Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
WongFeiHung

There is no god!

1,104 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Ourmoonlitsun

Im not trying to challenge the concept of gravity at all. Im trying to point out that we can see gravity because of the definition of gravity.

The definition of gravity (choose anyone you wish) states that there is a "force" or "attraction" between two objects (actually it occurs between way more, but for simplicity...). That is the key to the definition. That force exists whether I am standing on the floor or falling to it. Gravity does not just happen when something falls toward the Earth. And if you state you can "see" gravity, one could claim they see the "force" of God in all things becuse the definition of God allows for it/him/her/they to be all encompassing and broad. I was just pointing out that there is a difference in that one is testable. I believe we are arguing from the same side, anyhow.

Edited by Ourmoonlitsun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seraphina

Funnily enough, gravity hasn't ever actually made it into the realm of fact...since it's not falsifiable. As our old friend Aquatus, if he's ever around anymore (the man was a friggin' encylopedia) would be happy to tell us, one of the fundementals for a concept graduating from theory to concrete fact was that it had to be falsifiable...so that, in attempting to falsify it and fail, we could be certain that it was there.

It's one of the many things that make me laugh when religious people scream "evolution is just a theory!"...well...so's gravity. Let's stop believing in it too :P Or...wait...uh...actually, let's not, that would be stupid :P

But anyway, I'm sorry, carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big cheese

Ok we cant see gravity as a physical entity only its effect but we could say the same about heat or any variation in temperature even the fact that at any given moment the atoms that make up every human on the planet don’t suddenly fly apart is an effect of an apparently invisible force

But going back to gravity sure we only know it by its definition words and labels to define a measurable effect but is it so easy to define god or even witness his/hers/it/whatever’s, effect with any degree of creditability

To me its simple its cause and effect ,to attribute the unknown to god to me just seems a cop out sure I have faith I have faith in mankind in invention in the pursuit to better myself but I don’t need religion to give me or the world purpose which seems to be the case and a need for may belevers

On a side note iv just seen that in some state in the usa theve just opened a creationist museum depicting homo sapiens co existing with dinosaurs in some sort of bizarre flint stones esk world (only 6 thousand years old apparently) forgetting all the science for a moment and discarding that no human remains have ever been found in the same strata as a dinosaur can they really be serious surely they cant be teaching this to kids if so we have no hope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne

yes they can. Do not confuse them with your facts or logic, their minds are already made up.

Years ago, I was working a part time job as a watchman, and on a weekend I happened to be reading an archealogoy book that covered a period from about 5000bce forward. A truck driver asked to use the desk phone, saw the cover of the book and asked, in a southern twang "how far back does that book go?" I told him "About 5,000 BCE" To which he replied: "Yep, thats as far back as it goes. T'ain't nothing beyond that"

I looked him in the eye, and said nothing. Absolutely nothing. He finished his call and left the building. I often wonder what he would have said if the book was covering the period from 5,000bce BACK......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

The definition of gravity (choose anyone you wish) states that there is a "force" or "attraction" between two objects (actually it occurs between way more, but for simplicity...). That is the key to the definition. That force exists whether I am standing on the floor or falling to it.

And we see that attraction when we drop a book.

Gravity does not just happen when something falls toward the Earth.

I didnt claim it did just happen when something falls towards the Earth.

And if you state you can "see" gravity, one could claim they see the "force" of God in all things becuse the definition of God allows for it/him/her/they to be all encompassing and broad.

The difference is that a church is not god. The attraction exerted on the book, bringing it down to the ground, however, is gravity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guardsman Bass

I was trying to explain it in a way so that everybody could understand. But if you really want to challange the concept of gravity, we can in another forum. I was a physics major. Gravity is still not fully understood, Stellar. You cannot "see" gravity. No one knows why gravity works as it does, they only know that it works AS it does.

Didn't they teach about General Relativity when you where a physics major? Gravity, as it is currently known, is the warping of space-time by mass-energy. Although we are still not sure how gravity might be fused with Quantum Mechanics, that basic bit I just mentioned has been tested scientifically.

On a sidenote, the mod really ought to close this thread sometime soon. It is so long and unwieldy that simply reading it to catch up takes hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android
The difference is that a church is not god. The attraction exerted on the book, bringing it down to the ground, however, is gravity.

Your reasoning makes little sense. By this statement of yours, you should rather say that the book is gravity.

A church may not be God, a tree may not be God, a newborn baby may not be God..... but is there an unseen force called God surrounding it?

Just a thought.

On a sidenote, the mod really ought to close this thread sometime soon. It is so long and unwieldy that simply reading it to catch up takes hours.

:lol: That's new. Locking a topic because it is too successful

Regards, PA

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShaunZero

Your reasoning makes little sense. By this statement of yours, you should rather say that the book is gravity.

A church may not be God, a tree may not be God, a newborn baby may not be God..... but is there an unseen force called God surrounding it?

Just a thought.

:lol: That's new. Locking a topic because it is too successful

Regards, PA

All this talk about 2 guys kissing is getting me hot! :)

I think he was just saying that by seeing the book fall you're seeing gravity, as gravity is the force that pulls the book to the ground. Somethin like that XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hyperactive

why do i feel the urge to post the following?

The Illusion of Gravity

The force of gravity and one of the dimensions of space might be generated out of the peculiar interactions of particles and fields existing in a lower-dimensional realm

By Juan Maldacena

Three spatial dimensions are visible all around us--up/down, left/right, forward/backward. Add time to the mix, and the result is a four-dimensional blending of space and time known as spacetime. Thus, we live in a four-dimensional universe. Or do we?

Amazingly, some new theories of physics predict that one of the three dimensions of space could be a kind of an illusion--that in actuality all the particles and fields that make up reality are moving about in a two-dimensional realm like the Flatland of Edwin A. Abbott. Gravity, too, would be part of the illusion: a force that is not present in the two-dimensional world but that materializes along with the emergence of the illusory third dimension....continued at Scientific American Digital

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShaunZero

We can't even proove that their are other dimensions though. O_o

From what I hear anyway.

Edited by ZeroShadow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hyperactive

the reason i posted the above to to highlight the commonality between gravity and gods.

gravity may well be an illusion, just like gods are an illusion.

there is more support for gravity and dimensions than there has ever been for any of the varieties of 'gods'. If you are applying an unbiased evaluation to all things, you would recognize that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShaunZero

I'm just simply saying that you can't proove there are other dimensions so to use that as an explaination of certain things would be wrong. =P

Can I see proof of other dimensions? Just a quick link.

Edited by ZeroShadow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hyperactive

the theory i posted suggests there are less dimensions, not more, so we already have proof of the dimensions it postulates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android
I think he was just saying that by seeing the book fall you're seeing gravity, as gravity is the force that pulls the book to the ground. Somethin like that XD

I know what he was saying, and it makes sense.

His reasoning to get to that conclusion was flawed though, and following the same reasoning got me to my conclusion.

Regards, PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
isis-999

What proof do you offer that he is not real.... :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hyperactive

What proof do you offer that he is not real.... :innocent:

and what proof do you have of 'him' (outside of your own head, that is)....

thus gods are a construct, and illusion, a misunderstanding, a product of the pineal gland, but not any more real than a dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShaunZero

and what proof do you have of 'him' (outside of your own head, that is)....

thus gods are a construct, and illusion, a misunderstanding, a product of the pineal gland, but not any more real than a dream.

So is the big bang. =)

A theory with holes is in my opinion not correct.

Edited by ZeroShadow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hyperactive

well, if a theory with holes is not correct then you should throw out that bible! :tu::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ourmoonlitsun

Didn't they teach about General Relativity when you where a physics major? Gravity, as it is currently known, is the warping of space-time by mass-energy. Although we are still not sure how gravity might be fused with Quantum Mechanics, that basic bit I just mentioned has been tested scientifically.

I'm not sure what your post is even trying to imply. It didn't refute one thing I said. And what about General Theory of Relativity would you like to know? The warping of space-time by energy-mass, while tested, is still only a model to explain the effects of gravity. Quantum mechanics can be tested and proven as well, yet the two theories do not work togethor. Or were you not aware of that?

Do I need to teach a lesson here? Look, when something falls to the ground does everybody seriously say "Oh, THAT's gravity." Only when things fall "THAT's gravity." When things are not falling, though... "Nope, no gravity here." Give me a break. The gravitional force is still present, but you can only see the EFFECTS of that force when certain things occur i.e. a book dropping.

I'm trying to not get into anything too extreme because I think this isn't the forum for it, but if someone really wants to start talking about spin, singularities, Planck's Constant, Schroedinger, sum-over-histories and what-not then I'm all for it. My whole original point is that the effects of gravity are testable; the effects of God (so as to make sure this post is not off topic :D ) are not... in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seraphina
We can't even proove that their are other dimensions though. O_o

I'm afraid I don't actually believe in the theory of alternative dimensions either, for the simple reason that every transaction in the universe requires energy...if we take the example of quantum universes, for example, we are to conclude that, for every single possible outcome for any given event, a new universe is created where that possibility DOES occur.

If that's true, then each individual universe would be producing new universes at a rate of billions every nanosecond. Where on earth would all the energy be coming from to "create" these new universes? Our universe alone was only created by a truly titanic erruption of energy.

It's much the same reason I don't believe in god actually...well...among the reasons I don't believe in god. Same principle. In the same way an elephant needs to consume more energy than we do every day to stay alive, imagine the kind of energy source an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent being would be using up...there'd be none left :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

well, if a theory with holes is not correct then you should throw out that bible! :tu::lol:

:tu::wub: Hyper namaste Sheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Radioactive Man

And the endless debate continues...ha ha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guardsman Bass

I'm not sure what your post is even trying to imply. It didn't refute one thing I said. And what about General Theory of Relativity would you like to know? The warping of space-time by energy-mass, while tested, is still only a model to explain the effects of gravity. Quantum mechanics can be tested and proven as well, yet the two theories do not work togethor. Or were you not aware of that?

I responded to your post that basically said that we didn't know what gravity is. I was pointing out that the warping of space-time is the best existing model (that I know of) for explaining what gravity actually is, since it has been tested and experimentally is correct.

I thought my post was pretty clear that we have yet to find a way to merge Quantum Mechanics with gravity under General Relativity. Why did you think I said otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ourmoonlitsun

I was pointing out that the warping of space-time is the best existing model (that I know of) for explaining what gravity actually is, since it has been tested and experimentally is correct.

I thought my post was pretty clear that we have yet to find a way to merge Quantum Mechanics with gravity under General Relativity. Why did you think I said otherwise?

Are you implying quantum mechaincs is flawed because it does not incorporate "gravity under General Relativity"...? I'm sorry, I realize that science notices effects in the universe and creates models to explain those effects. The models are tested and called "true" even if they clash with another model that is called "true"... such as is the case with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. And you are right: I basically said that we still don't fully understand gravity. I hope this doesn't sound mean, but if you really do, perhaps I could see your thesis or paper. It would have to tie in with Quantum Mechanics because the reality is that the world functions by the pecularities in the quantum world. You realize General Theory of Relativity does not cover the Strong and Weak Forces, right? :huh: I hope this isn't coming off as being combatitive, because I'm not trying to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedX

Man this is one long topic. The mods need to drop this and start a new one. :blink:

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.