Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
nopeda

Trying to think realistically

85 posts in this topic

cause of the way our brains function i doubt if anyone no matter how smart he\she is could calculate the origin of life

because most if not all of our discoveries are based on trial and error experiments so since we haven't had any

"supernatural" contact or experiment then we can't comprehend the idea of supernatural if there's such thing

,finding the origin of life as a human is like asking a calculator to play a piano musical piece hahahaha , so

thats why we invented religions at the first place its because we can't understand the meaning of life if there's any, so we came

with something up to give people a reason to work their life to their grave without asking too much questions and the poor wont

have to worry about not having nice things because they're gonna have it in the "afterlife" then came "ethics " and "taboos" and

"dos and don't" which was responsible of what we have today "society" thats why our ancient grandfathers and grandmothers

started building monuments out of nowhere well you can't start a society with the concept of " you're just a chemical reaction and neurological

brain soup that has no meaning ",. ..yes religion gave people a reason to live but also gave them a reason to

kill later on with their "holy war" ,but thats not the subject we need now but its sort of the way we're sculpted to think ,all we can

do is hope if there's someone care about us out there which i highly doubt when i watch the news every day ,but here iam

again thinking the way i was taught to think with thus iam unable to find an answer to the big question or to think "realistically"

neither do any of us..

looks like our piano notes are far away from us to achieve because unfortunately we're just a calculator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once they enter a state of superposition they no longer are particles. There is no literal particle traveling through space. A wave function expands throughout the entire universe with probabilities of the particle manifesting anywhere. The bulk of the probability where the emitter is directing the beam.

You've already been corrected on this, wave-particle duality is the behavior of the particle. The particle does not cease to exist when behaving as a wave. Why you continue to ignore it is beyond me.

Next you're going to say gravity doesn't exist because mathematical equations describe its behavior. You're confusing the phenomena with the math.

This is why if you direct the beam at a barrier some of the particles will manifest on the other side of it. Note. The particles DID NOT GO THROUGH the barrier.
Actually it does.

http://cosmos.asu.ed...' AJP000023.pdf

Quantum tunneling is the phenomena of a particle tunneling through a barrier.

A significant portion of the wave function extended through the barrier so the particle has a significant probability of manifesting there. The barrier IS NOT DISTURBED IN ANY WAY.
I see the problem, you're confusing particle with solid.
The particle, while in superposition, is not in spacetime as we define it. Things that do not exist in spacetime cannot be considered as part of this particular universe. That's quantum tunneling for you. If the particle were traveling THROUGH space time quantum tunneling would not happen. There would be no way for a particle to simply apear on the other side of a barrier without ever haveing traveled through the barrier itself.
We define it, or you? Particle physics studies the particles that make up the universe, including those behaving as waves. The research at CERN's LHC refutes your claim of particles not existing unless detected, ALICE's research of quark-gluon plasma that is hypothesized to have been more common in the early ages of the universe especially.

http://aliceinfo.cern.ch/

http://atlas.ch/

Strange that you are one of the few people who claim that particles do not exist unless observed/detected, even the researchers imply the opposite.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've already been corrected on this, wave-particle duality is the behavior of the particle. The particle does not cease to exist when behaving as a wave. Why you continue to ignore it is beyond me.

Next you're going to say gravity doesn't exist because mathematical equations describe its behavior. You're confusing the phenomena with the math.

Actually it does.

http://cosmos.asu.ed...' AJP000023.pdf

Quantum tunneling is the phenomena of a particle tunneling through a barrier.

I see the problem, you're confusing particle with solid.

We define it, or you? Particle physics studies the particles that make up the universe, including those behaving as waves. The research at CERN's LHC refutes your claim of particles not existing unless detected, ALICE's research of quark-gluon plasma that is hypothesized to have been more common in the early ages of the universe especially.

http://aliceinfo.cern.ch/

http://atlas.ch/

Strange that you are one of the few people who claim that particles do not exist unless observed/detected, even the researchers imply the opposite.

One of your links is inaccessible the others are useless. Studying behavior of energies that must have been present in the early universe has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Don't you get it. Things are only defined by their behavior. When a particle stops behaving like a particle it's no longer a particle. The reason we have interference patterns from things in superposition is because they apear to be interfering with themselves.

Please tell me how a single particle that is a point can interfear with itself?

In fact the particle has spread out over the entire universe. It has the majority of its probability of manifesting where we think it should, however it can and does manifest other places. There is even a slight ( very very slight) possibility of It manifesting in the andromeda galaxy or on the tip of your nose.

The use of the word "through" is misleading. When I walk 'through' a door I temporarily occupy the space in between. If I swim 'through' water I occupy the space of the water and disturb it as I go. This is not what is happening in Tunneling. With tunneling the particle is literally manifesting on the other side of the barrier haveing never actually traversed it.

"Hence, the probability of a given particle's existence on the opposite side of an intervening barrier is non-zero, and such particles will appear—with no indication of physically transiting the barrier—on the 'other' (a semantically difficult word in this instance"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling

There is no way around it, it's what alows the sun to conduct fusion, and is even theorized to play a part in gene mutation.

Your problem is that you are stuck thinking about it like marbles and you are tied up in defending classical physicalism when QM put it to rest a long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of your links is inaccessible the others are useless.

cosmos.asu.edu/publications/papers/'Quantum%20Tunelling%20Time'%20AJP000023.pdf

Studying behavior of energies that must have been present in the early universe has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
We are discussing particles, you're trying to pretend they don't exist unless detected. CERN shows they do.
Don't you get it. Things are only defined by their behavior. When a particle stops behaving like a particle it's no longer a particle.
You've been correct on this countless times, a particle behaving as a wave is still refered to as a particle in wave-particle duality / particle physics.

You are unable to grasp the fact they're particles whether or not they behave as such.

The reason we have interference patterns from things in superposition is because they apear to be interfering with themselves.
Which according to you they cease to exist. You're full of contradictions.
Please tell me how a single particle that is a point can interfear with itself?
I haven't made this claim. Particles aren't always "single points". If you paid any attention you'd notice I've pointed out they behave as waves, as wave-particle duality shows.

Perhaps a better question for you, how does something that doesn't exist interfere with *anything*?

Edited by Rlyeh
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cosmos.asu.edu/publications/papers/'Quantum%20Tunelling%20Time'%20AJP000023.pdf

We are discussing particles, you're trying to pretend they don't exist unless detected. CERN shows they do.

You've been correct on this countless times, a particle behaving as a wave is still refered to as a particle in wave-particle duality / particle physics.

You are unable to grasp the fact they're particles whether or not they behave as such.

Which according to you they cease to exist. You're full of contradictions.

I haven't made this claim. Particles aren't always "single points". If you paid any attention you'd notice I've pointed out they behave as waves, as wave-particle duality shows.

Perhaps a better question for you, how does something that doesn't exist interfere with *anything*?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle

That's just it. It dosnt actually interfere with itself ;) there is no real interference happening as what happens in wave dynamics. It's not really a "wave" ;) waves are energy propigating through a medium. As should be clear by now things in superposition do not use a medium... Not even space. A "wave function" is merely a mathematical term to describe the probabilities of where the 'particle' might manifest next.

Let's be clear. By non existence we are talking about existence in the classical sense. the information process is very real, but the whole concept is showing us that information process is more fundamental than stuff itself. In other words there are rules before stuff, and stuff is a product of rules. Rules do not come about simply by stuff reacting with each other. This is a very important distinction. For one it defeats matarisllistic/physicalist philosophy with actual proof. Sure die hards can change the definitions of "particle", "physical", "material" to fit observations, but this is just cognitive dissidence. ( heck we even call it PHYISICs). It's much more honest to simply drop materialist/physicalist philosophy and dogma and pay attention to what's really going on.

By all observations there is a reality that is hidden to us that is based purely on principials and rules. An underlying syntax governing every detail of existence. These principals Give rise to the existence of matter without being a product of it. A good analogy is computer programming that gives rise to virtual environments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.m.wikipedi...g/wiki/Particle

That's just it. It dosnt actually interfere with itself ;) there is no real interference happening as what happens in wave dynamics. It's not really a "wave" ;) waves are energy propigating through a medium. As should be clear by now things in superposition do not use a medium... Not even space. A "wave function" is merely a mathematical term to describe the probabilities of where the 'particle' might manifest next.

Nice try, I can play wiki too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave

"Further, the behavior of particles in quantum mechanics is described by waves and researchers believe that gravitational waves also travel through space, although gravitational waves have never been directly detected."

Not only does this contradict your claim that these waves aren't physically real, it also points out they are still considered particles.

So you want to try again?

Let's be clear. By non existence we are talking about existence in the classical sense. the information process is very real, but the whole concept is showing us that information process is more fundamental than stuff itself. In other words there are rules before stuff, and stuff is a product of rules. Rules do not come about simply by stuff reacting with each other. This is a very important distinction. For one it defeats matarisllistic/physicalist philosophy with actual proof. Sure die hards can change the definitions of "particle", "physical", "material" to fit observations, but this is just cognitive dissidence. ( heck we even call it PHYISICs). It's much more honest to simply drop materialist/physicalist philosophy and dogma and pay attention to what's really going on.
I think it's better to attempt to understand what you're arguing about.

For instance an electron is an elementary particle, agree? It too displays these wave like properties. But wait, it is still an electron when behaving as a wave.

http://physics.bu.ed...es/Duality.html

http://hyperphysics....hbase/mod1.html

"de Broglie's prediction was shown to be true when beams of electrons and neutrons were directed at crystals and diffraction patterns were seen. This is evidence of the wave properties of these particles."

When researchers themselves regard particles as possessing wave like behavior, how long can you continue to ignore it?

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice try, I can play wiki too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave

"Further, the behavior of particles in quantum mechanics is described by waves and researchers believe that gravitational waves also travel through space, although gravitational waves have never been directly detected."

Not only does this contradict your claim that these waves aren't physically real, it also points out they are still considered particles.

So you want to try again?

I think it's better to attempt to understand what you're arguing about.

For instance an electron is an elementary particle, agree? It too displays these wave like properties. But wait, it is still an electron when behaving as a wave.

http://physics.bu.ed...es/Duality.html

http://hyperphysics....hbase/mod1.html

"de Broglie's prediction was shown to be true when beams of electrons and neutrons were directed at crystals and diffraction patterns were seen. This is evidence of the wave properties of these particles."

When researchers themselves regard particles as possessing wave like behavior, how long can you continue to ignore it?

I think you are still arguing semantics and stuck in classical physics Rlyeh, beams striking crystals have nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Do you understand that when we speak of particle/wave duality and superposition we are not talking about macro systems. We are not talking about waves of energy using space as a medium. This is standard physics not QM.

Superposition is only observed when we filter the the beam until it is only emitting one photon at a time. Lazers are not in superposition and are not subject to these QM efects. It's only when we try to isolate the individual particles does uncertainty become a factor. Virtual particles carry the information of light waves, it operates within standard wave dynamics. Objects in superposition are everywhere and nowhere at the same time with varying probabilities of being somewhere upon isolating them. If it were an actual wave pinpoint piece of matter it would not be able to instantly apear somewhere else in the universe because it would violate the speed of light law.

Gravitational waves ( if the exist) are the same.... A macro phenomenon.

You see my friend, you are still thinking classically. Classical physics no longer applies on the scales of QM. Merging the macro with the micro is one of the great problems in physics today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Why are you two debating particle physics or whatever it is you're doing?

If god really wanted to be this elusive and complex then it's just taking the p*** outta' the theists and atheists for the lulz.

*Circa 100'000 years ago*

GOD: I could just tell them directly when they evolve, would sort a lot of that **** out that I've foreseen and make matters easy...nah, that'd be no fun; I need entertainment of some form! I'm a prankster god. I am killing me, Oh my ME! We'll see who believes in me now!"

Bill Hicks had the right idea when he said god could be a prankster god...he really was a prophet!

Edited by Sean93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have missed one huge fact which kinda makes all your points obsolete. If God was real, then he would be everything and everyone and you're mind would not be able to comprehend what he actually is.

All your points are based on what you know and what Science knows at this very moment and when discussing "god" that is a huge error. As we don't know everything and we certainly cannot be sure that all our "science" is correct until we do know everything.

( I don't believe in God by the way)

Why make such an assumption? God can be anything because god is just a name we give to a huge variety of entities. Your definition of god is just one of many.

God is either what we define him to be, because we construct him as we desire him, OR he is what he is. If god is real and independent then he is what he is, and cannot be (except by coincidence) what we define him or desire him to be to be.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know how I missed this thread for so long. I agree with all the points in the OP and they were very articulatley and conciselty expressed.

I dont know if they are factually correct, but they are inevitably where current knowledge, observation, logic, and deduction leads a human mind.

To respond to one poster. Atheism is not a religion but it is a belief. It is constructed via the same thought processes and methodologies as belief. It is a conscious and chosen position. It is an equally valid and logical belief position and it leads us to other directions in philosophy and action In itslef it is not a creative belief system, but linked to other positive belief structures like secularr humanism or humanist ethical systems, it can be just as valuable in practical terms as theism.

However it lacks some of the qualities and advantages of belief, and I am not convinced that it offers many practical advantages other than perhaps a sense of independence and self reliance, which can sadly often translate into a sense of superiority (the same is true for some theists views on athiests.)

Being a theist doesn't, in itself, confer advantages, it is the psychology and practicality involved in belief which does that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Why are you two debating particle physics or whatever it is you're doing?

If god really wanted to be this elusive and complex then it's just taking the p*** outta' the theists and atheists for the lulz.

*Circa 100'000 years ago*

GOD: I could just tell them directly when they evolve, would sort a lot of that **** out that I've foreseen and make matters easy...nah, that'd be no fun; I need entertainment of some form! I'm a prankster god. I am killing me, Oh my ME! We'll see who believes in me now!"

Bill Hicks had the right idea when he said god could be a prankster god...he really was a prophet!

I'm always impressed how young you are Sean. It's a long standing thing between me and him... It pops up now and then. Ignore us.. Everyone else does... I have grown to love rhlyes banter in some mosachist capacity.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It pops up now and then. Ignore us.. Everyone else does... I have grown to love rhlyes banter in some mosachist capacity.

I don't always ignore you and Rhlye..It's like watching Statler and Waldorf from the Muppet show..I am a fan of the Muppets, so I cannot ignore you guys lol

Edited by Beckys_Mom
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are still arguing semantics and stuck in classical physics Rlyeh, beams striking crystals have nothing to do with what we are talking about.

^ Proves without a doubt you haven't read the experiments. The quantum eraser experiment also shoots the photon through a crystal. lol.
Do you understand that when we speak of particle/wave duality and superposition we are not talking about macro systems. We are not talking about waves of energy using space as a medium. This is standard physics not QM.
Electrons are now macro? Sorry, but did you read anything I posted? :w00t:
Superposition is only observed when we filter the the beam until it is only emitting one photon at a time. Lazers are not in superposition and are not subject to these QM efects. It's only when we try to isolate the individual particles does uncertainty become a factor. Virtual particles carry the information of light waves, it operates within standard wave dynamics. Objects in superposition are everywhere and nowhere at the same time with varying probabilities of being somewhere upon isolating them. If it were an actual wave pinpoint piece of matter it would not be able to instantly apear somewhere else in the universe because it would violate the speed of light law.
*face palm*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser

They EMIT PHOTONS!!!

Infact the double-slit experiment was done with a laser.

http://www.cavendishscience.org/phys/tyoung/tyoung.htm

Beams are lasers. They are shot through crystals in some experiments to form entanglement.

You're now trying to tell me lasers and crystals have nothing to do with the experiments, you are hilarious.

Where do you think the researchers get the photons? Do they just bull**** it into existence like you're doing with your argument?

Gravitational waves ( if the exist) are the same.... A macro phenomenon.
Not when quantized. Besides you ignored the part I high lighted explaining particles behavior as waves. But ofcourse you did, it refutes your understanding of waves.
You see my friend, you are still thinking classically. Classical physics no longer applies on the scales of QM. Merging the macro with the micro is one of the great problems in physics today.

You sir are not thinking at all, infact you haven't even read the info I provided.

If you don't know what elementary particles are, there is no point discussing them with you.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why make such an assumption? God can be anything because god is just a name we give to a huge variety of entities. Your definition of god is just one of many.

God is either what we define him to be, because we construct him as we desire him, OR he is what he is. If god is real and independent then he is what he is, and cannot be (except by coincidence) what we define him or desire him to be to be.

I actually didn't make an assumption, my point being if God was real. Yours is based on your opinion that he isn't and that he is man made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Proves without a doubt you haven't read the experiments. The quantum eraser experiment also shoots the photon through a crystal. lol.

Electrons are now macro? Sorry, but did you read anything I posted? :w00t:

*face palm*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser

They EMIT PHOTONS!!!

Infact the double-slit experiment was done with a laser.

http://www.cavendishscience.org/phys/tyoung/tyoung.htm

Beams are lasers. They are shot through crystals in some experiments to form entanglement.

You're now trying to tell me lasers and crystals have nothing to do with the experiments, you are hilarious.

Where do you think the researchers get the photons? Do they just bull**** it into existence like you're doing with your argument?

Not when quantized. Besides you ignored the part I high lighted explaining particles behavior as waves. But ofcourse you did, it refutes your understanding of waves.

You sir are not thinking at all, infact you haven't even read the info I provided.

If you don't know what elementary particles are, there is no point discussing them with you.

It seemed like you were talking about the wave nature of macro beams. You know lazer beams. QM effects happen after filtering beams down to one particle at a time. Ill look back and see i missed something in your material, but i did not see anything that put it in the realm of QM as opposed to standard physics regarding light.

Back in a sec.

Yup.. You are talking about Lazers and the wave nature of light. It's well known that electromagnetic radiation has amplitude, frequency, refraction, interference... In essence waves of energy. Again, for the last time Rhley these are not quantum effects. It's STANDARD physics regarding radiation. Please note we have been discussing PARTICLE/WAVE duality.... Please not the word "PARTICLE". "SUPERPOSITION", "WAVEFUNCTION", "PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION", "QUANTUM" effects... Tunneling etc.

Yes... Macro phenomenon must be built from the micro. Unfortunately we are unable to discuss the two in the same context because they are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. If you have managed to figure out how to marry the quantum world and it's behavior with well known standard physics, then by all means, I will bow out and let you proceed to your Nobel prize.

Or Mabey after you detect gravitational waves and manage to filter Higgsbosons down to quanta. Many are not even convinced that the discovery at CERN is even responsible for gravity. There may not even be a Higgs. Just some new particle.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually didn't make an assumption, my point being if God was real. Yours is based on your opinion that he isn't and that he is man made.

You said this

If God was real, then he would be everything and everyone and you're mind would not be able to comprehend what he actually is.

I asked why you would assume that if god was real he would be incomprehensible Anythng real is inherently comprehensible given enough data/knowledge about it

No, I dont think god is man made, my knowledge indicates god is physical, real, and a natural sapient evolved entity, emerging from the universe just as we have.

Belief allows us to create any concept of god we like. Physicala encounter forces us to observe, and use logic extarpolation deduction etc. This is still susceptible to misunderstandings and erroneous conclusions, but it allows a process of understanding the nature of a thing more accurately than just creative imagination.

In the case of a real god, whatever we think of him his reality does not depend on this. He is simply what he is and that reality existed, perhaps before humans even evolved self awareness, and continues despite how we perceive him

Unless, of course, he is a creature of quantum nature, in which case the observer effect might even physically alter his state of being.

One thing i know. Gods physical nature is not of fixed form, like our own is at present.

He can alter state from energy form to material form in an instant, I suspect simply by willing it so.

Whether that action of will is carried out like an act of will in our own physiology moves our arm, or whether it uses a technical form, as an act of our will can move a remote mechanical arm, I dont know; and dont have the evidences yet to decide.

I just observe the transformation and its physical effects . For example when an angel appears/materialises in light form, it does not displace any air, but when it appears in physical form, it displaces the volume of air it occupies, causing a slight breeze to be felt. In light form a slight heat radiance will be felt close to the entity. In physical form all normal physical realities apply. eg it will cast a shadow, block your line of vision etc. In both cases its form is visible to any local observer.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seemed like you were talking about the wave nature of macro beams. You know lazer beams. QM effects happen after filtering beams down to one particle at a time. Ill look back and see i missed something in your material, but i did not see anything that put it in the realm of QM as opposed to standard physics regarding light.

Back in a sec.

Yup.. You are talking about Lazers and the wave nature of light. It's well known that electromagnetic radiation has amplitude, frequency, refraction, interference... In essence waves of energy. Again, for the last time Rhley these are not quantum effects. It's STANDARD physics regarding radiation. Please note we have been discussing PARTICLE/WAVE duality....

You're still not paying attention. The double-slit experiment was one of the first experiments to show wave-particle duality of light, it was done with a laser.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

"The double-slit experiment, sometimes called Young's experiment (after Young's interference experiment), is a demonstration that matter and energy can display characteristics of both waves and particles, and demonstrates the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena."

Why don't you just admit you were wrong, it would save you from running around in circles.

Please not the word "PARTICLE". "SUPERPOSITION", "WAVEFUNCTION", "PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION", "QUANTUM" effects... Tunneling etc.
Tell me when you figure out how to read.
Yes... Macro phenomenon must be built from the micro. Unfortunately we are unable to discuss the two in the same context because they are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. If you have managed to figure out how to marry the quantum world and it's behavior with well known standard physics, then by all means, I will bow out and let you proceed to your Nobel prize.

Or Mabey after you detect gravitational waves and manage to filter Higgsbosons down to quanta. Many are not even convinced that the discovery at CERN is even responsible for gravity. There may not even be a Higgs. Just some new particle.

Electrons are no macro.

strawmanargument_zps666a71e1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone if perfectly free to believe absolutely anything they desire because when they enter the afterlife it will all come true. My own personal experience has shown me that there isn't a God in the traditional sense -- no white-bearded gentleman in a white robe who sees all. However the universe Is driven by an all-encompassing intelligence that has created everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

atom- cell, inanimate object- planet- solar system- galaxy- universe- this is the way we think the universe ,the universe being the end of the line, which is infinite in scale but think of it as a number line if u can go one way infinitely than u must be able to go the other just as much so. atom-protons, electrons, neutrons- energy, god matter-?

Ok what if after energy what I believe makes energy is other universes clashing and infusing. Which there are 3 kinds of universes positive neutral and negative

our universe I have no clue to what it is but when two opposite clash they bounce of one another creating energy and when to alike collide they bond making a lager universe like a bubble finding another which is why are universe seems to be growing in size .in turn we are all a part of larger organism are universe is just one many making up an atom

but this is just a theory....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God might not exist. That covers that. God might exist. That opens infinite possibilities. For years I've been trying to think realistically about how God could exist, and here is a list of basic ideas in an attempt to do so:

1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.

2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all

who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what

they call him or what they think about him.

3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do

would be natural for them.

4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he

could not provide proof of his existence because doing

so would change things too much.

5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to

make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning

those particular characteristics to God if he exists.

6. Since disbelief is a form of belief, the degree of faith a

person has that God does not exist is what determines how

strong an atheist he or she is, or is not.

7. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find

it impossible to comprehend the ability of considering the possibility

that God does not exist and also the possibility that he does.

8. People who have put their faith in a belief often/usually find

it impossible to comprehend much less appreciate basic number 2.

9. People who claim to be strong atheists often/usually asburdly

try to deny their own faith that God does not exist...faith which is

a necessary part of being a strong atheist.

10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have

originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.

11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely

beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate

and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic

realistically.

12. We should not allow childlike and unrealistic attempts at comparing

the concept of gods with those of childlike ideas like the tooth fairy,

the Easter Bunny, invisible pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters etc

encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere

with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.

13. If gods exist they would necessarily have to be technologically

advanced far beyond we humans on Earth, to the point that they became

gods.

14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any

particular body, form, or gender. (disclaimer: I refer to God as "he" out

of convenience and because that's how we are encouraged to refer to "him"

in most if not all canonical texts.)

15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence

over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.

16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the evolutionary

method of creation.

17. If there are things which people consider to be spiritual, they are

most likely actually physical in ways we just can't appreciate yet.

i pick # 17 .. but rearranged a little 17. If there are things which people consider to be physical, they are

most likely actually spiritual in ways we just can't appreciate yet. :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I don't think god is man made, my knowledge indicates god is physical, real, and a natural sapient evolved entity, emerging from the universe just as we have.

Are we talking about god as in the god of the bible? If god emerged from the universe just as we have then how did he create light, the stars, us, etc. Or, do you believe that there is an entity God...and stories have been told about him in scriptures, etc.?

I'm not trolling you by the way...just very interested in some things you have said.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we talking about god as in the god of the bible? If god emerged from the universe just as we have then how did he create light, the stars, us, etc. Or, do you believe that there is an entity God...and stories have been told about him in scriptures, etc.?

I'm not trolling you by the way...just very interested in some things you have said. :)

IMO the god of the bible is one of humanity's construction or interpretations of god as many people from those times encountered him My encounters with god are strikingly similar to theirs, but coming from this age i interpret them differently. I am aware of the nature of energy and matter and the ability to move between those states.

I have a pretty good idea of the age and size of our universe and its evolved nature up to and including the formation of our earth and evolutionary history on our planet. Apart from this academic knowledge. I have travelled much of the local part of our universe via the network of consciousness within "god' and even passed through the discontinuity at the centre of our galaxy into a universe beyond our own. Thus i have to reconcile what i know and wha t i have experienced.

Luckily this is easy because all i experienced was later confirmed by scientific discoveries, although the actual communication and transport systems have not yet been stumbled upon in our limited exploration of space so far.

Earlier peoples interpreted god to be omnisicent, omnipotent, and the creator of all. But in the real universe bounded by current knowledge and understandings, all those thngs are impossible, and contradictory to quite well understood science.

God is very real, very powerful, and quite interactive with human kind. I know this from personal experience. Thus "god" to me must fit those realities. I dont have the luxury of believing in or constructing an entity which cannot exist in the real known universe. I have to interpet god as i find him using the realities and skill which exist.

I know a god which can foresee and warn me of potential futures, and help me to alter those futures to create more positive outcomes. Who protects me and saves me from harm, who teaches me mentors, me talks with me, gives me audio visual lessons in life, and exists with me, inside my mind/body, and all around me in the universe.

Whose presence enables me to extend my consciousnes out to other people and to other places and across time.

Who empowers me physically and psychologically in small and in important ways. Who can help me regulate pain, physiological responses to environmental conditions, physical health, emotional wellness. who can hep me never become depressed lonely, angry, sad, envious etc., but always energised filled with life joy love compassion etc and alwyas connected to god the environment and humanity. . Who performs physical miracles of transformation in me and around me, healing me and pushing aside physical dangers to me. Who does little things like making sure i always find a car park and money materialises when i need it to help other people.

This is the nature of my life, and i live it just as everyone lives their own. God has been interacting with humanity ever since humanity evolved the abilty to recognise the concept and influence of god.

God is just a name we use to categorise this entity. I prefer the term "cosmic consciousness", but most people dont have a clue what that is, and it doesnt fully express the physical side of god.

But the cosmic consciousness is the medium by which we become aware of god, and through which we connect to and communicate with god.

The energy force of god is known to christians as the holy spirit. It is a real and powerful physical force which, directed by the consciousness of god, is capable of creating physical 'miracles"

God made manifest in humanity is characterised in jesus christ.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone if perfectly free to believe absolutely anything they desire because when they enter the afterlife it will all come true. My own personal experience has shown me that there isn't a God in the traditional sense -- no white-bearded gentleman in a white robe who sees all. However the universe Is driven by an all-encompassing intelligence that has created everything.

What is the difference between a 'god' and an 'all-encompassing intelligence'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're still not paying attention. The double-slit experiment was one of the first experiments to show wave-particle duality of light, it was done with a laser.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

"The double-slit experiment, sometimes called Young's experiment (after Young's interference experiment), is a demonstration that matter and energy can display characteristics of both waves and particles, and demonstrates the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena."

Why don't you just admit you were wrong, it would save you from running around in circles.

Tell me when you figure out how to read.

Electrons are no macro.

strawmanargument_zps666a71e1.jpg

The double slit is not a quantum experiment until they added the filters... Do you get it. There is no indication of uncertainty until you start to try to pin down particles.....I don't even get what you are arguing about anymore seriously. There is plenty of interference with electromagnetic radiation from light to radio waves. It was well known prior to the double slit the wave nature of light. Yet again, it's only when we shoot one particle at a time do things get strange. I don't know how to more clear than that brother do I need to post mr. Quantum yet again. I don't even know how to relate it back to the topic of this thread so let's just stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The double slit is not a quantum experiment until they added the filters... Do you get it. There is no indication of uncertainty until you start to try to pin down particles.....I don't even get what you are arguing about anymore seriously. There is plenty of interference with electromagnetic radiation from light to radio waves. It was well known prior to the double slit the wave nature of light. Yet again, it's only when we shoot one particle at a time do things get strange. I don't know how to more clear than that brother do I need to post mr. Quantum yet again. I don't even know how to relate it back to the topic of this thread so let's just stop.

I can't tell if you're trying to save face, or you're just daft.

The material I gave you was on wave-particle duality, this was as plain as day, hell the scientific sources had Wave-Particle duality bolded across the title and yet you still came to the conclusion it had nothing to do with wave-particle duality. WTF?!

BTW Wave-particle duality applies to all particles and even macro objects. However macro objects tend to have small wavelengths, smaller than plank length but anyway they were not the discussion (until you came a long with your straw man).

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/03/particle-wave-duality-physics/

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bush/PNAS-2010-Bush.pdf

https://hekla.ipgp.fr/IMG/pdf/Couder-Fort_PRL_2006.pdf

Until you learn to read, I'm not going to discuss this with someone who has the comprehension skills of a brick wall.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.