[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 176 KB, 1024x768, BorgCube.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2907579 No.2907579 [Reply] [Original]

Consider myself atheist/agnostic until last night. Sitting around think about which is harder to believe...that a God exists from nowhere and made us OR we came from nothing.

Then i started thinking about non GOD creation scenarios.....
Chain of thought"
1. Matter can neither be created or destroyed
2. Then who was phone and where did all the shit in space come from.
3. The fact matter can't be created or destroyed means matter has always been here... -infinity to infinity.

Isn't that as much a stretch of the imagination as the existance of a God (Not necessarily man's version of God)?

Believe in a higher power now...
still feel indifferent though.

I know people say matter came from the condensed energy during big bang...but that had to always exist too.... SO both theories are equally a stretch of the imagination

>> No.2907588

False dichotomy, thank you and good night.

>> No.2907595

>came from nothing
Who or what gave you that intellectually bankrupt idea?

>> No.2907612

Sage

>> No.2907615

>>2907595
well what THEORY do you have on it then? Is it true that matter can't be created or destroyed?
If it is true then matter/energy has always existed. How does something always exist?

It turns into a philisophical idea at that point?

>> No.2907622

>>2907612
Why do you want to Sage? You sound like a religious person who just says "I have faith so it's true" anytime you try and discuss something with them...no answers just the trusty fallback of "faith". you fail

>> No.2907624

>>2907588

ziiiing!

>> No.2907635

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ15kFvUyJg&feature=related

Just watched that ass it was posted on a different thread. I suggest you watch it OP.

>> No.2907637

So instead of any discussion....you just blindly take what is told you without thinking it through? Sage because you have no answer? Wow...alot more in common with religious zealots than you thought.

>> No.2907639

what makes more sense a 2000+ year old theory to explain what we didnt know/understand or modern theories that use fact to explain wha thtey just guessed/made up?

>> No.2907643

We are all gods, we have the power to change life in to what we want, we have an effect on millions of other people, and the only thing truly holding us back is ourselves. Unfortunately, for us to be able to act as Gods, we need to know that we are Gods, therefore.

>> No.2907644

>>2907635
Will do...thanks for a contribution at least.... I'm really trying to tie it together in my head.

>> No.2907645

>1. Matter can neither be created or destroyed

Your argument shatters at step 1.

The time before the Big Bang, which is a misnomer because there's no such thing as "time" then, is a singularity. There's no rules saying matter cannot be spontaneously created then.

>> No.2907647

>>2907639
Not saying that Man's theory of God is correct...but maybe...that it has some Merit on being close to the truth. a larger entity shapes everything...

>> No.2907649

>>2907579

The argument collapses in on itself when you realize that if a god exists, something had to create him, or he himself is infinite.

This is no less viable than the idea that our entire universe is infinite.

Moreover, instead of thinking of your version of the universe, energy, and god as something moving linear in time from creation to destruction , think of it as a loop. Makes a lot more sense as a closed system.

To blow your mind more, think of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY_ZgAvXsuw

*IF a god exists, maybe he just accidentally plucked an 11th dimensional string...

Assuming gods existence, there is a good possibility hes not even aware of our existence or doesn't give a shit. We're probably the result of a sneeze.

>> No.2907652

>>2907645
this
>There's no rules saying matter cannot be spontaneously created then.

There's your answer! matter can pop out of nowhere if equal antimatter is created

It is just like scales: you can't disturb the balance, but you can add the same mass to both sides!

>> No.2907661

Atheism and religion aren’t polar opposites. They are different axes that frequently correlate, like race and nationality.

>> No.2907664

>>2907645
SO...to validate a theory...everyone just says "well the rules didn't apply then"...sounds a little too convenient. Saying Matter just appeared during this singularity is just as farfetched (In my mind- not trying to be absolute) as saying something created it out of nothing...

My basic point is there is alot of hostility between Religion and Science people when it basiclly is the same thing with just some philisophical difference. Both takes an acceptance without solid proof. You can quote theories (From others work) all you want...but you will never be able to prove it.

>> No.2907665

sage gtfo

>> No.2907667

To address your very first hypothetical, I'll try to explain it as Neil Tyson does.

The most abundant elements in the universe, in descending order, are:
Hydrogen
Helium
Oxygen
Carbon
Nitrogen

The most common elements found in our body, in descending order, are:
Hydrogen
Not Helium (Chemically inert)
Oxygen
Carbon
Nitrogen

Life is an inevitable consequence of complex chemistry, and indeed it would be most ignorant to assume that we are some improbable and unique occurrence.

>> No.2907670

>>2907579
This stuff has nothing to do in /sci/, please movie it to /x/.

>> No.2907671

>>2907615
No. Look into quantum mechanics. Pair production of muons is probabilistically skewed toward matter creation. Using that as a basis, the big bang was not the origin of space or time, but rather the end result of the largest star ever, made of the smallest possible particles. This also explains the temperature of the universe and background radiation spread following the lines one might expect from a super nova. This also explains the infinite size (or much larger than expected from a big bang model) as recently confirmed.

>> No.2907672

>>2907649

>Assuming gods existence, there is a good possibility hes not even aware of our existence or doesn't give a shit. We're probably the result of a sneeze.

You're my new hero.

>> No.2907677
File: 95 KB, 799x600, 1302471534635.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2907677

>OR we came from nothing

>> No.2907676

>>2907579
the best you can say about that is "i don't know how that happened" and realize that it is a human tendency to ascribe intent to unknown phenomena.

pretty much the definition of agnosticism right there.

>> No.2907684

Why assume that the energy in the universe needs to be created?

>> No.2907691

>>2907579

god is the worst ad-hoc hypothesis of them all. Its unfalsifiable, there is no evidence for it and it has no explanatory power. It is a band-aid for your ignorance.

>> No.2907699

>Atheist VS religion want some serious discussion
>this is not a troll thread like every other atheist vs religion thread
>i am not a troll
sure thing, troll

atheism vs religion isn't science, gtfo

>> No.2907707

>>2907664

You're assuming that religion and science don't cross often.

This is a straight fucking lie. Stop watching main media outlets for your views on the world.

Believe it or not, science crosses with religion a lot and this is WELL KNOWN. I've heard many interviews and discussions with relgious theist scientists, the vatican has an observatory which has done important work and the current Dahlia Llama has regular discussions with scientists to see where religious belief and science cross.

I'd look some up for you, but I'm busy writing an essay and i'm sure you can do the proper research on your own to eliminate that biased view on a dividing line between science and religion.

>> No.2907713

>>2907671

How large would that star have to be?
Also, wouldn't the core of that large star produce a number of heavier elements (assuming this star acts like a normal star) that didn't exist at the big bang?

>> No.2907728

>>2907691
I see what you're saying. Its hard to counter something that is unfalsifiable. Science presents the same thing though. Saying matter has always been here, even on a loop time theory...is unfalsifiable. You can tweak the theory to make it sound plausible IE (Well the standard rules didn't apply at this point in "time")

Wouldn't it be easier just to say We have no fucking idea...its just a best guess and all we can do is make theories and explore/expirement.

Someone mentioned earlier... Maybe all we are is a cosmic sneeze crossing dimensions...then that would qualify as a "creator". The rules might not apply the same on a higher dimension..i know... But none of us will ever know for sure.

I actually like to believe in a higher consciousness...when we die our essence is added to that collective consciousness.

>> No.2907746

>>2907728
That's great. None of this is even remotely connected to science, so why post it here?

>> No.2907749

>>2907699
It was an artform, but, now, we have perfected it into a science!!

>> No.2907761

>>2907746
It is connected to science... How is it not? If it wasn't you wouldn't have scientist/theoligist trying to determine the origin of everything. With understanding of the rules of the universe would yield a better capability to utilize those rules to our advantage. I'm just trying to dive deeper into things myself... That first youtube vid someone posted from BBC is interesting..watching it now.

>> No.2907776

>>2907728

Hey man, just because you'd like something to exist doesn't make it so. The chance of a deity existing is the same chance as ANY fictional character coincidentally existing somewhere in the universe. 1/infinity.

>> No.2907782

>>2907728
>>Wouldn't it be easier just to say We have no fucking idea...its just a best guess and all we can do is make theories and explore/expirement.

And what this man lacks to realize is that the tests and experiments rely on the theories put forth. If they said "we have no fucking idea" there wouldn't be anything to test.

btw, this is how science works. Man puts forth theory. Such theory is tested over time. If theory is wrong, come up with a new one. If theory is right, retest until proven wrong.

believe it or not, they realize they have 'no fucking idea' which is why they come up with the theories in the first place....to explain what they don't know.

>> No.2907789

>>2907713
I'd offer conjecture that it would be bigger than any single star we're aware of today because essentially this would be the origin of hydrogen and helium. The elements produced by fusion from this star go on to form the basis for galaxies of stars later on.

>> No.2907800

>>2907782
>Observations
>Ideas
>Theories
>Test theories
>Update/discard theories

Not
>Idea
>Theory
>Test theory
>Theory doesn't work
>Keep theory anyway

>> No.2907825

>>2907776
Ah, this is true...BUT where do the odds lie once you consider that the fictional charactar is based on (Or hits close to the truth) of someone that does exist. A fictional character may be close to what the truth is. IE..there is no santa..BUT..there may have been a man who went around giving toys to kids in a red suit. The character might not be the truth but there may be some truth in the story somewhere

>> No.2907856
File: 60 KB, 750x600, fightclubphone.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2907856

Seriously I hate how religion trolls and homework thread is the bulk of /sci/ at least my mind is good company

>> No.2907885

>>2907856
Sorry it doesn't live up to your expectations of whether or not a Borg would be doable IRL. NANU NANU STFU

>> No.2907891
File: 41 KB, 799x626, sciencevsfaith.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2907891

>>2907800
pic related

>> No.2907945

Faith.

Does this mean, taking something as true that you cannot demonstrate to someone else? You have faith in something, but nobody else has any reason to take your word on it?

Or does it mean you have faith in the word of someone who has had such an experience?

If the former, fine, but you can't expect anyone to believe you. If the latter, why believe that and not someone elses word? Do you base it on which version you first heard, which most people believe in, or what?