Post: #76

^ A few responses

1. The black hole theory seems to not hold its weight. I don't know a ton about it, but it seems as though the entropy was too large in the beginning (I can't remember the exact number, but Penrose calculated it years ago- I think it's 10^80, but with a black hole it would be maximal, I think 10^120). Same thing is true of the oscillating universe.
2. Regarding BICEP 2, see this article: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news...lanck-data
3. God creates and sustains, so He is constantly interacting with the world. As for "what is outside the Universe," nobody knows. The point is, however, that God transcends space and time.
4. He is not consistently interfering. As Hawking said, a theory of everything would truly have us know the Mind of God. I believe it far more befitting of God to have a self-sustaining, elegant order, rather than one He has to interfere in to make things go correctly. We know of God because He has revealed Himself through nature (natural theology) and through the Incarnation of His Son, Jesus Christ.
5. It's not "Biblical literalism or nothing." The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the Heavens go.
6. God didn't write the Bible. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant on all matters it is designed to inform on.

Finally, I was not a Christian for most of my life, and don't conflate Christianity with what individual Christians do.

Post: #77

(11-03-2014 07:20 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  That is not true. I have a Physics degree. I have studies Physics for years and done research on it. I have looked at data and done the calculations. This is not taking anyone's word. This is not faith. This is being open to all interpretations and basing things on facts as they become known.

In true science, if a theory fails even once, it is forever thrown out. In faith and spirituality, things can fail a hundred times but all that means is "you havent been enlightened yet".

I will agree on one thing you are saying. I have though myself for a long time that modernists have tried so hard to try to get away from God that they have certainly tried to make some pretty crazy theories of multiverses and cosmic strings, etc that we don't have proof of. I think some of that is also a corruption. But the main line of science is not like that. We have real numbers. Real diagrams. Some of these people working on this are very clever and can explain this to you if you go talk to them.

We do agree on the fact that string theory and multiverses are crazy ideas. I don't think it's impossible, but some other cosmologists would probably agree with you that it's kind of stupid to postulate a massive number of universes simply to account for the anthropic coincidences. String theory I know nothing about, but I read an interesting book called "Not Even Wrong" by Peter Woit a number of years ago.

As for theories failing time and again and being thrown out, that's false. The Steady State Theory wasn't thrown out until Penzias and Wilson discovered the cosmic background radiation, and even then some clung to it (Hoyle and Maddox especially). That was in spite of the evidence like Hubble's red shift and the fact that the Universe hadn't suffered heat death. Inflation has been modified 80 something times.

Post: #78

As I said, I'm going to propound the Leibnizian cosmological argument. The Thomistic one will come in a later post.

Leibnizian Argument:
1. If something exists, it must have a reason of existence (Principle of Sufficient Reason)
2. The world exists; it is a series of contingent beings
3. Therefore, there must be a sufficient reason why this series of contingent beings exist.
4. However, nothing contingent can have a sufficient reason of its own existence
5. A sufficient reason for any existing thing can only be in an existing thing, which is itself either necessary or contingent.
6. Therefore, a sufficient reason for this series of contingent beings must lie in a necessary being that lies outside of this world.
7. Therefore, a necessary being exists.

Post: #79

If you actually belief that Jesus Christ was not just a person with good thoughts, but an actual incarnation of God as his son...there is no saving you. [Pun intended]

If God interacts in the Universe, there must be physical effects showing it. Where is Heaven? How do Christians conveniently leave out "bad" portions of the Bible baffles me. Hamsterism of the highest order.

If you ask for proof when a bitch accuses someone of Rape in a college, you best ask for proof when someone tells you an all supreme being created the world.

There is no point in me trying to further explain this on here. If you really have serious questions PM me.

Post: #80

(11-03-2014 07:20 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  That is not true. I have a Physics degree. I have studies Physics for years and done research on it. I have looked at data and done the calculations. This is not taking anyone's word. This is not faith. This is being open to all interpretations and basing things on facts as they become known.

In true science, if a theory fails even once, it is forever thrown out. In faith and spirituality, things can fail a hundred times but all that means is "you havent been enlightened yet".

I will agree on one thing you are saying. I have though myself for a long time that modernists have tried so hard to try to get away from God that they have certainly tried to make some pretty crazy theories of multiverses and cosmic strings, etc that we don't have proof of. I think some of that is also a corruption. But the main line of science is not like that. We have real numbers. Real diagrams. Some of these people working on this are very clever and can explain this to you if you go talk to them.

In the end there MIGHT be some God like being. I am more sure that he would not be the Christian god even if he does exist. Regardless he is not interfering with your life. Never has, and never will. To live under his shadow is cowardice.

I don't mean this as an attack on you, but I doubt you have anything approaching a complete understand of quantum mechanics, string theory and the other cutting edge physics theories of the day. And it's not because you're stupid by any means, but simply because even some of the creators of these theories admit they don't quite understand them. At the end of the day, they are speculation supported by complicated math that they think just might explain the complexity of the universe. It's still faith. You believe in science as a god.

As for the last part, you just seem to be thumbing your nose at God. Again, this goes back to arrogance (and I don't say that in a judgmental way). You have simply made up your mind that Christianity is erroneous and have substituted man in place of God, trusting in your own knowledge and power. Can you not see how this is foolish given your obvious mortality and ultimate ignorance? You have only been alive for a miniscule fraction of time and your existence could be snuffed out at any moment, and yet you are so blithe to dismiss the possibility of an eternal creator, and to speak absolutely about what he would and would not do if he did exist?

Recognize that your understanding is incredibly limited. Even the most intelligent human being cannot come close to a complete knowledge of reality. Thinking otherwise is the ultimate in hubris and science worship, aka the worship of mankind and his accumulated knowledge in place of God.

Post: #81

I disagree with you, but let's leave it here. I think both of us have made good cases for our beliefs, and rational people can be convinced by either side.

Also, always remember the adage: "Cosmologists are often in error but seldom in doubt."

Post: #82

Yep. I understand that I am very small. I might die as I am typing out this post. My world view has led me to hedonism and nihilism. But that is how I see things.

Post: #83

(11-03-2014 07:36 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  If you actually belief that Jesus Christ was not just a person with good thoughts, but an actual incarnation of God as his son...there is no saving you. [Pun intended]

If God interacts in the Universe, there must be physical effects showing it. Where is Heaven? How do Christians conveniently leave out "bad" portions of the Bible baffles me. Hamsterism of the highest order.

If you ask for proof when a bitch accuses someone of Rape in a college, you best ask for proof when someone tells you an all supreme being created the world.

There is no point in me trying to further explain this on here. If you really have serious questions PM me.

Again, you simply display a stunning arrogance, presuming to tell God how he must do things in the universe he created out of nothing. You have an entirely materialistic view of the universe (which is, as Truth Teller and I pointed out, logically untenable when discussing the origin of the universe itself). What kind of physical effects would you expect from God's interaction? A glowing hand in the sky every time a cloud moves? What do you think Christianity is if not a physical effect of God? Do you think it's an accident that Jesus Christ is by far and away the most well-known person who has ever lived on the Earth? Or is that maybe the sort of thing that an all-powerful God could make happen?

Where is Heaven? Bad portions of the Bible? These aren't even serious criticisms. It seems you just hate Christianity for some reason and are grasping at straws for reasons to justify that hatred.

Anyway, I respect that we disagree on this, and didn't originally intend to start a religious debate, so I agree we can just leave it there. Hopefully our back and forth has been edifying to someone at least.

Post: #84

I'm technically an agnostic, but I venerate the Germanic pantheon because it makes me feel right and adds value to my life. I feel more in touch with my roots and what not. Whether or not the Gods exist doesn't really matter to me... what matters is that it adds blessing to my life.

Post: #85

"Do you think it's an accident that Jesus Christ is by far and away the most well-known person who has ever lived on the Earth? "

No, its because the Christians forced their beliefs on everyone and murdered those who didn't accept them. The pagans of Europe were all murdered


Christians today thank us for their religion yet slaughtered us during the crusades while taking the homeland their god promised us according to their own doctrine.


The only thing Christianity is good for is taking bread out of the mouth of the poor and wine out of the cup of the less fortunate so that they may eat themselves full and get drunk off of reaping the harvest of the poor.

What kind of religion goes out of its way to change the ethnicity of their so called messiah?

Show me a Christian that practices what their doctrine preaches and I'll show the 8th wonder of the world

Post: #86

^ Haha thank God someone else came in. You might actually say I hate Christianity yes. I hate Islam too. They have caused nothing but suffering and regression of the human mind. But a regression is happening in some science today as well. I think intelligent men like ourselves who believe in rational thought need to commandeer agnosticism or atheism from the liberals and feminists and lead mankind into the future.

We have a saying in my mother tongue that very roughly translates to "Show me your father, or else perform the death rites/ritual for him". You have done nothing but try to poke holes in Physics, which already admits to uncertainty. Atleast we are trying to find proof for the truth. You have not provided any evidence except "I think the Bible is a good book". That is not evidence.

Post: #87

(11-03-2014 08:21 PM)L M McCoy Wrote:  "Do you think it's an accident that Jesus Christ is by far and away the most well-known person who has ever lived on the Earth? "

No, its because the Christians forced their beliefs on everyone and murdered those who didn't accept them. The pagans of Europe were all murdered


Christians today thank us for their religion yet slaughtered us during the crusades while taking the homeland their god promised us according to their own doctrine.


The only thing Christianity is good for is taking bread out of the mouth of the poor and wine out of the cups of the less fortunate so that they may eat themselves full and get drunk off of reaping the harvest of the poor.

What kind of religion goes out of its way to change the ethnicity of their so called messiah?

Show me a Christian that practices what their doctrine preaches and I'll show the 8th wonder of the world

I beg to differ in the Book: "Triumph of Christianity" by Rodney Stark that I recently read there is reason to believe that paganism slowly passed into irrelevance there is no reason to believe that paganism was killed off by the Christians.


Here is the real crusade history about the fall of Jerusalem:

Post: #88

(11-03-2014 08:21 PM)L M McCoy Wrote:  No, its because the Christians forced their beliefs on everyone and murdered those who didn't accept them. The pagans of Europe were all murdered

Show me a Christian that practices what their doctrine preaches and I'll show the 8th wonder of the world

You've implied before that you are Jewish.

I'm only bringing this up because it might have something to do with your dislike of Christianity. Though I could be wrong.

Post: #89

Abrahamaic religions were created to control populations. It's why they were so prevalent in world conquest. The old religions of polytheism were developed for differing reasons more along the lines of spirituality and codes which men were to follow.

The western religions whip up fevour and an almost one track mind when it comes to God, everything must be obeyed, this has to be done, that has to be done. It's completely different out East.

Post: #90

(11-04-2014 08:46 AM)bojangles Wrote:  Abrahamaic religions were created to control populations. It's why they were so prevalent in world conquest. The old religions of polytheism were developed for differing reasons more along the lines of spirituality and codes which men were to follow.

The western religions whip up fevour and an almost one track mind when it comes to God, everything must be obeyed, this has to be done, that has to be done. It's completely different out East.

That's a good analysis. Can you elaborate on that with specific religions?

Post: #91

(11-04-2014 08:46 AM)bojangles Wrote:  The old religions of polytheism were developed for differing reasons more along the lines of spirituality and codes which men were to follow. It's completely different out East.

Absolutely correct. If you look closely enough at ancient hinduism then you may find that there is such a wide variety of individual interpretations and beliefs on the concept of God that ancient hinduism is barely a religion, indeed the only thing that wraps it together is that is is essentially a set of codes of conduct with which to live life, similar to buddhism. Hinduism stresses Dharma, the fulfillment of your duties as the ultimate good. I, myself, however am more of a buddhist than I am a hindu.

Post: #92

Hinduism is not even a "religion". In fact you are allowed to be a theist, agnostic, or atheist, and still be a "Hindu". True Vedic Hinduism was a way of life based on science, questioning, and progress. I think it made Hindus too civilized and peaceful however because the culture was so advanced that it refused to use barbaric methods of war, eventually making it vulnerable to outside forces. This eventually destroyed a lot of the progress, especially after the Muslim invasions. It created a lot of infighting making it ripe for colonization, first by the Mongols, then by the Europeans.

Post: #93

Soft-Atheist. I don't believe, but I don't hate the idea of religion or god. I simply don't "get it," so it would be weak for me to pretend to believe in something I simply don't understand.

I am open to a lot of the ethical implications of religions, and I like it as a community building-blocking. That said, I find religious, uneducated people to be quite tiresome. But the same could be said for how I feel about rabid atheists. They're just as dogmatic as one another and it's kind of cute until you look at their neck beards and want to go find a suitable human being to spend time with that doesn't want to excoriate you for not believing in the same shenanigans that they do.

Post: #94

(11-04-2014 11:29 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 08:46 AM)bojangles Wrote:  Abrahamaic religions were created to control populations. It's why they were so prevalent in world conquest. The old religions of polytheism were developed for differing reasons more along the lines of spirituality and codes which men were to follow.

The western religions whip up fevour and an almost one track mind when it comes to God, everything must be obeyed, this has to be done, that has to be done. It's completely different out East.

That's a good analysis. Can you elaborate on that with specific religions?

Funnily enough it came from one of the many conversations that me and Krauser had recently whilst we ate some Japanese food. We were talking about strategy games and we moved onto religions, why the Indians, Chinese and Japanese have been so insular and never been conquerors. In fact it seemed from our historical viewpoint that the only people east of Afghanistan who had tried to establish huge empires were the Mongols.

The western religions are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Their history speaks for itself. One must be fully devoted to Yahweh, God or Allah.

Judaism - if we are to believe what is said about Jews, then you could say that they've infiltrated governments and institutions for thousands of years.

Christianity - A lot of wars in the name of God, the soldiers coming from populace who believed it was for God.

Islam - Same as above, the word of Allah can not be questioned.

The eastern religions are the 4 Indian religions (one of which is not a religion at all, I'll explain below), Taoism and Confuscianism (shintoism not listed due to Buddhist links).

All these systems are generally religions of ethics, morals and spirituality. You kind of make people more civilised and less bloodthirsty. In most of these nothing is done for God or because of God, everything is done for your own soul. Your actions on Earth lead to attainment or a higher level elsewhere. Your actions in relation to God/gods are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. It sounds a bit wishy washy but in respect to the 3 Western religions you can see the difference by the posts above me.

(11-04-2014 12:24 PM)SexualHarrasmentPanda Wrote:  Absolutely correct. If you look closely enough at ancient hinduism then you may find that there is such a wide variety of individual interpretations and beliefs on the concept of God that ancient hinduism is barely a religion, indeed the only thing that wraps it together is that is is essentially a set of codes of conduct with which to live life, similar to buddhism. Hinduism stresses Dharma, the fulfillment of your duties as the ultimate good. I, myself, however am more of a buddhist than I am a hindu.

(11-04-2014 12:47 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  Hinduism is not even a "religion". In fact you are allowed to be a theist, agnostic, or atheist, and still be a "Hindu". True Vedic Hinduism was a way of life based on science, questioning, and progress. I think it made Hindus too civilized and peaceful however because the culture was so advanced that it refused to use barbaric methods of war, eventually making it vulnerable to outside forces. This eventually destroyed a lot of the progress, especially after the Muslim invasions. It created a lot of infighting making it ripe for colonization, first by the Mongols, then by the Europeans.

Hinduism is not a religion, it's a set of cults with similar beliefs and mythology that were designated a religion by invading Arabs. Everyone beyond the land of Sind (Hind in arabic) were Sindus/Hindus, there polytheistic beliefs were designated as Hinduism.

Christianity and Islam were intent on imposing their beliefs on non-believers. Indians/Orientals did not care for that, you could probably push that towards all polytheistic religions in fact. None worried about pushing their beliefs onto the non believers.

Polytheism gave every man a choice, to worship a God or belief that invested in them. (i.e. as a farmer, Indra would be the one who invest in you as he's the God of rain, warriors devotion Ares and so on). I believe the caste system developed due to the structure that these beliefs were based on. This also made them more easier to invade, the arab armies that continously invaded India for plunder from early 1000 till the Turkish conquests were able to fight petty Indian states with an army consisting of the elite, slaves, peasants and more. The Indian armies consisted of just the warrior caste and despite the size of India's population at the time, it was easy to divide and conquer these Indian states. India has only ever been under the rule of one King/Emperor twice - Ashoka the Great and the British Empire. Ashoka the Great used devotion to a cause, his cause to conquer the subcontinent, he was not afraid to use any means necessary to win (massacres of whole cities and more) something that was not evident in any India rulers until the Arabs came along and Indianised themselves.

Monotheism is control and the ability to get your believers to do exactly as you inspire. The massacre of non believers was acceptable if they did not convert to the belief of one God. Popes, leaders, priests, whatever you want to call them are able to whip up fervor in the name of God.

I wish I could write down what I've discussed on how these led to the establishment of the present world orders and diffusion of religions around the world in a better way but alas I can't.

Post: #95

(11-03-2014 07:32 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  We do agree on the fact that string theory and multiverses are crazy ideas. I don't think it's impossible, but some other cosmologists would probably agree with you that it's kind of stupid to postulate a massive number of universes simply to account for the anthropic coincidences. String theory I know nothing about, but I read an interesting book called "Not Even Wrong" by Peter Woit a number of years ago.

Why do you believe multiple universe is a crazy idea?

We used to think there was one planet, then one solar system, then one galaxy and now one universe. Why can't there be more than one universe?

Post: #96

Putting aside the religious conversation for a second, if you are interested you should look at the theory of "cosmic bubbles" and their collisions. Essentially the theory is that these multiverses all exist as cosmic bubbles, with our universe being one such bubble. What separates a bubble/universe?

Essentially it is analogous to changing phases in our universe. For example if you are swimming underwater and then rise into air. You will notice shifts like the constant for speed of sound is different, viscosity is different, etc. Ofcourse since this phase transition is in only one universe the entire universe has laws that can tell us how these changes will happen based on other parameters. But in a different bubble universe, all universal constants will be fundamentally different [but consistent throughout that universe] So speed of light in a vaccum there could be different. Laws of motion could be different, etc. The main thing determining the difference in the Universes is the "vaccum energy" - essentially the zero point energy of a vaccum in free space [for our universe that is about 10^-9 Joules]. As an aside this is the reason we can never actually get to absolute zero in deep space.

The cool/terrifying thing is when two of these bubble universes collide. When that happens the bubble with the higher vaccum energy gets completely swallowed up and "destroyed" by the other bubble. Since our vaccum energy is so low we assume that usually we would be the ones doing the swallowing. Even if we were to get swallowed up however, the swallowing would be done at the speed of light, and we would never see it coming.

This is the multiverse theory that I have bought the most in the last few years, and we are getting more actual data about this [however difficult it may seem to prove such a high level theory]

http://inspirehep.net/record/918257
http://inspirehep.net/record/800925

^This is a good guy at NYU, especially dealing with Cosmic Bubbles.

Post: #97

I personally like the idea that we are the 3D hologram on the event horizon of a 4 dimensional black hole.

Post: #98

I'm Christian/Protestant. Not as idealistic about it as I was some years ago, but still personally believe in God and Christian principals and participate in church activities and prayer groups. I've read Mere Christianity and would like to learn more about Natural Laws. I've also had it on my list to study more about Church history, particularly the east-west schism, the reformation and how Christianity came to be divided between Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox churches.

Post: #99

I was raised Christian, and I still believe. I can't help believing a lot of bible prophesy, and that tends to verify the rest of the bible. It's not just that people interpret events after the fact and say they match bible prophesy. I've seen things written in the 1800's and earlier predicting what will happen, and they were right.

However, I'm upset with God about the way things are, and am not on good terms with him. I kind of wish I didn't believe, but at the same time, I don't want to lose my faith.

Post: #100

(11-05-2014 10:08 PM)Glider Wrote:  Why do you believe multiple universe is a crazy idea?

We used to think there was one planet, then one solar system, then one galaxy and now one universe. Why can't there be more than one universe?

Falsifiability. We can't prove or disprove it, and it seems to have come into vogue to explain why the physical constants are the way they are (Carter's Anthropic Principle/P.C.W. Davies' Biophilic principle).

George Ellis and Bernard Carr basically say that what's being sold is something analogous to "Current physics ---> multiverse." The reality of it is that "Current physics---> Potential theoretical physics ---> multiverse." It is a cool idea, and it would be scientifically fascinating. However, it appears to be, at least for the time being, unfalsifiable.