scientist who believes in God

ClimberInOz

soulsinging wrote:

oh, i see... so before the universe as what it is now, it was something else. thanks. that's a HUGE improvement on someone DARING to hypothesize god as an explanation.

But that is a huge improvement over a creator- no matter how personalised that creator is or is not. A creator must be more complex then what is created- because the creator contains all of the information of that which is created.

So you can have some form of physical existence being the infinite norm (ie- the universe right now... before that, who knows), or you can introduce another entire concept, which is more complicated then physical existence, to try and explain that physical existence.

And if you are willing to ignore the question of where did god come from by saying he exists outside of time, why not extend that courtesy to the pre-universe state of physical existence, and thus eliminate the need for god?

After all, Einstein has shown that time is in fact a dimension of the current universe, and that time was created with the universe. So perhaps our universe is born from a timeless base. This whole idea of a universe being born from nothing is incorrect- I am unaware of any scientific explanation of the origins of the universe that proposes a free universe- or a universe being created out of nothing.

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

how profound. perhaps you'd like to share that little pearl of wisdom with society in general. afterall it is they who construct these meaning changes.

Are you not a part of society?

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

Are you not a part of society?

not when i can help it ryan. i maintain minimal contact at all times.

Ahnimus

lucylespian wrote:

That's pretty funny coming from a man whose posts are littered with words that did not exist only a couple of decades ago, even in your sig, or does "reboot" date from Elizabethan times ???
Like saying, don't grow old !!

That's a good question. Depends how long people have been saying "boot it up" when referring to enabling a device.

Society as a collective, that includes all of us, especially in terms of us communicating, are responsible for the definition of words. So, while we are talking let's make the language clear and distinctive. God historically defines a supernatural being of great power. Ignorance historically means lack of knowledge, uninformed. So let's use those definitions, they are in the dictionary. Blurring the definitions together will make it difficult to decipher. What is the purpose of altering the definition of God to Ignorance? To maintain God as a concept? Seems like a bit of word trickery to me.

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

not when i can help it ryan. i maintain minimal contact at all times.

lol, I know what you mean. But "people" always refer to "society" as a collective separate from them. I intend to mean everyone when I say "people" or "society" and that includes me. I am aware that it seems to mean "people" who are not me, because it's often used that way.

I used to say "That's gay", "omg man, that was totally gay" and stuff like that. Then I realized, what I was saying was gay. The way the word must have evolved, the intentions behind it. It originally meant happy, gay people tend to act flamboyant and appear gay, thus why they were called gay, but gay was considered negative, actually considered a mental disorder and people were lobotomized for it. Going back to the 50's it was considered contagious. So when people use gay to mean bad, that's where it came from, homosexuality being bad. Saying the words is contagious, it's hard not to give into new trends, but no wonder we have a hard time communicating with each other.

lucylespian

Ahnimus wrote:

That's a good question. Depends how long people have been saying "boot it up" when referring to enabling a device.

Society as a collective, that includes all of us, especially in terms of us communicating, are responsible for the definition of words. So, while we are talking let's make the language clear and distinctive. God historically defines a supernatural being of great power. Ignorance historically means lack of knowledge, uninformed. So let's use those definitions, they are in the dictionary. Blurring the definitions together will make it difficult to decipher. What is the purpose of altering the definition of God to Ignorance? To maintain God as a concept? Seems like a bit of word trickery to me.

Yeah, I counld't actaully find the post that triggered the comment, so I didn't know which definition you guys were arguing over, so my response may have been out of context.
I think I said something similar about God to onelongsong, when he was redefining God to be different from teh usually accepted bloke with teh beard and the bad attitude toward people having fun. It is a bit hard to have a meaningful discussion when definitions are totally absent or plastic.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Science doesn't have to work within time and space. It really doesn't have to work within anything. Except a particular method of discovery.

Take string theory which proposes 11 dimensions. That's not exactly within this universe. Or worm hole theories. I don't get this big bang theory. If we can only observe 17.2 billion light years, how do we know we are seeing everything? This expansion we are observing may just be localized to our quadrant, the result of a massive supernova. Einstein says time is like a fabric, in this weird U shape and planets cause dimples in time or some crap. Dude was smart, but some of his theories are a bit weird. Time and space are things which are fundamental and do not need to be explained. We have to make a solid distinction between what we know, what we don't know and what we don't know that we don't know. What is the point of thinking up something to place-hold that which we don't know? There are theories, but to put all faith in one, man, that just seems so absurd. Isn't it better just to say "I don't know". I don't know if the big bang really happened, and I don't know what happened before that, the origin of the universe or how non-organic matter becomes organic. It's not really applicable to our existence. There are a lot more important things to know than where we came from, like how we work.

Oh, man, I'm a little surprised to completely agree with you on this. Especially when people tend to think in terms of "right" or "wrong". It's perfectly okay to theorize about a possibility, like the big bang. The problem is then, that people want to make it right or wrong. They want to make it into a false absolute. Which becomes a preconception and a fallacy. I see there are so many false preconceptions we build our western society on. It's a little spooky, the illusions we think are real. Then we chastise "crazy" people when they begin to see through the illusions. We pathologize them when they see beyond what is generally mutually and falsely seen as real.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Science doesn't have to work within time and space. It really doesn't have to work within anything. Except a particular method of discovery.

Take string theory which proposes 11 dimensions. That's not exactly within this universe. Or worm hole theories. I don't get this big bang theory. If we can only observe 17.2 billion light years, how do we know we are seeing everything? This expansion we are observing may just be localized to our quadrant, the result of a massive supernova. Einstein says time is like a fabric, in this weird U shape and planets cause dimples in time or some crap. Dude was smart, but some of his theories are a bit weird. Time and space are things which are fundamental and do not need to be explained. We have to make a solid distinction between what we know, what we don't know and what we don't know that we don't know. What is the point of thinking up something to place-hold that which we don't know? There are theories, but to put all faith in one, man, that just seems so absurd. Isn't it better just to say "I don't know". I don't know if the big bang really happened, and I don't know what happened before that, the origin of the universe or how non-organic matter becomes organic. It's not really applicable to our existence. There are a lot more important things to know than where we came from, like how we work.

Another thing. I completely agree that science works within a particular method of discovery.

Most people think science tells us the truth. Science explains what we know about the truth. It maps the truth. Ultimately, a map is not the same as the thing it describes. If we can keep this in mind, we can be much more realistic.

baraka

ClimberInOz wrote:

This whole idea of a universe being born from nothing is incorrect- I am unaware of any scientific explanation of the origins of the universe that proposes a free universe- or a universe being created out of nothing.

Actually, physicists have been intrigued by this question for years, the possibility that universe came from a quantum transition from nothing (pure space-time). This idea is actually an old one. One physicist pointed out that a star, by virtue of its mass, has energy, obviously. However, if the energy locked within its gravitational field is calculated, the total energy is, in fact, zero. This raises some interesting questions, such as, what would then prevent a quantum transition from the vacuum into a full blown star? SInce the star had zero energy, there is no violation of the conservation of energy when it was created out of nothing.

gue_barium

baraka wrote:

Actually, physicists have been intrigued by this question for years, the possibility that universe came from a quantum transition from nothing (pure space-time). This idea is actually an old one. One physicist pointed out that a star, by virtue of its mass, has energy, obviously. However, if the energy locked within its gravitational field is calculated, the total energy is, in fact, zero. This raises some interesting questions, such as, what would then prevent a quantum transition from the vacuum into a full blown star? SInce the star had zero energy, there is no violation of the conservation of energy when it was created out of nothing.

I'm not sure I follow that completely. It seems that looking at it this way would base origin on just one star, so that being the case the questions raised seem sort of silly. There is no "one" of anything, energy or God.

mammasan

Ahnimus wrote:

It's always been a determining factor in society. Remember the Salem witch trials?

It's just been sort of reversed. It's now acceptable to deny god, where as before, you'd likely be deported or killed.

Yes religious persecution is not as severe as it once was but I do remember a time, like I said not too long agao, where people where not judged by their religious beliefs but by their actions as a person. Now a days it seems that those that have strong beliefs are looked down apon by some who do not and those that do not have strong beliefs are looked down upon by some that do. I personally feel that no one should be judged solely based on who they decide to worship oir if they decide to worship anyone at all.

baraka

gue_barium wrote:

I'm not sure I follow that completely. It seems that looking at it this way would base origin on just one star, so that being the case the questions raised seem sort of silly. There is no "one" of anything, energy or God.

They were simply using a star as an example. In a larger scale, it appears that empirically the total energy of the universe is close to zero. Which leads us to inflation theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_theory . What if the universe was created as a 'vacuum fluctuation', a random quantum leap from the vacuum into a full fledged universe? Certainly, not all the answers are in yet and I'm sure there are exciting things to come as superstring research progresses.

gue_barium

baraka wrote:

They were simply using a star as an example. In a larger scale, it appears that empirically the total energy of the universe is close to zero. Which leads us to inflation theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_theory . What if the universe was created as a 'vacuum fluctuation', a random quantum leap from the vacuum into a full fledged universe? Certainly, not all the answers are in yet and I'm sure there are exciting things to come as superstring research progresses.

I can live with random,
quantum sounds fancified,
kirby still making vacuums?

Ahnimus

I read this excellent explanation of quantum indeterminancy.

So basically superposition is any possible position between two eigenstates (stable states) and indeterminancy is our ability to know what position it is actually in.

Full explanation with diagram of experiments here
http://skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=6284

Ahnimus

baraka wrote:

They were simply using a star as an example. In a larger scale, it appears that empirically the total energy of the universe is close to zero. Which leads us to inflation theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_theory . What if the universe was created as a 'vacuum fluctuation', a random quantum leap from the vacuum into a full fledged universe? Certainly, not all the answers are in yet and I'm sure there are exciting things to come as superstring research progresses.

I'm a bit skeptical of this idea that a star begins with zero energy. My understanding of Big Bang is that it began as a massive cloud of hydrogen atoms.

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

I read this excellent explanation of quantum indeterminancy.

So basically superposition is any possible position between two eigenstates (stable states) and indeterminancy is our ability to know what position it is actually in.

Full explanation with diagram of experiments here
http://skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=6284

I suppose I'm flbbergusted.

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm a bit skeptical of this idea that a star begins with zero energy. My understanding of Big Bang is that it began as a massive cloud of hydrogen atoms.

i'm with ya on the big bang. didn't happen. at least not as "origin".

soulsinging

Ahnimus wrote:

I believe that is simply called ignorance, or the unknown. There is no reason to call it God. We have words to describe what we don't know.

Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

Main Entry: ig·no·rant
Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt
Function: adjective
1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>
2 : UNAWARE, UNINFORMED
- ig·no·rant·ly adverb
- ig·no·rant·ness noun
synonyms IGNORANT, ILLITERATE, UNLETTERED, UNTUTORED, UNLEARNED mean not having knowledge. IGNORANT may imply a general condition or it may apply to lack of knowledge or awareness of a particular thing <an ignorant fool> <ignorant of nuclear physics>. ILLITERATE applies to either an absolute or a relative inability to read and write <much of the population is still illiterate>. UNLETTERED implies ignorance of the knowledge gained by reading <an allusion meaningless to the unlettered>. UNTUTORED may imply lack of schooling in the arts and ways of civilization <strange monuments built by an untutored people>. UNLEARNED suggests ignorance of advanced subjects <poetry not for academics but for the unlearned masses>.

ignorant implies a lack of knowledge of that which is knowable. you are ignorant of math if we all know how to add and you do not. not knowing what was going on prior to the big bang does not make one ignorant, becos nobody has any clue what was going on prior to the big bang.

YOUR definition of god says it's unnecessary becos, again, you restrict your understanding to only the christian god. a giant ruler demanding worship. that is not the god i believe in. the god i believe in is this one, from your dictionary: "a person or thing of supreme value, the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit." if you've ever seen star wars, my god is the force... the inexplicable energy and order binding the universe together, that makes science operate the way it does (why does a rotating body pull objects towards it rather than push them away?). i call it god becos it's easier that way and helps me wrap my head around this nebulous and abstract principle underlying the universe.

soulsinging

Ahnimus wrote:

Science doesn't have to work within time and space. It really doesn't have to work within anything. Except a particular method of discovery.

Take string theory which proposes 11 dimensions. That's not exactly within this universe. Or worm hole theories. I don't get this big bang theory. If we can only observe 17.2 billion light years, how do we know we are seeing everything? This expansion we are observing may just be localized to our quadrant, the result of a massive supernova. Einstein says time is like a fabric, in this weird U shape and planets cause dimples in time or some crap. Dude was smart, but some of his theories are a bit weird. Time and space are things which are fundamental and do not need to be explained. We have to make a solid distinction between what we know, what we don't know and what we don't know that we don't know. What is the point of thinking up something to place-hold that which we don't know? There are theories, but to put all faith in one, man, that just seems so absurd. Isn't it better just to say "I don't know". I don't know if the big bang really happened, and I don't know what happened before that, the origin of the universe or how non-organic matter becomes organic. It's not really applicable to our existence. There are a lot more important things to know than where we came from, like how we work.

that's a matter of perspective. some people find great joy in dissecting life and finding out how it works. others find much more joy in exploring why we are here. most of the great art in the world comes out of the latter camp. surely you can appreciate that, being on this board. i dont recall the last time pearl jam wrote a ripping good song that didn't involve emotion and subjective experience. me, i take great comfort in pondering the fact that there is this huge, incomprehensible universe that defies our ability to completely understand it. it makes me feel quite grateful to have gotten my tiny little slice of it, and it affects my day to day life immensely to have that gratitude. the thought that im nothing more than a windup toy ticking along kinda takes the spontaneous fun out of life. makes it seems boring and pointless... why bother to do anything if none of it matters and im not actually enjoying anything anyway?

gue_barium

soulsinging wrote:

ignorant implies a lack of knowledge of that which is knowable. you are ignorant of math if we all know how to add and you do not. not knowing what was going on prior to the big bang does not make one ignorant, becos nobody has any clue what was going on prior to the big bang.

YOUR definition of god says it's unnecessary becos, again, you restrict your understanding to only the christian god. a giant ruler demanding worship. that is not the god i believe in. the god i believe in is this one, from your dictionary: "a person or thing of supreme value, the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit." if you've ever seen star wars, my god is the force... the inexplicable energy and order binding the universe together, that makes science operate the way it does (why does a rotating body pull objects towards it rather than push them away?). i call it god becos it's easier that way and helps me wrap my head around this nebulous and abstract principle underlying the universe.

It doesn't take much to be an "intellect".