Page 8 of 10 [ 159 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

28 Jan 2009, 10:25 am

blackelk wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
blackelk wrote:
How do you know a more advanced alien civilization didnt create our whole universe? You are thinking way too small.


There is no empirical evidence to support this supposition.

ruveyn


lol. well no sh**. There is no empirical evidence of any ET intelligence. We are speculating here. But as far as theoretical ET classes go, there ones than can manipulate or create an entire universe. This has been proposed by some scientists as to why there seems to be an intelligent design to the universe.

Please offer justification for how that's possible.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


blackelk
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 308
Location: New York

28 Jan 2009, 10:43 am

twoshots wrote:
blackelk wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
blackelk wrote:
How do you know a more advanced alien civilization didnt create our whole universe? You are thinking way too small.


There is no empirical evidence to support this supposition.

ruveyn


lol. well no sh**. There is no empirical evidence of any ET intelligence. We are speculating here. But as far as theoretical ET classes go, there ones than can manipulate or create an entire universe. This has been proposed by some scientists as to why there seems to be an intelligent design to the universe.

Please offer justification for how that's possible.


I don't know how it is possible. This stuff is speculation and way over my head. A species could create a universe using the mold of its own universe. From the book I am reading:

"There are a number of famous and finely balanced coincidences relating to the values of the natural constants; and if these coincidences did not exist then neither could we. As yet, we do not know whether these coincidences are just lucky outcomes of all (or a wide range of) possibilities, or whether there is one and only one possible combination of values for the constants of Nature that is logically self-consistent. If other values of the constants are possible, and early investigations of candidate superstring 'Theories of Everything' imply that they are, then the values of constants might be tuneable if universes could be 'created' experimentally from vacuum fluctuations. Any civilization that was technologically advanced enough to do this might tune the constants to be a little more conducive to the evolution of life than they found them to be in their own universe. After many generations of tuning by successive advanced civilizations, we might expect the constants to possess finely tuned values that were close to optimal with respect to the conditions that are needed to allow life to arise and evolve successfully. The fact that our own Universe possesses what
some regard as a suspiciously good fine tuning might even be regarded as evidence that this successive tuning of long-lived universes by advanced
inhabitants has been going on for many cosmic histories already. Unfortunately, this amusing idea cannot explain why the constants were such as to allow life to originate long before the ability to tune baby universes existed. It requires us to believe that life was fortunate to find the universe so hospitable, or that life is virtually inevitable, for a huge range of values of the constants of Nature, in which case it is hard to understand why the Type civilization would go to great lengths to tune the constants. But maybe great lengths are unneeded. The British cosmologist Fred Hoyle once responded to his discovery of the remarkably fortuitous location of energy levels in the carbon and oxygen nuclei, without which our existence might well be impossible, by offering the following bold opinion: I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw
the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside stars. If this is so, then any apparently random quirks have become part of a deep-laid scheme. If not then we
are back again at a monstrous sequence of accidents. A similar teleological suspicion is found in Freeman Dyson's reaction to further coincidences about the strengths of the electromagnetic and nuclear forces, which prevent nuclear reactions consuming the material of the stars so rapidly
that life-supporting environments disappear long before evolution can produce biological complexity: As we look out into the Universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the Universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.
We should stress that the ideas of Smolin and Harrison are extremely speculative, but they provide examples from our own limited imaginations of
some ways in which a Type civilization might go about influencing the fabric of the Universe in the far future."



sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

28 Jan 2009, 10:49 am

blackelk wrote:
So, math and logic are infallible? If math can be reduced to logic, what can logic be reduced to?

How can we be sure the universe exists outside of consciousness? Prove it. We are still all using the same medium. All humans have the same subjective experience. The same subjective existence. Not a single one of us can step outside this experience and view the world differently than the rest. Just as no wolf can see the world differently than another wolf. We can't transcend consciousness. Of course people with the same tools will see the same things. Many physicists are now proposing that consciousness is an integral part of the universe. And are turning towards it more and more to try and figure out why their measurements break down at the lowest level. Something is missing. Or something is in the way. Consciousness could be this something.

How do you know a more advanced alien civilization didnt create our whole universe? You are thinking way too small.


Prove it topic

Mathematics and logic are not synonymous.

And maybe we need a sort of Cosmic Mirror to see outside of ourselves, though this mirror would have to be very sophisticated. :lol:

Ambiguity is part of mathematics and is also part of the universe. Maybe this is the "something" that is simply not there, a dynamic that is not a particle/wave that can be measured. Dark Matter? Let us keep "looking."


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


BellaDonna
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,858

28 Jan 2009, 10:50 am

An atheist is like looking at a flower and saying it doesn't really exist because I don't beleive because I'm an atheist and so there.



IndridCold
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 42

28 Jan 2009, 6:19 pm

For me, it's more than atheism, it's nihilism. Morality of all kinds is simply a human invention. For the same reason, I cannot respect governments. Both control massive amounts of people with fear. Fear of burning forever or fear of going to jail. I understand how a government is helpful, I just wish people could see past it. They are programmed from a young age to accept these rules.



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

28 Jan 2009, 7:23 pm

BellaDonna wrote:
An atheist is like looking at a flower and saying it doesn't really exist because I don't beleive because I'm an atheist and so there.

hmmm, perhaps that would be more suitable to believers more than to atheists, although it can work both ways. The question is, what makes people believe this and that, and reject this and that? I believe it has something to do with the psychology and personality of each individual, why few people are more susceptible than others to some things and why the opossite?


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

28 Jan 2009, 9:04 pm

BellaDonna wrote:
An atheist is like looking at a flower and saying it doesn't really exist because I don't beleive because I'm an atheist and so there.


An atheist does not believe in this god or that because there is no empirical evidence showing that this god or that exists.

Anyone looking at a flower and seeing a flower will most likely agree that there is a flower. God is not like that.

ruveyn



Exit_stage_left
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 22

04 Feb 2009, 12:37 am

BellaDonna wrote:
An atheist is like looking at a flower and saying it doesn't really exist because I don't beleive because I'm an atheist and so there.


If you can show me evidence for the existence of the "flower" then I will believe in it.



Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

04 Feb 2009, 9:24 am

Exit_stage_left wrote:
BellaDonna wrote:
An atheist is like looking at a flower and saying it doesn't really exist because I don't beleive because I'm an atheist and so there.


If you can show me evidence for the existence of the "flower" then I will believe in it.


I think you start at the wrong end:

The first question must be: "What is that, what we describe as a 'flower'?" (or anything else, a metal, water, etc. pp.)

Our mind has a concept of "flower" as the combination of certain attributes, which in synthesis brings us to the conclusion, that, because all of this attributes are present, that the object, which causes sensual phenomena, has to be of the kind of objects, we call flower.

So the statement "This is a flower." is less a statement about the object itself, but about the categories we order and synthesise or model of reality in reaction the sensations we receive. Nevertheless: It is still a reaction to sensual experiences.

The idea of the existence of a god is not a reaction to sensual experiences and is therefore of an other quality than the idea of the existence of flowers. Therefore your question misses the point.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

04 Feb 2009, 9:32 am

ruveyn wrote:
BellaDonna wrote:
An atheist is like looking at a flower and saying it doesn't really exist because I don't beleive because I'm an atheist and so there.


An atheist does not believe in this god or that because there is no empirical evidence showing that this god or that exists.

Anyone looking at a flower and seeing a flower will most likely agree that there is a flower. God is not like that.

ruveyn


Atta boy, ruveyn.



PLA
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

07 Feb 2009, 6:32 am

BellaDonna wrote:
An atheist is like looking at a flower and saying it doesn't really exist because I don't beleive because I'm an atheist and so there.


"An atheist is like a person looking at a flower and saying that it doesn't really exist because he doesn't believe(in the existence of the flower) because he is an atheist (and so there?)"

Or, instead of converting "I" to "he", you could in some way mark that the words are his.
Feel free to double-correct me.

Angry, incoherent, much? :wink:


_________________
I can make a statement true by placing it first in this signature.

"Everyone loves the dolphin. A bitter shark - emerging from it's cold depths - doesn't stand a chance." This is hyperbol.

"Run, Jump, Fall, Limp off, Try Harder."


TheUnnamedOne
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2009
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 150
Location: Nowhere

07 Feb 2009, 8:54 pm

ruveyn wrote:
BellaDonna wrote:
An atheist is like looking at a flower and saying it doesn't really exist because I don't beleive because I'm an atheist and so there.


An atheist does not believe in this god or that because there is no empirical evidence showing that this god or that exists.

Anyone looking at a flower and seeing a flower will most likely agree that there is a flower. God is not like that.

ruveyn


I agree with ruveyn. We can see the flower, feel it, smell it (maybe), taste it. It is there, and there is no denying that, because you can see/feel/smell/taste it and u KNOW it's there. Can we see God? No? We cant smell his stinky armpits either. I don't understand how you're comparing a flower and God...if I SAW God I wouldn't say "I don't believe because" etc.


_________________
I don't see the glass as being either half full or half empty. What I see is a glass that is twice as large as it needs to be.


slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

07 Feb 2009, 9:06 pm

What if God reveals Himself to you all the time but you simply don't notice?
Who says God has to manifest as something fantastic or miraculous or supernatural?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Feb 2009, 12:27 pm

slowmutant wrote:
What if God reveals Himself to you all the time but you simply don't notice?
Who says God has to manifest as something fantastic or miraculous or supernatural?


In which case we have no way to know if God exists or not. At least knowing by normal means (by way of the senses).

ruveyn



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

08 Feb 2009, 1:02 pm

ruveyn wrote:
BellaDonna wrote:
An atheist is like looking at a flower and saying it doesn't really exist because I don't beleive because I'm an atheist and so there.


An atheist does not believe in this god or that because there is no empirical evidence showing that this god or that exists.

Anyone looking at a flower and seeing a flower will most likely agree that there is a flower. God is not like that.

well, it depends on the nature of the flower, if the object in question is being debated wether it is actually a flower or something else, then we would get a problem on getting a consensus on that one, even if it is labeled as 'flower' in the meantime, there will be those who would refuse to believe so and there will be those who would, and there will be those who would just prefer to call it 'flower' no matter what that actually is.

Anyway, evidence may work for many atheists, but there are people who are arrogants, and usually they wouldn't accept things wether they have evidence or not, in many areas, even though evidence might simply just question a given view, some decide to strongly stick with it.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


z0rp
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 747
Location: New York, USA

08 Feb 2009, 1:12 pm

slowmutant wrote:
What if God reveals Himself to you all the time but you simply don't notice?
Who says God has to manifest as something fantastic or miraculous or supernatural?

I ask the same to you but regarding unicorns.


_________________
Ignorance is surely not bliss, because if you are ignorant, you will ignore the bliss around you.