By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Do you believe in god?

Sqrl on 11 August 2008
appolose said:
Sqrl said:

1:

Well quantum mechanics like most fields is certainly full of theory and hypothesis.  However, a substantial understanding through observation and testing does exist.  Particle Accelerators like CERN's LEP and the newly built LHC are probably the most notable examples of such endeavors. In the case of the Uncertainty Principle its validity has been established through experiment, it's actually fundamental to the way particle accelerators work. So while its fair to say we don't have a fundamental understanding yet, its hardly the case that these are merely ideas without basis.

As for the issue of spontaneous creation itself, I would go no further myself than saying that there is no logical conclusion to be drawn on the issue one way or the other.  But the fact that this possibility remains certainly opens up a number of possibilities that many ordinary people have probably ruled out.  Not the least of which is a natural origin to the universe.  Even if a natural origin were proven, the possibility of a supernatural origin is still preserved because a  supernatural being would certainly be capable of using natural forces to do his work.

I think we may have to let this particular point no longer be debated, as I would have to, more or less, take your word for it (on the issue of quantum foam seemingly gaining energy from another source (not that I don't trust you)).  Of course, that would probably my whole argument could no longer be debated, since it needs this point :)  But what the heck.

2:

Much appreciated.

But how do you know you appreciate it?  How can you say you exi- nah, just joshing yah.

3: 

I think perhaps it is important to distinguish a bit on this point.  The relevant possibilities are that the universe has an infinite past and/or that it has a finite past with beginning.  Its future is, I think we can agree, irrelevant to the discussion even if its quite relevant to ourselves personally. 

Agreed

The finite past with a beginning is established by point 1 above as being possible, even if we don't understand it yet so logically cannot be ruled out.  This discussion I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) is to focus on the second possibility of an infinite past.

Yes, that should be right.

In the case of the infinite past there are several possibilities that can be considered and certainly supernatural creation is one of them.  There are also a couple of situations where an infinite past can be indistinguishable from a finite past.  For example, the sphere example above where it's important to keep in mind that every instant in time is a function of the prior instant (ie even though you reach the same place on the sphere again its conditions can be vastly different, or in other words in this model the future is the past is the future).

Alternatively if we look at the expanding & contracting  universe model we have to consider that we have no way to know that this isn't in fact the first expansion.  It is believed that no information survives the singularity and if that is truly the case it is impossible to know how many times we've ridden the roller coaster (so to speak).  The expanding/contracting model is actually itself not distinct from the spherical model I presented above, it may simply be that the function loops back on itself each time starting from the same conditions as before and that we've literally done this before.

So, what you're saying is (I think) that there may be a finite number of times the universe has cycled through expand/contract, yes?  If that's the case, then that would be tied into point one as to whether it could have originated naturlly in he first place.  You do keep mentioning your sphere example, so I may not be getting it.

In the examples of an actually infinite past there are uncertainties introduced by the definition of what exactly an infinite past even is.  For example, if we have an infinite expanse in just one dimension their is an infinite amount of prior events occurring at every instant.  Of course we can narrow the definition down to an infinite length of time and not just an infinite number of events. Even so we must consider that in any possible pre-modern universe phase any imposed limits on the rate(velocity) of time are unreliable. 

This unreliability in regards to the velocity or even existence of time actually creates the perfect conditions for the natural creation of an event as seemingly improbable as the creation of the modern universe.  Does a pre-modern universe phase consist of a 0-dimensional universe where time is not even a concept? Does it consist of a 1-dimensional universe where time is the only dimension and unbound from space reaches to infinity itself? Or do all 4 classic dimensions remain un-inflated by the big bang but present nonetheless?  In the last scenario I'm unsure what the effects on time would be but infinite and 0 both seem plausible to me.

I'm having some difficulty understanding this (specifically, the second scenario).  If it's not too much of a bother, perhaps you could expound upon this section and explain definitions of time more fundamentally; otherwise, I'll just drop this too and read about it from your suggestions.

From all of these possibilities that I can think of (and there are certainly more as I've made no attempt at exhausting the possibilities) I think even the scenarios of infinite past have rational natural explanaitions.  After all if time itself is infinite it can traverse an infinite expanse of time to bring us to present day. The Kalam Argument is certainly an interesting one but it (and arguments like it) were formed prior to (or in ignorance of) a great deal of relevant work regarding the fundamental laws of the universe.  As a result its premises are no longer considered as foundational as they once were and should now be considered assumptions, yet to be proven or disproven.

 

 

 

 

1:

Fair enough, I will only add that the way the vast majority of virtual particles pay for themsleves is by anihilating themselves with a partnering anti-particle.  So in the vast majority of cases this quantum foam is adhereing to the 1st law and behaving itself. Its these special cases that muck things up and jam their foot in this door.

5:

I believe you have the jist of what I was saying, its hard to be absolutely sure unless you paraphrase it a bit, but it seems like you've got it. 

6:

For this section I was focusing on the scenarios in which the past was good and truly infinite, not mistaken for infinite, just infinite.

The first part about having even one infinite spacial dimension is essentially saying that with infinite locations you naturally get an infinite number of events every second.  In a way this is infinite history, but this is distinguishable (in my view) from an infinite past.

In the second paragraph I'm focusing on the pre-modern universe, and by pre-modern I mean pre-inflation.  With the dimensions smooshed down imperceptibly small.  I know that there isn't much known about this period and even time is somewhat of a question mark here. I want to go over time real quick before I come back to this though, just to make sure.

Time is just another dimension, like space, that we are traveling through. The result of this is that we see effects like time dialation which is perhaps more commonly known because of the "Twin Paradox" where one twin is stuck on earth while another travels the stars and when the traveling twin returns he finds his earthbound twin is much older than he is.  This is because your velocity is actually constant, any increase in spatial velocity decreases your velocity through time.  As a result this effect is only applicable to things with mass, hence photons and gravitons (light and gravity particles respectively, both with zero mass(note the graviton hasn't been emprically confirmed, the photon has)) are uneffected by time and all of their velocity is spatial.

So knowing that, what is time without mass?  This question is similar to "If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it fall does it make a noise?" only there are direct mathematical implications of their being nobody around in this case.  As I said above in this scenario I'm honestly not sure what the rate of time would be but several likely possible answers appear to me to produce infinite rates of time.  If the rate of time is infinite anything that could happen, would happen, no matter how improbable, because even infinitely unlikely events will happen when given an infinite amount of time to occur.  Only completely impossible events won't occur.

Clearly this scenario has no gaurantee of being what truly happened, but the idea that there is a scenario where the universe could spring up from nothing, not as a random event, but as an avoidable consequence of the situation is intriguing to me to say the absolute least.
To Each Man, Responsibility
Around the Network
appolose on 11 August 2008
Sqrl said:
appolose said:

 

 

 

1:

Fair enough, I will only add that the way the vast majority of virtual particles pay for themsleves is by anihilating themselves with a partnering anti-particle.  So in the vast majority of cases this quantum foam is adhereing to the 1st law and behaving itself. Its these special cases that muck things up and jam their foot in this door.

5:

I believe you have the jist of what I was saying, its hard to be absolutely sure unless you paraphrase it a bit, but it seems like you've got it. 

I still have a have problem with an infinitely or finitely looping universe, though, as they both run up a gainst my first or second points.

6:

For this section I was focusing on the scenarios in which the past was good and truly infinite, not mistaken for infinite, just infinite.

The first part about having even one infinite spacial dimension is essentially saying that with infinite locations you naturally get an infinite number of events every second.  In a way this is infinite history, but this is distinguishable (in my view) from an infinite past.

In the second paragraph I'm focusing on the pre-modern universe, and by pre-modern I mean pre-inflation.  With the dimensions smooshed down imperceptibly small.  I know that there isn't much known about this period and even time is somewhat of a question mark here. I want to go over time real quick before I come back to this though, just to make sure.

Time is just another dimension, like space, that we are traveling through. The result of this is that we see effects like time dialation which is perhaps more commonly known because of the "Twin Paradox" where one twin is stuck on earth while another travels the stars and when the traveling twin returns he finds his earthbound twin is much older than he is.  This is because your velocity is actually constant, any increase in spatial velocity decreases your velocity through time.  As a result this effect is only applicable to things with mass, hence photons and gravitons (light and gravity particles respectively, both with zero mass(note the graviton hasn't been emprically confirmed, the photon has)) are uneffected by time and all of their velocity is spatial.

So knowing that, what is time without mass?  This question is similar to "If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it fall does it make a noise?" only there are direct mathematical implications of their being nobody around in this case.  As I said above in this scenario I'm honestly not sure what the rate of time would be but several likely possible answers appear to me to produce infinite rates of time.  If the rate of time is infinite anything that could happen, would happen, no matter how improbable, because even infinitely unlikely events will happen when given an infinite amount of time to occur.  Only completely impossible events won't occur.

Clearly this scenario has no gaurantee of being what truly happened, but the idea that there is a scenario where the universe could spring up from nothing, not as a random event, but as an avoidable consequence of the situation is intriguing to me to say the absolute least.

So, in effect, you're saying that there wasn't any measurable time (or that it was infinitely fast) due to the lack of matter, yes?  In that event, I think another discussion would follow (started by me) on how the universe could show up in any consistent sense (in the definition of time).  Also, I would consider the study of time (otherwise, your word (which, again, I do not take lightly)) to be far too unfounded to be used in a science debate.  But in that event, I think my own redundancy and confusion would be going nowhere, so we may just have to leave this point at this stage.

 



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
Sqrl on 12 August 2008
appolose said:

So, in effect, you're saying that there wasn't any measurable time (or that it was infinitely fast) due to the lack of matter, yes?  In that event, I think another discussion would follow (started by me) on how the universe could show up in any consistent sense (in the definition of time).  Also, I would consider the study of time (otherwise, your word (which, again, I do not take lightly)) to be far too unfounded to be used in a science debate.  But in that event, I think my own redundancy and confusion would be going nowhere, so we may just have to leave this point at this stage.

 

 

Hmm, I was just going through the possibilities as I understand them, it wasn't really intended to be taken as statement of fact so much as a listing of possible scenarios. I was trying to show that in a large number(all?) of possible creation scenarios there still exists a possibility for the natural creation of the universe.

I absolutely agree that our understanding of this topic as a civilization isn't far enough along to draw any solid conclusions on the matter.  If I felt we could draw firm conclusions I probably wouldn't be arguing this from an agnostic viewpoint to be honest, I see this issue as fundamental to the question.

 
To Each Man, Responsibility
appolose on 12 August 2008
Sqrl said:
appolose said:

So, in effect, you're saying that there wasn't any measurable time (or that it was infinitely fast) due to the lack of matter, yes?  In that event, I think another discussion would follow (started by me) on how the universe could show up in any consistent sense (in the definition of time).  Also, I would consider the study of time (otherwise, your word (which, again, I do not take lightly)) to be far too unfounded to be used in a science debate.  But in that event, I think my own redundancy and confusion would be going nowhere, so we may just have to leave this point at this stage.

 

 

Hmm, I was just going through the possibilities as I understand them, it wasn't really intended to be taken as statement of fact so much as a listing of possible scenarios. I was trying to show that in a large number(all?) of possible creation scenarios there still exists a possibility for the natural creation of the universe.

I absolutely agree that our understanding of this topic as a civilization isn't far enough along to draw any solid conclusions on the matter.  If I felt we could draw firm conclusions I probably wouldn't be arguing this from an agnostic viewpoint to be honest, I see this issue as fundamental to the question.

 

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to say it like you were claiming them fact; I should have said "may" in place of "would" (no sarcasm here, in case it sounds like that).  Also, I should have mentioned that I was fine using time as we have observed it; that is, aside from pre-modern universe/0 dimensional etc.; my main contention was that the possiblities you gave I considered too speculative to weigh against what I think is a more observed understanding of time.  However, there seems to be plenty of things we've observed about time already, so my point could be on shakier grounds (but I don't know).

 



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
HammadKhan0 on 14 August 2008

Yes i believe in God



Final Fantasy 8 The Graetest Game

A (international troll detector) in you Army

 

 

Around the Network
spdk1 on 25 August 2008

I believe in God, but I'm also Gnostic, so what I believe is slightly different.

 

I used to be catholic, but with a bad expirience with a Catholic bishop being a jerk to my mother and I due to my dad's funeral (I won't go into specifics), I really decided that I could not stand the church, and looked elsewere.  I then realized that I belived in almost everything that a few Gnostic sects believed in the times even before Jesus, and started reading as mush Gnostic philosophy as I could.



VGChartz PS3 Trophy League

The Official Pro Wrestling Thread

  
__XBrawlX__ on 25 August 2008

Yes, I believe in God.



 

 

 

Guitar Hero 3/ Smash Hits
Kasz216 on 25 August 2008

I believe in god.

Don't really have much choice in the matter though do to certain personal circumstances.

Call me crazy but i belive he talked to me. The stories i could tell... i could have my own cult probably.

Eh, and yeah i could be crazy, i guess.

That's the problem with me though. I was seemingly built with the 99.99% clause built in to me.

I'm not even 100% sure I exist. (The whole computer similation theory is intriguing actually. Which would make me non real and god exist. Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants!)

Kinda messes with the whole "you gotta have complete faith in god or your screwed" doctrine. But hey, i'm just not built to put 100% faith towards anything.



Kasz216 on 25 August 2008
The_vagabond7 said:

two things.
1. If god is perfect why did he create anything? Perfection would free one from need or desire. If you desire something, then it is because you are lacking something and wish to fill that need. If god were perfect he would have no need or desire. And yet he seems to desire a great many things, he even demands a great many things. How can he be perfect when he has so many needs and desires?


Small point. If there is a god who created everything. He can be perfect yet need or desire all that because he created everything.

He decides what perfect is.

To apply human created abstract concepts such as perfection to god seems... pointless. 

Perhaps being perfect means needing things sometimes. (Blah blah blah power of love.)

Who can say.



PS360ForTheWin on 25 August 2008

"Do you believe that theres someone up above, and does he have a tangebale directing answer glove"

+10 for anyone who gets the refrence