off god as some character in a book. you cannot deny that consciousness exists. your explanations work AWAY from consciousness. you're attempting to understand things by not understanding them using your own senses. your'e waiting for something "else" to plug the numbers in for you.

Originally posted by Mike_A
Tinfoilman,

That’s the same argument, it still doesn’t point towards a god.

Because we only have a sample size of one, saying stuff like “the odds against it are so small…” doesn’t mean anything; the fact we’re here means we got our odds which will always be the case because if we didn’t nobody would be here to ask the question.

Again to go back to the rice analogy any specific permutation will be very unlikely to happen given the huge numbers involved. This is still true, as your link says the universe would not exist as it does today. It’s not the same as throwing rice from space and hitting the president because in that case you’re giving a specific goal; but the universe doesn’t have a goal, anything that happens counts whether it be this, something slightly different or total destruction and each one could be described as unlikely. To look at it from a slightly different angle, it would be unlikely to hit the president from that height but it has to hit something, and if you take that something in isolation it would be very unlikely to hit that too. But the chances of it hitting something are always 1.


The whole dark matter/energy thing is a valid point but again I don’t think there is a need to jump to the conclusion of god. We still may find evidence of the two, just as we did for the big bang, but then again even if we don’t it may simply mean we’re wrong elsewhere. The point is, proving one theory wrong doesn’t make another one correct (i.e. dark matter being wrong = god must be true).



Moodle,

the op has every right to assume god has something to do with this

He can assume/believe what he likes but if he’s going to put it into the public domain as though it’s a fact then he must accept people will question it.

He has the right to assume but I have the right to question.

you're just taking the glass is half empty stance.

I’m not putting any spin on it, it is what it is. A sequence of numbers doesn’t suggest a god any more than it suggests that we’re living in the matrix. Until it is explained then ascribing any origin story to it is futile.

Actually there's a slight difference in this case because each grain of rice had an equal chance of ending up like it did. That's not the case with our universe. If your threw a million universes the odds would say you would find none like ours. If you threw a trillion the odds would say you would not find even one like ours. And yet we only threw one. Talk about the luckiest shot ever.

Odds are almost 100% universes either go either heat death or big crunch. The situation we find ourself is not one of the options for the rice. In other words the state we find ourself in is not as equally likely to happen as the other possibilities. That's the only flaw in your argument. Your ratios are off. It's not a 1/3 chance of each of the three things happening. It's 99% chance that this does not happen.

It's like we threw a million rice and 99 percent of them ended up on the left side of the room. You would suspect that someone threw them in that direction. To the left. It doesn't mean someone threw them to the left, but your obvious conclusion would be from looking at it that someone threw them in that direction and so they would try to find evidence of that. That's what the scientists are doing. They don't know what dark energy is. They can't see it, touch it, hear it, or taste it, but it's most likely there because because it looks like something was throwing it to the left.

That's what we're trying to find out. What's throwing them to the left instead of throwing them straight. If they had been thrown straight 50 percent would have ended up on each side. Do you see the difference?

Now a religious person like myself could look up and say that's impossible. There must be a God throwing them to the left. Well what the scientists are doing right now are looking up and saying that's impossible. It must be dark energy.

In other words, they have no evidence whatsoever that the two exist, but they know they must exist or the universe couldn't be in it's current state. It's no different than a sky fairy really. Sure it could be God, but I have no proof of that. Sure it could be dark energy, but they have no proof of that.

It's their Atlas if you will. What they think is holding it all together even though they've never seen this Atlas.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by tinfoilman]

Even more proof of an intelligent creator is the science of Biomimetics

Basically, it's humans trying to "mimic" nature in their endeavors.

Moodle,

you're attempting to understand things by not understanding them using your own senses. your'e waiting for something "else" to plug the numbers in for you.

No I’m using critical thinking, you are blindly believing in something for which you have no evidence.

I’ll debate with you but if you’re going to be obnoxious I’m not above responding in kind.


Tinfoilman,

Actually there's a slight difference in this case because each grain of rice had an equal chance of ending up like it did. That's not the case with our universe. If your threw a million universes the odds would say you would find none like ours.

The problem with this is you're to be mixing two separate values, i.e. the universe either dies of heat death (one value) or in a big crunch (one value) or we are within a very specific density and the universe is as it is (one value). However this is wrong because you’re contrasting two outcomes (which are incidental) that encompass vast numbers of unique values with one specific value out of all these countless others.

What you should be doing is asking what are the odds of the universe’s density being within one part in 1014 of its critical value vs any other given specific density. The answer to this question is as I’ve said the same as any other specific value; true that the outcome for much of these values may be the same but that doesn’t matter because each value is still unique and therefore just as likely to happen as any other.

If they had been thrown straight 50 percent would have ended up on each side.

But that’s not true, you can spin a coin (yeah I know another analogy!) as many times as you like but they can all land heads up by chance.

Here’s a great video that’s sort of related to this,

www.youtube.com...

In other words, they have no evidence whatsoever that the two exist, but they know they must exist or the universe couldn't be in it's current state. It's no different than a sky fairy really.

Again that’s not really true. Dark Matter is right now an assumption, rigid in its properties, based on observed evidence. God isn’t based on observed evidence, it is in fact very arbitrary.

um, just my two cents, but GOD is not a person. GOD is not a being even. GOD is the principle equations, GOD is what makes the rain fall, then evaporate back into the air to fall again, GOD is the gravity that keeps us on the Earth, and the planets in check. GOD did not send a son down here, GOD never spoke to any humans, GOD just is.

If you can spot GODs creations, and little jokes, and some bad stuff too, then you have found GOD and that is just that. People made god into a being, into a man like object.

I had church when I was young, didnt like it, but I spotted GOD a couple times since, and now I see GOD everywhere and in everything. Religion is for the masses to kill each other for their gods.

Jesus knew this secret, and wanted to share this, and was killed for it.

So mike I will not convert you to GOD, you see him or you dont. I cant make you see anything you dont want to see.

reply to post by Le Colonel


I’m not sure how you’re defining god Colonel, if it’s that god is or can be described as some form of consciousness then I see no evidence of that. BUT if you’re saying god is just the basic building blocks of everything then, well I wouldn’t really call it god, but I would sort of agree; sort of.

Originally posted by Mike_A
Moodle,

you're attempting to understand things by not understanding them using your own senses. your'e waiting for something "else" to plug the numbers in for you.

No I’m using critical thinking, you are blindly believing in something for which you have no evidence.

I’ll debate with you but if you’re going to be obnoxious I’m not above responding in kind.


Tinfoilman,

Actually there's a slight difference in this case because each grain of rice had an equal chance of ending up like it did. That's not the case with our universe. If your threw a million universes the odds would say you would find none like ours.

The problem with this is you're to be mixing two separate values, i.e. the universe either dies of heat death (one value) or in a big crunch (one value) or we are within a very specific density and the universe is as it is g(one value). However this is wrong because you’re contrasting two outcomes (which are incidental) that encompass vast numbers of unique values with one specific value out of all these countless others.

What you should be doing is asking what are the odds of the universe’s density being within one part in 1014 of its critical value vs any other given specific density. The answer to this question is as I’ve said the same as any other specific value; true that the outcome for much of these values may be the same but that doesn’t matter because each value is still unique and therefore just as likely to happen as any other.

If they had been thrown straight 50 percent would have ended up on each side.

But that’s not true, you can spin a coin (yeah I know another analogy!) as many times as you like but they can all land heads up by chance.

Here’s a great video that’s sort of related to this,

www.youtube.com...

In other words, they have no evidence whatsoever that the two exist, but they know they must exist or the universe couldn't be in it's current state. It's no different than a sky fairy really.

Again that’s not really true. Dark Matter is right now an assumption, rigid in its properties, based on observed evidence. God isn’t based on observed evidence, it is in fact very arbitrary.

No you're mistaken. There is not an equally likely chance of the three happening. Within the first second of the universes's existence it is very unlikely that the universe could exist as it does. After the first second there is no chance whatsoever that the universe exists as it does without dark energy.

As for observed evidence. Dark matter and dark energy have never been observed. So, we should assume they don't exist. But then according to that logic this universe shouldn't be here. This is finely tuned.

When I say really really really really super super super lucky! That's only for the universes's first second of existence. After the first second there is no explanation whatsoever except dark energy that we have no evidence of.

Since we have no evidence of it we should assume it doesn't exist. However, that means our universe shouldn't be here.

Also, I'm well aware of the the Birthday paradox. However, it's not me that's looking for dark energy. It's your scientists because they know if they don't find dark energy they cannot explain the universe. Tough luck for them. I don't need an explanation. It's you and your scientists that need an explanation and until they find this dark energy there isn't one. Sorry about that. But until they figure out what's throwing things to the left they can't really explain anything else.



[edit on 26-6-2009 by tinfoilman]

No you're mistaken. There is not an equally likely chance of the three happening. Within the first second of the universes's existence it is very unlikely that the universe could exist as it does.

You’re missing the point; you shouldn’t be comparing the odds of two outcomes vs one specific value. You should be comparing the odds of any specific value, in that case the odds of the density of the universe being within one part in 1014 of its critical value is the same as it being any other specific value. Which goes back to rice example; i.e. it may seem remarkable that the universe exists as it does today but any specific state is equally as unlikely.

As for observed evidence. Dark matter and dark energy have never been observed.

Again that’s not what I’m saying; you don’t have to see something to have observed evidence of it. Fresh footprints in the snow are evidence of a person without seeing that person; equally what we observe of the universe points towards the existence of a form of matter with very specific properties that relate to what we observe. The same can’t be said of god.

until they find this dark energy there isn't one.

Indeed, but then no one is saying that there is an explanation, only a hypothesis. The difference between scientists and priests is that the former are actively looking for whatever explains what they see, the priests have arbitrarily made up there minds in advance.

reply to post by Mike_A


We are in the 21st century right now. Guess when the Last Days are? The 21st century. Why? Because of all the proof everyone needs for everything and for being so overly analytical about everything. Sex isn't necessary for living and it's probably why most people ignore the Bible. In fact it's alright so long as you're married. Illuminati's prime goal is to discredit Christianity. ETs are not what you think. They are fallen angels and Nephilim. Angels were not aliens in the Bible. This line of thinking will make you head towards Anti-Christ who will come with "aliens and UFOs." In fact the Sumerian story was crafted craftily by the crafty demons that love to do those sorts of things. I worship a God that is alive and well and He is self-existent. Meaning He always was and always will be. He invented the Laws of the Universe. We are bound by them He is not. Of course you can't see Him. This is physical creation not the spirit world. He invented all things seen. He invented the eyes and ears. Thoughts. Order. Everything.

[edit on 6/26/2009 by watchtheashes]

Yes there is.The "sons of perdition" are behind it all.

goodnewsinc.net...

The Sons of "PERDITION"


The Sons of "PERDITION", those who face eternal damnation, "The Men of Sin", have already been judged! "Now is the judgment of this world", John 12:31. They have already been cursed and condemned as FAILURES! They have reservations made for them in "the eternal lake of fire"! "It was prepared exclusively for them", Matthew 25:41.

The existence of Devils, or Demons as responsible parties for ALL SIN works, backward judgment, and disorder, is taken for granted by the vast majority of those in, but not limited to the Christian community.
Their location is another area that has been taken for granted, or at least, not given much consideration, actually denied by most.

Learn more here:
goodnewsinc.net...



Mod Edit: Quoting External Sources – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 27-6-2009 by 12m8keall2c]

reply to post by watchtheashes


I’m not sure what you’re trying to say, I don’t see how it relates to the OP which is how there is evidence of a supreme being. Most of what you say is totally unsubstantiated; there’s no evidence that “the end of days” is going to happen any time soon; there’s no evidence of an illuminate and there’s no evidence of extraterrestrials visiting the Earth whether they’re aliens or angels. If there’s one thing I’d like people to take from my posts is that I base my views on logic not faith; your post is based solely on faith, predicated upon one religion out of many being true.

Originally posted by Mike_A

You’re missing the point; you shouldn’t be comparing the odds of two outcomes vs one specific value. You should be comparing the odds of any specific value, in that case the odds of the density of the universe being within one part in 1014 of its critical value is the same as it being any other specific value. Which goes back to rice example; i.e. it may seem remarkable that the universe exists as it does today but any specific state is equally as unlikely.

Hold on, I guess I didn't explain it very well. Remember, I'm not the one comparing the odds of two values at all. It's not me you're arguing with. It's not my argument. It's from the greatest minds in science first of all. So, if you want to argue with it you'll have to take this up with them.

Alright, you could say the odds for any given critical value are equally likely, but that's not actually the argument. Let me explain better.

What they're saying is that for the universe to be in it's current state without expansion the critical value of the universe would had to of been highly specific. However, what they're saying is that they don't think the critical density was anywhere close to that very specific value.

This is like saying, well for us to be here the coin would of had to be tails, but from testing we pretty much know it was actually heads that got tossed. So, how is this possible? There must be some other explanation or our theory that the coin needs to be tails must be wrong. That's the better analogy.

What the scientists are saying is the critical density value was most likely way off and a better explanation would be that the universe is expanding to compensate for that.

But some scientists say the universe is not expanding and our results are wrong. That would mean the universe was fine tuned perfectly. And remember, this is what they say. I know little about science except for what they have explained to me. Most however agree that it is expanding. For that to happen though it would require some sort of energy that doesn't seem to exist anywhere.

That's why it's called dark energy. Because we can't see it and can't test for it.

Again that’s not what I’m saying; you don’t have to see something to have observed evidence of it. Fresh footprints in the snow are evidence of a person without seeing that person; equally what we observe of the universe points towards the existence of a form of matter with very specific properties that relate to what we observe. The same can’t be said of god.

Yeah but you can scientifically test a human being and see what kind of foot prints they leave. This is more like seeing an unknown footprint in the snow and saying big foot did it without any evidence. Since the universe should be 72% dark energy according to their theory the simplest explanation is that we should have seen it by now or that it simply doesn't exist and their theory is wrong.

However, which one you personally believe in is up to you. You can't get mad at me for not believing in dark matter and dark energy though when you've shown me no evidence it exists. That would just be silly. First you have to prove it exists. I'm not going to believe in your magical sky liquid until I see proof. That's all I'm saying. And neither would any scientist. That's why they're looking for it.

Until then though we have to consider there's a chance the big bang theory is just plain wrong. That's why the argument is listed in the problems section of the big bang theory.

Indeed, but then no one is saying that there is an explanation, only a hypothesis. The difference between scientists and priests is that the former are actively looking for whatever explains what they see, the priests have arbitrarily made up there minds in advance.

Yes I agree with that. And I certainly don't want to make up my mind in advance. I want to see evidence of dark matter and energy first. You can't be mad at me about that can you?


[edit on 26-6-2009 by tinfoilman]

[edit on 26-6-2009 by tinfoilman]

Yeah I think we’ve convoluted a few separate areas into one messy heap.

I’m mainly arguing the specific quote from John Polkinghorne, who may be very highly qualified but isn’t immune from talking rubbish and there are other equally qualified people who disagree with him.

This argument boils down to being that the universe as it exists now could not have happened by chance, hence the arguments about probability. My response is that it’s no less probable than it being different.

The fine tuned universe argument refers to all of the laws of the universe, the whole dark matter, dark energy, expanding universe thing is a part of this but still subject to the same principle.

If I’ve understood you correctly you seem to be saying two things about this, the first being that it is very unlikely that these would all converge to create our universe; the second being that science’s assumptions about the existence of these is no more valid than belief in god.

The first part is what my posts have meant to concentrate on, it’s just the fine tuned theory shrunk down to a very specific level; the argument is still the same in that it’s not really any less likely than any other configuration of the universe.

The second part I think we’ve generally come to an agreement on…

Yeah but you can scientifically test a human being and see what kind of foot prints they leave. This is more like seeing an unknown footprint in the snow and saying big foot did it without any evidence.

It isn’t, with dark matter we look at what we see in the universe and determine that for what we know to be true to exist something with X set of properties must exist. There is evidence that dark matter exists because we see the effects that necessitate its existence. The couldn’t be said of your bigfoot analogy, all that could and would be said is that “something” with the necessary weight and dimensions exists to create that footprint.

No one came up with dark matter and tried to shoehorn it into what we observe; someone made observations and thought of what would fit those then named it dark matter.

the simplest explanation is that we should have seen it by now

Why? The properties of dark matter make it inherently difficult to directly observe and we haven’t been looking that long. The amount doesn’t make any difference to this.

I want to see evidence of dark matter and energy first. You can't be mad at me about that can you?

No that’s a perfectly reasonable position and I’m not disagreeing with it, but saying “based on what we can observe, dark matter probably exists” isn’t the same as saying “there is a god”.



Btw, here’s another great video explaning the fallacy of the fined tuned theory. Been looking for this since that quote was found, it’s a little melodramatic but it does articulate the problem better than me.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Mike_A


All the evidence you need is in the fact that you just stated it's "unsubstantiated and there is no evidence." The generation that will need so much evidence will get a false messiah that will provide them with this "evidence" they so desperately seek through false miracles and healings and a fake Pentecost event that will affect the globe through TV. That is why the government wants digital TV on one signal.

This generation would rather listen to the lies of the fallen angels and demons and Satan than to the truth of the Bible. New World Order and aliens that head it up and "return" are all in Revelation. Only the generation it is meant for will get it.

reply to post by Mike_A

Why? The properties of dark matter make it inherently difficult to directly observe and we haven’t been looking that long. The amount doesn’t make any difference to this.

I have no idea why. That's just what the smart people told me. I can only guess. Like I said, it's their stupid theory. If you ask me I'll just say God did it and not worry about it.

Probably because the universe isn't expanding at the edges. It's expanding between bodies. What that means is that when we look at the other galaxies, the space between us and the other galaxies is actually increasing. How does nothing grow bigger? I have no idea, but that's what they tell me.

So what did they do? They came up with this idea of dark energy, but that created another problem so they had to invent something else called dark matter.

The problem is galaxies aren't heavy enough to hold themselves together if the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate due to dark energy. The expansion should pull the galaxies apart.

Dark matter is a shoe horn to explain the problem with their theory. Other than the fact that it must exist for their theory to be correct, there is no evidence of it whatsoever. It's the same problem I have with creation. Other than the fact that God must exist for my theory to be correct, I have no evidence whatsoever. It's a shoe horn to make their theory work even though they have no evidence.

Galaxies don't have enough mass to generate the gravity needed to hold together. But yet they hold together. So they invented dark matter. It should be all over the galaxy. 90% of every galaxy should be made of dark matter, but when they pulled out their telescopes and looked for it, it simply wasn't there.

So I'm not saying the universe is fine tuned. I'm saying this is the scientists explanation for why it's not in fact fine tuned, but so far they haven't produced the evidence.

Dark energy and matter are the shoe horns. There's no evidence of them. They really are a purely made up hypothetical construct to explain the flaws in their big bang theory. They've already decided before hand that the big bang theory was right, but for it to be right they need these made up shoe horns of dark energy and dark matter, but they can't seem to find them.

Some scientists say a simpler explanation is they may want to simply consider the big bang didn't happen and the theory is wrong cause the evidence they're finding is pointing to the idea that it may not have happened and the only evidence to debunk that is invisible, hypothetical, and made up.

And other theories and ideas are starting to get supporters because the big bang theory is starting to fall apart since they can't find these shoe horns of dark energy and dark matter, but they haven't gotten popular enough to hit the main stream media, these other ideas.

But yeah I'm not saying it's fine tuned. That's what the scientists are saying. If dark energy and dark matter don't exist there is no way the universe would be fine tuned enough to produce the result of the big bang. That it's much more likely the big bang simply didn't happen.

So, you see the problem for scientists. They either have to admit there is some evidence of fine tuning or throw their prized theory of the big bang away. You can see how they might not want to do that right?

But I don't know if you'll be able to see it like that. I know when the scientists tell you there's dark matter and dark energy they don't have to provide you with any evidence because they're your religious leaders. So of course they can get you to buy it even though they can't prove it.

Me though I want some proof.


[edit on 26-6-2009 by tinfoilman]