What's your Religion

[stconquest]

 

Do you? Nobody holds the answer to that. And Scientists are honest enough to admit. Did you think that was some sort of GOTCHA! question?

 

One line of reasoning is that this spontaneous origination of time and space is a natural consequence of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is the branch of physics that applies to atoms and subatomic particles, and it is characterized by Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, according to which sudden and unpredictable fluctuations occur in all observable quantities. Quantum fluctuations are not caused by anything -- they are genuinely spontaneous and intrinsic to nature at its deepest level.

 

For example, take a collection of Uranium atoms undergoing radioactive decay due to quantum processes in their nuclei. There will be a definite time period, the half-life, after which half the nuclei should have decayed. But according to Heisenberg it is not possible, even in principle, to predict when a particular nucleus will decay. If you ask, having seen a particular nucleus decay, why the decay event happened at that moment rather than some other, there is no deeper reason, no underlying set of causes, that explains it. It just happens.

 

The key step for cosmogenesis is to apply this same idea not just to matter, but to space and time as well. Because space-time is an aspect of gravitation, this entails applying quantum theory to the gravitational field of the universe. The application of quantum mechanics to a field is fairly routine for physicists, though it is true that there are special technical problems associated with the gravitational case that have yet to be resolved. The quantum theory of the origin of the universe therefore rests on shaky ground.

 

In spite of these technical obstacles, one may say quite generally that once space and time are made subject to quantum principles, the possibility immediately arises of space and time “switching on,” or popping into existence, without the need for prior causation, entirely in accordance with the laws of quantum physics.

 

 

I am 100% sure, based on historical precedence, that a lot (if not most) of the big bang theory is wrong... I am 100% okay with that.  We are just not there YET. =)

[BurgerBum]

Not just the Hebrews (Gen. 6–8), but Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and Greeks all report a flood in primordial times. A Sumerian king list from c. 2100 BC divides itself into two categories: those kings who ruled before a great flood and those who ruled after it. One of the earliest examples of Sumero-Akkadian-Babylonian literature, the Gilgamesh Epic, describes a great flood sent as punishment by the gods, with humanity saved only when the pious Utnapishtim (AKA, “the Mesopotamian Noah”) builds a ship and saves the animal world thereon. A later Greek counterpart, the story of Deucalion and Phyrra, tells of a couple who survived a great flood sent by an angry Zeus. Taking refuge atop Mount Parnassus (AKA, “the Greek Ararat”), they supposedly repopulated the earth by heaving stones behind them that sprang into human beings.

This seven-foot black diorite stele, discovered at Susa and presently located in the Louvre museum, contains 282 engraved laws of Babylonian King Hammurabi (fl. 1750 BC). The common basis for this law code is the lex talionis (“the law of the tooth”), showing that there was a common Semitic law of retribution in the ancient Near East, which is clearly reflected in the Pentateuch. Exodus 21:23–25, for example, reads: “But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot…” (niv).

The some 20,000 cuneiform clay tablets discovered at the ruins of Nuzi, east of the Tigris River and datable to c. 1500 BC, reveal institutions, practices, and customs remarkably congruent to those found in Genesis. These tablets include treaties, marriage arrangements, rules regarding inheritance, adoption, and the like.

In addition to Jericho, places such as Haran, Hazor, Dan, Megiddo, Shechem, Samaria, Shiloh, Gezer, Gibeah, Beth Shemesh, Beth Shean, Beersheba, Lachish, and many other urban sites have been excavated, quite apart from such larger and obvious locations as Jerusalem or Babylon. Such geographical markers are extremely significant in demonstrating that fact, not fantasy, is intended in the Old Testament historical narratives; otherwise, the specificity regarding these urban sites would have been replaced by “Once upon a time” narratives with only hazy geographical parameters, if any.

Israel’s enemies in the Hebrew Bible likewise are not contrived but solidly historical. Among the most dangerous of these were the Philistines, the people after whom Palestine itself would be named. Their earliest depiction is on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, c. 1150 BC, as “peoples of the sea” who invaded the Delta area and later the coastal plain of Canaan. The Pentapolis (five cities) they established — namely Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron — have all been excavated, at least in part, and some remain cities to this day. Such precise urban evidence measures favorably when compared with the geographical sites claimed in the holy books of other religious systems, which often have no basis whatever in reality.

you know i like it when you get all smarty-sciency-history.... ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 

 

 

 

x'D

[OlekKing]

Need more?

No source to be seen, a whole lot of correlation there, also ignoring the fact that there is no trace of a worldwide flood, that it's unlikely that such a huge boat could have been constructed by a primitve family, that there wouldn't be enough food to feed all of the animals, it would be impossible to keep them from killing eachother, it would be impossible for a lot of species to even get there and also how exactly would they get rid of all the excrement produced by all the animals?

Why didn't you reply to my talk about the current situation with cosmogenesis? Too many big words that intimidated you? Read, you might very well learn something today.

 

I am 100% sure, based on historical precedence, that a lot (if not most) of the big bang theory is wrong... I am 100% okay with that.  We are just not there YET. =)

Can't base that off only on historical precedence, there is no direct comparison, we have come an incredibly long way from the day Einstein published his work on Relativity to this day, we have a lot more verified bodies of knowledge that support our current theory, of course i won't be dishonest and say that it's for sure, but you can't dismiss it that easily.

Perhaps you're familiar with it at a very superficial level?

[BurgerBum]

No source to be seen, why didn't you reply to my talk about the current situation with cosmogenesis? Too many big words that intimidated you? Read, you might very well learn something today.

 

Can't base that off only on historical precedence, there is no direct comparison, we have come an incredibly long way from the day Einstein published his work on Relativity to this day, we have a lot more verified bodies of knowledge that support our current theory, of course i won't be dishonest and say that it's for sure, but you can't dismiss it that easily.

Perhaps you're familiar with it at a very superficial level?

1, resorting to ''too many big words?'' is pretty cheap... i will say.

 

2, care to give us any of those bodies of knowledge? instead of just saying you have them?

[stconquest]

assuming what i just read is what i think it is, i agree.

what im waiting for is for science to finally have one of its biggest questions answered.

 

You know, there are many big questions to be answered.  I think I know what question you are referring to, it will only lead to more questions.  We have bigger questions to answer right now that directly affect the answer you seek. 

 

How the heck are we going to survive this universe long enough to be able to answer those big questions? 

 

Our potential to be capable enough to self-presevere is there, but is that even enough?  Add in the state of despotism that this population is subject to every day, and the chance to have the time to explore those "big" questions goes downhill.  I know it sounds pessemistic, but we do not live in a favorable-to-human-life universe.

[stconquest]

No source to be seen, why didn't you reply to my talk about the current situation with cosmogenesis? Too many big words that intimidated you? Read, you might very well learn something today.

 

Can't base that off only on historical precedence, there is no direct comparison, we have come an incredibly long way from the day Einstein published his work on Relativity to this day, we have a lot more verified bodies of knowledge that support our current theory, of course i won't be dishonest and say that it's for sure, but you can't dismiss it that easily.

Perhaps you're familiar with it at a very superficial level?

 

I meant it like this:  We though the world was flat.  We thought the sun was OUR satellite.  We though our solar system was unique.  We thought our galaxy was unique.  Is this universe really unique?

 

Oh, and I am not dismissing the big bang theory.  I know it''s core elements are based on observable fact, the event occured.

[Jack.EXE]

I've said enough. I'd like to hear your side.

I've got plenty enough of a snapshot of your behavior to show the mods.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[OlekKing]

1, resorting to ''too many big words?'' is pretty cheap... i will say.

 

2, care to give us any of those bodies of knowledge? instead of just saying you have them?

I returned the favor to your little friend who kept touting about how smart he was nad that i was afraid to respond...

 

They are accessible to anyone, you can go ahead and study the subject. I said "we" not me.

Or just look for it with a Google search.

[OlekKing]

I've said enough. I'd like to hear your side.

I've got plenty enough of a snapshot of your behavior to show the mods.

Thank you for your cooperation.

They can very well see your malicious intent, boy.

What else do you want me to say? I won't sit here and give you lectures on Quantum Physics and Cosmology all night long.

[stconquest]

They can very well see your malicious intent, boy.

What else do you want me to say? I won't sit here and give you lectures on Quantum Physics and Cosmology all night long.

 

Quantum Mechanics, that shit messes me up...love it =D.

[ComradeHX]

Not this shit again.

My religion is GabeNism.

[theloveablemoose]

The one where Kratos is the one and only savior.

[OlekKing]

I meant it like this:  We though the world was flat.  We thought the sun was OUR satellite.  We though our solar system was unique.  We thought our galaxy was unique.  Is this universe really unique?

 

Oh, and I am not dismissing the big bang theory.  I know it''s core elements are based on observable fact, the event occured.

Not the point i was making, you're forgetting about the kinds of technologies and pre-existing knowledge which were limiting past concepts of the universe and our understand of it.

Today we have the LHC, we have various incredibly powerful telescopes out in space, we have super computers which can crunch incredible amounts of data and calculations in order to form extremely accurate predictions. It's not comparable that directly to the past. Of course this will continue improving, but it won't be a drastic as what we've seen in the past.

 

If a Big Bang is permitted by the laws of physics to happen once, such an event should be able to happen more than once. In recent years a growing posse of cosmologists has proposed models of the universe involving many big bangs, perhaps even an infinite number of them. In the model known as eternal inflation there is no ultimate origin of the entire system, although individual “pocket universes” within the total assemblage still have a distinct origin. The region we have been calling “the universe” is viewed as but one “bubble” of space within an infinite system of bubbles. In what follows I shall ignore this popular elaboration and confine my discussion to the simple case where only one bubble of space -- a single universe -- pops into existence.

 

Even in this simple case, the details of the cosmic birth remain subtle and contentious, and depend to some extent on the interrelationship between space and time. Einstein showed that space and time are closely interwoven, but in the theory of relativity they are still distinct. Quantum physics introduces the new feature that the separate identities of space and time can be “smeared” or “blurred” on an ultra-microscopic scale.

 

In a theory proposed in 1982 by Hawking and American physicist Jim Hartle, this smearing implies that, closer and closer to the origin, time is more and more likely to adopt the properties of a space dimension, and less and less likely to have the properties of time. This transition is not sudden, but blurred by the uncertainty of quantum physics. Thus, in Hartle and Hawking’s theory, time does not switch on abruptly, but emerges continuously from space. There is no specific first moment at which time starts, but neither does time extend backward for all eternity.

 

Of course, this attempt to explain the origin of the universe is based on an application of the laws of physics. This is normal in science: one takes the underlying laws of the universe as given. But when tangling with ultimate questions, it is only natural that we should also ask about the status of these laws. One must resist the temptation to imagine that the laws of physics, and the quantum state that represents the universe, somehow exist before the universe. They don’t -- just like it is to ask what lies North of the North Pole.

In fact, the laws of physics don’t exist in space and time at all. They describe the world, they are not “in” it. However, this does not mean that the laws of physics came into existence with the universe. If they did -- if the entire package of physical universe plus laws just popped into being from nothing -- then we cannot appeal to the laws to explain the origin of the universe. So to have any chance of understanding scientifically how the universe came into existence, we have to assume that the laws have an abstract, eternal character.

[stconquest]

 

Not the point i was making, you're forgetting about the kinds of technologies and pre-existing knowledge which were limiting past concepts of the universe and our understand of it.

Today we have the LHC, we have various incredibly powerful telescopes out in space, we have super computers which can crunch incredible amounts of data and calculations in order to form extremely accurate predictions. It's not comparable that directly to the past. Of course this will continue improving, but it won't be a drastic as what we've seen in the past.

 

...snip

 

In fact, the laws of physics don’t exist in space and time at all. They describe the world, they are not “in” it. However, this does not mean that the laws of physics came into existence with the universe. If they did -- if the entire package of physical universe plus laws just popped into being from nothing -- then we cannot appeal to the laws to explain the origin of the universe. So to have any chance of understanding scientifically how the universe came into existence, we have to assume that the laws have an abstract, eternal character.

 

 

Awesome, very nicely done.

 

I presume to understand something only if I can describe/teach it to a five year old.  You did just that.  :lol:

 

(myself being the "five year old" ofc)

[Imabigmac]

And this is why we can't talk about Religion on here.... 

[Imabigmac]

No source to be seen, a whole lot of correlation there, also ignoring the fact that there is no trace of a worldwide flood, that it's unlikely that such a huge boat could have been constructed by a primitve family, that there wouldn't be enough food to feed all of the animals, it would be impossible to keep them from killing eachother, it would be impossible for a lot of species to even get there and also how exactly would they get rid of all the excrement produced by all the animals?

 

You said it, not me;

 

event happened at that moment rather than some other, there is no deeper reason, no underlying set of causes, that explains it. It just happens.

[Fred Castellum]

I've really enjoyed reading the interactions you've guys have had on the thread. Even the name calling has been somewhat interesting, it's a great gauge on psychology and how people respond statistically to certain things. The science talk is quite intriguing as well. I love digging for facts and looking for legitimate sources to site info.

 

Now the major contenders here seem to be @OlekKing @BurgerBum and @Jack.EXE in the name calling or the *were not exactly seeing eye to eye department". This is a perfect case where all parties involved should agree to disagree since a consensus doesn't seem to be able to be made. Once the name calling rolls around it usually becomes a vital indicator for if the discussion(or debate depending who you ask) is beginning to get to the point where no intelligible points are brought up.

 

If you find yourself name calling and not providing logical friendly points of view then please stop posting! Getting the last word in isn't important in something like this, it's just counter-intuitive and puts more fuel into the anger train haha. 

 

Now please do proceed with more interesting discussions!

 

IMO, you should expand 'Agnostic' to two sections, 'Agnostic theist' and 'Agnostic Atheist.'

I was totally gonna post that image here but I didn't want to go through the trouble of doing it on the phone.

 

man @MyInnerFred what kinda thread are you getting yourself tangled up in, i

applaud you for trying to steer the boat ontopic though While i am about to

go off topic again.

 

Just wanted to drop by and share some personal opinion after all the heated debate.

When it comes to religion versus no religion it all boils down to a very simple concept.

 

It's a matter of belief versus skepticism and criticism, the two are fundamentally, rudimentary

incompatible. Religion shouldn't even try to adjust to science. Any  traditional disagreement

debate between the two is a utterly retarded waste of time. It's a personal choice you make

of how you want to  view and accept things.

 

I choose the way of science. And i accept that you can choose to believe whatever the hell

you want, i understand your perspective i simply don't see the value in it for myself, and 

that is the end of that. 

They do indeed collide quite well... it still really intrigues me however. The points raised and the way people go about to defend their position is a great example of how we operate psychologically.

 

EDIT: The type of thread that gets the gears in my head moving! 

 

Off topic: Voting thread for this week will be up in a hour or so.

 

Nice to see an on topic post

I grew up in a family of atheists. But later in life i just wanted some spirituality. And i was into eastern martial arts at the time.

So i found modern bushido. Zen buddhism,Shinto and confucianism. All rolled into a nice science compatiple package.

Ending this with a nice quote

My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness.

 

Dalai Lama

 

See above^^ God i feel like a car salesman right now. "This might be the car for you"

 

 

I will convert you to scientology and you will like it  :angry:. You shall follow our glorious leader Tom Cruise!.. JK. I couldn't keep from laughing while writing that.

But yeah. It would be nice if people could just accept other peoples beliefs.

Yo swede I've already said this before but I'll say it again. I love your viewpoint, its absolutely beautiful in my eyes. Open minded thinking wrapped with a accepting approach, along with a focus on evaluating philosophy is extravagant and with that I give you two thumbs up!

 

 

[Jack.EXE]

-snip-

Why you gotta pull me back in like this?

Terrah had already pulled me out, I promised her I wouldn't get involved again!

I blocked OlekKing as to not be tempted to rejoin, but I cant ignore a Fred tag!

[Fred Castellum]

Why you gotta pull me back in like this?

Terrah had already pulled me out, I promised her I wouldn't get involved again!

I blocked OlekKing as to not be tempted to rejoin, but I cant ignore a Fred tag!

My apologies. 

[Jack.EXE]

I must say, if anyone is genuinely interested in the science behind the Christian faith (like, there's actually scientific evidence and stuff! *excited*), shoot me a PM

[stconquest]

You said it, not me;

 

 

First OlekKing quote:  Modern craftsmen are not even capable of building a wooden ship 3/4 the size of the ark described in the bible.  It simply does not resist the twisting and bending to the structure by the ocean.  I would site resources, reference to the largest of wooden ships attempted... but I am lazy.

 

Second quote:  The event that we know as the big bang is observable, not directly but indirectly.  The event simply did happen.

[Toddwjp]

I'm an atheist, the very concept of worship itself is enough to convince me that your "insert various religious figure God/ higher power" is imaginary.

The discussion has mostly been interesting, but to add a few points,

The Christian Bible is a terrible book, filled with immoral advice and tribal beliefs

The Koran is much the same,

There's no science in any of them,

Both of them are defended by claiming certain passages are metaphors, however it is not possible to verify what is or isn't a metaphor when you have things that compared to reality would be metaphorical but are claimed as literal or historical events in said texts.

[STRMfrmXMN]

Agnostic.

Also, how is this topic still up

[Fred Castellum]

Agnostic.

Also, how is this topic still up

Because war hasn't broken out on this thread yet. 

[STRMfrmXMN]

No. Being confrontational is not how you start discussions. It belittles the person's stance and makes them look like a child.  It is like clamping your hands over your ears and screaming over the other person. It is counter-productive and idiotic.

 

But I agree on the value of debating/questioning things. But it is hardly ever done right and serves no purpose at that point.

 

 

Please, just ignore him. He itching to start something. He is a troll. 

 

Also I want to move to Portland. It looks great there. :off-topic

COME TO PORTLAND WE HAVE RAIN