Conquer Club

Post Any Evidence For God Here

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby crispybits on Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:11 am

Gillipig wrote:
macbone wrote:Evidence: My wife. Thank you, God. =)


You're clearly not being objective here. What about the 3.5 billion men who doesn't have your wife for themselves? If there was a god we'd all have macbone's wife!


I thought we all have had macbone's wife?

(sorry macbone - nothing personal there, could have been anyone and purely meant as juvenile humour)
Last edited by crispybits on Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby Metsfanmax on Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:53 am

crispybits wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:Quoting from my copy of Carroll and Ostlie's "Introduction to Modern Astrophysics" (which is the most commonly used senior undergraduate/graduate astrophysics textbook),

"Our current physical theories break down at times earlier than [the Planck time], and in fact the very notion of space and time as separate concepts dissolves before the Planck time. A quantum theory of gravity capable of describing this convoluted arena in which space and time have lost their familiar, separate identities has yet to be invented. After the Planck time, spacetime began to take on a more coherent structure as greater portions of it became causally connected. Exactly how time itself emerged from the Big Bang is a question to be pondered by physicists and philosophers alike."


So now you're saying that modern science says that the universe was in an acausal state in the planck time. This after arguing vehemently that we couldn't go from the acausal to the causal and this is why my theory was so flawed.


Perhaps you should read the paragraph directly under that quote, where I explain what they mean by "causally connected."
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby crispybits on Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:07 am

And perhaps you should read the two paragraphs I wrote under mine, where I explain my position - again!
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby Metsfanmax on Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:19 am

crispybits wrote:And perhaps you should read the two paragraphs I wrote under mine, where I explain my position - again!


I no longer care about your position. I'm only sticking around to offer commentary on the known science. If you would like me to clarify what we mean by causality in physics, and what the issues are there, I'll engage that.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby crispybits on Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:31 am

Sure thing then, you said "the fastest signal is the speed of light as far as we know", so you fall to your own arguments about assuming we can know these kinds of things for sure and making assumptions about putting things in concrete based on limited knowledge. I could easily imagine that some sort of signal could travel faster than the speed of light, and to me this seems more reasonable than "time outside of nature" or "rules without anything to regulate" or your submissions. So by your own arguments about assuming the unknowable, your own definition of causality that you introduce in this post fails. Seeing as this is the accepted view, would you say that science fails or that your objections of my premise earlier fail?
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby tzor on Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:44 am

crispybits wrote:Sure thing then, you said "the fastest signal is the speed of light as far as we know", so you fall to your own arguments about assuming we can know these kinds of things for sure and making assumptions about putting things in concrete based on limited knowledge. I could easily imagine that some sort of signal could travel faster than the speed of light, and to me this seems more reasonable than "time outside of nature" or "rules without anything to regulate" or your submissions.


Lots of people can imagine lots of things; if they are ignorant enough. I can imagine both a TARDIS and a Flux Capacitor. Our imaginations both have the same effect. That part of relativity which has been verified places consequences on any information transformation faster than the speed of light (basically the actual constant that binds space and time together as dimensions). The result is the elimination of causality from the relativistic spacetime framework.

Simply put if objects can travel faster than light, then events could appear to be in one order to one observer and in the opposite order to another observer.

And since this whole conversation has been linked to the question of causality; that sort of puts us at square ZERO.

There once was a lady so bright,
She could travel much faster than light.
She took off, one day,
In a relative way,
And came back on the previous night.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby Metsfanmax on Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:46 am

crispybits wrote:Sure thing then, you said "the fastest signal is the speed of light as far as we know",


I figured I might get into trouble with that comment. A more precise thing to say is that the speed of light is the fastest possible signal speed, according to general relativity. Information cannot be propagated faster than this speed, according to conventional wisdom. Now, the whole issue with the Big Bang is that general relativity starts to break down at very high densities, so we can no longer really say whether this limit still holds at the earliest times in our universe, or whatever happened before the universe. But what's interesting is that we have already seen that quantum mechanics allows for an "action at a distance," of a sort, where in some sense you can act on a particle in one location and instantaneously affect what happens to a particle somewhere else, without any communication between the two particles. This is the type of causality that probably still holds in the earliest times of the universe -- particles are connected because their quantum wave-functions overlap. It's not the same thing as logically acausal, where there is simply no relationship governing what nearby particles do.

So, what Carroll and Ostlie meant in that sentence you underlined is that there are currently parts of the universe that cannot ever have exchanged information with each other, due to the finite speed of light. This is true today, and it was true in the Big Bang too. The universe is nevertheless locally causal, even if distant parts of it have never interacted with each other in the classical sense.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby tzor on Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:01 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:But what's interesting is that we have already seen that quantum mechanics allows for an "action at a distance," of a sort, where in some sense you can act on a particle in one location and instantaneously affect what happens to a particle somewhere else, without any communication between the two particles. This is the type of causality that probably still holds in the earliest times of the universe -- particles are connected because their quantum wave-functions overlap. It's not the same thing as logically acausal, where there is simply no relationship governing what nearby particles do.


This is true but there is an odd property of quantum mechanics; basically you can actually break the rules if you don't get caught. "Action at a distance" is one good example because even though a particle can effect a particle at what appears to be an information transfer at beyond the speed of light you can't actally prove the cause / effect relation (without a verification information transfer at the speed of light or below) because it is impossible to determine if the particle had a random state change or if the state change was the result of the other particle whose state is not known to the obsever at that point in time. In other words, we can get away with it because the information gets completely lost in the quantum noise.

Also note that technically speaking, on the particle level, time travel exists. One common explanation for an anti-particle is a particle traveling bckwards in time. So causality at the quantum level can, on occasion, vanish. I'm not sure if you can treat a boson in a similiar manner, going both fowarard and backward in time at the same time, but I'm pretty sure that is also a logical extension of the idea.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby Metsfanmax on Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:19 pm

tzor wrote:This is true but there is an odd property of quantum mechanics; basically you can actually break the rules if you don't get caught. "Action at a distance" is one good example because even though a particle can effect a particle at what appears to be an information transfer at beyond the speed of light you can't actally prove the cause / effect relation (without a verification information transfer at the speed of light or below) because it is impossible to determine if the particle had a random state change or if the state change was the result of the other particle whose state is not known to the obsever at that point in time. In other words, we can get away with it because the information gets completely lost in the quantum noise.


This may be true in practice, but it says nothing fundamental. If you could isolate your two particles in an entanglement experiment, then a measurement you make on one particle instantly informs what another person measuring the other particle would measure. The idea of a "verification information transfer" is a red herring, because you could simply agree beforehand what experiment you were doing, and at what time.

Also note that technically speaking, on the particle level, time travel exists. One common explanation for an anti-particle is a particle traveling bckwards in time. So causality at the quantum level can, on occasion, vanish. I'm not sure if you can treat a boson in a similiar manner, going both fowarard and backward in time at the same time, but I'm pretty sure that is also a logical extension of the idea.


That "explanation" for an anti-particle is a mathematical artifice used in calculations of scattering amplitudes and decay lifetimes; it is not an actual explanation of how an anti-particle travels. This is one of the pitfalls of taking Feynman diagrams too literally. Quantum theory has basically shown us that it is meaningless to think of macroscopic causality on the particle level. Time just means something different at small scales.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby tzor on Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:29 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:That "explanation" for an anti-particle is a mathematical artifice used in calculations of scattering amplitudes and decay lifetimes; it is not an actual explanation of how an anti-particle travels. This is one of the pitfalls of taking Feynman diagrams too literally. Quantum theory has basically shown us that it is meaningless to think of macroscopic causality on the particle level. Time just means something different at small scales.


I thought it was also key in understanding Hawkings radiation, although I could be wrong. (Antimatter does not radiate out of a black hole, but travels backwards in time into the black hole. Thus while the black hole looses mass over time, nothing techically "escaped" it and therefore it remains a pure information sink.)
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby crispybits on Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:32 pm

So every definition (bar quantum entanglement) of how causality works and how things are causally related is based on space and time and the speed of light then? And even qantum entanglement till relies on real, natural particles that were bound together in the first few plancks of the universe? There is no theory of causality that works purely theoretically without these structures to work within?
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby Gillipig on Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:40 pm

crispybits wrote:
Gillipig wrote:
macbone wrote:Evidence: My wife. Thank you, God. =)


You're clearly not being objective here. What about the 3.499999 billion men who doesn't have your wife for themselves? If there was a god we'd all have macbone's wife!


I thought we all have had macbone's wife?

(sorry macbone - nothing personal there, could have been anyone and purely meant as juvenile humour)


Fixed
AoG for President of the World!!
I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!
User avatar
Lieutenant Gillipig
 
Posts: 3565
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:24 pm

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby Metsfanmax on Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:41 pm

tzor wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:That "explanation" for an anti-particle is a mathematical artifice used in calculations of scattering amplitudes and decay lifetimes; it is not an actual explanation of how an anti-particle travels. This is one of the pitfalls of taking Feynman diagrams too literally. Quantum theory has basically shown us that it is meaningless to think of macroscopic causality on the particle level. Time just means something different at small scales.


I thought it was also key in understanding Hawkings radiation, although I could be wrong. (Antimatter does not radiate out of a black hole, but travels backwards in time into the black hole. Thus while the black hole looses mass over time, nothing techically "escaped" it and therefore it remains a pure information sink.)


Actually, in Hawking radiation, either antimatter or matter could be the one that "survives" on the outside of the black hole and escapes. In order for energy conservation to hold, one particle has to have positive energy while the other has negative energy, and sometimes people mistakenly assume that the "negative energy" state corresponds to an antiparticle. But that's not necessarily the case.

crispybits wrote:So every definition (bar quantum entanglement) of how causality works and how things are causally related is based on space and time and the speed of light then? And even qantum entanglement till relies on real, natural particles that were bound together in the first few plancks of the universe? There is no theory of causality that works purely theoretically without these structures to work within?


All that would be fair to say is that when physicists describe causality in relativity as it applies to the local universe, it means that interactions between two events cannot have taken place if the events were separated by a greater distance than light could have traveled in the time between the two events. We do not yet know how to construct causality at a time when this was not true, or even whether it makes sense to talk about this type of causality at such a time.

But that is not the only meaning of causality in physics. For example, people commonly talk about the "arrow of time" of the universe, which clearly distinguishes a "past" from a "future." That may be the type of causality that is most relevant to metaphysical discussions. It sweeps under the rug any of the messy microscopic phenomena, and talks in more general terms.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby crispybits on Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:51 pm

OK thanks for your time Metsfan.

Now onto something entirely different and not scientific that we won't be needing your expert assistance on:

Viceroy63 wrote:If we say that the Universe "already exists," then there was something to create the cause for the "Big Bang." But if by nothing we mean nothing at all then there is no cause or causality for the Universe. Except of course for a Creator God who exist outside of everything and consist of nothing except spirit/thought. Pure mind/thought, no substance. Substance as we know it anyway.

It was Einstein who equated that all things in the Universe as being related to each other and that one can not be without the other. So then Space, time and matter all need each other in order to be. To exist. That everything is relative. Including what appears to us as empty space.

Today other scientist are building on that in ways that Einstein did not imagine at the time. For example scientist now believe that empty space is not empty at all but filled up with things that we can't see and all kinds of activities. When I use the words, "nothing existed," I mean nothing at all!


So Viceroy, let's do a thought experiment....
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

A Scientist speaks on God

Postby Viceroy63 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:40 pm

I'm down with a thought experiment but first let me just post this...

A great man of science who many consider an atheist because naturally to believe in a Creator God is not science at all???

Yet all the universe shows us the hand of God! From the vast and for ever expanding Universe in which we live to the smallest of particle in Quantum Mechanics we see Gods signature spelled out all over it. And Yet the Belief of a Creator God is not scientific.

Everyone has forgotten that the first Scientist were actually believers in a Creator God and that the "Scientific Method," of Examining, forming hypothesis and testing that to see if it holds true, that this is a Biblically base method of doing things. Yet belief in a Creator God is not considered Science???

Yet this great man of science is also a believer in a Creator God.

Go figure?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=0iX ... =endscreen
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: A little back water, hill billy hick place called Earth.

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby crispybits on Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:58 pm

Ignore me Viceroy, that post was pretty much to Mets - I wouldn't want to risk another 5 pages of trolling by even attempting it for a second time.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby jonesthecurl on Sat Dec 08, 2012 3:18 pm

tzor wrote:
crispybits wrote:Sure thing then, you said "the fastest signal is the speed of light as far as we know", so you fall to your own arguments about assuming we can know these kinds of things for sure and making assumptions about putting things in concrete based on limited knowledge. I could easily imagine that some sort of signal could travel faster than the speed of light, and to me this seems more reasonable than "time outside of nature" or "rules without anything to regulate" or your submissions.


Lots of people can imagine lots of things; if they are ignorant enough. I can imagine both a TARDIS and a Flux Capacitor. Our imaginations both have the same effect. That part of relativity which has been verified places consequences on any information transformation faster than the speed of light (basically the actual constant that binds space and time together as dimensions). The result is the elimination of causality from the relativistic spacetime framework.

Simply put if objects can travel faster than light, then events could appear to be in one order to one observer and in the opposite order to another observer.

And since this whole conversation has been linked to the question of causality; that sort of puts us at square ZERO.

There once was a lady so bright,
She could travel much faster than light.
She took off, one day,
In a relative way,
And came back on the previous night.


There once was a poster called Tzor,
whose informative blurb had a flaw:
I can see that he's clever.
Even so I would never
read his stuff because he's such a bore.
instagram.com/garethjohnjoneswrites
User avatar
Lieutenant jonesthecurl
 
Posts: 4442
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Location: disused action figure warehouse

Re: A Scientist speaks on God

Postby jonesthecurl on Sat Dec 08, 2012 3:22 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:
Go figure?


This old chestnut again? Einstein the theist?
Try this one...

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954


Now you go figure.
instagram.com/garethjohnjoneswrites
User avatar
Lieutenant jonesthecurl
 
Posts: 4442
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Location: disused action figure warehouse

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby john9blue on Sat Dec 08, 2012 3:25 pm

newton was a skytheist moron
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby jonesthecurl on Sat Dec 08, 2012 3:44 pm

...or try this one...
Albert Einstein said:
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
instagram.com/garethjohnjoneswrites
User avatar
Lieutenant jonesthecurl
 
Posts: 4442
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Location: disused action figure warehouse

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby tzor on Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:15 pm

jonesthecurl wrote:
tzor wrote:There once was a lady so bright,
She could travel much faster than light.
She took off, one day,
In a relative way,
And came back on the previous night.


There once was a poster called Tzor,
whose informative blurb had a flaw:
I can see that he's clever.
Even so I would never
read his stuff because he's such a bore.


The poster was named jonesthecurl,
His limmericks prompt me to hurl,
A swift epithet,
That I'd soon regret,
But, what the hey, I'll give it a whirl!
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby jonesthecurl on Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:28 pm

So you're up for a limerick fight?
You really can't be all that bright.
I can do this all day
And I do have to say
That your ones are pretty much shite.
instagram.com/garethjohnjoneswrites
User avatar
Lieutenant jonesthecurl
 
Posts: 4442
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Location: disused action figure warehouse

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby crispybits on Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:32 pm

I wish I had one great big bag
Of popcorn so that I could have
A seat on the side
And watch limerick fights
Even though mine don't rhyme very well... :lol:
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby Viceroy63 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:28 pm

jonesthecurl wrote:...or try this one...
Albert Einstein said:
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.


This is a different video.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CicIBDD2PNs

And BTW: I was not trying to avoid you before but you ask me questions and never wanted to answer mines. So if you ignore my questions, then why shouldn't I ignore yours?
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: A little back water, hill billy hick place called Earth.

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby jonesthecurl on Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:43 pm

And BTW: I was not trying to avoid you before but you ask me questions and never wanted to answer mines. So if you ignore my questions, then why shouldn't I ignore yours?


I asked first.
We need to know what authority you're quoting for your very important assertations before we can go anywhere.
If you just meant "it is obvious that..."
or "My opinion is..."
then you shouldn't be making lazy appeals to spurious authority.
instagram.com/garethjohnjoneswrites
User avatar
Lieutenant jonesthecurl
 
Posts: 4442
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Location: disused action figure warehouse

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users