I can prove the existance of God. Right now.

Maitreya · Apr 12, 2009

Why could the word "god" be used to explain the reality itself?

And "cause" is not synonymous with "create" or "start", and can easily be used outside the idea of a beginning.

Sylph ish · Apr 12, 2009

heeh2 said:

Since the beginning of the 20th century, quantum mechanics has revealed previously concealed aspects of events. Newtonian physics, taken in isolation rather than as an approximation to quantum mechanics, depicts a universe in which objects move in perfectly determinative ways. At human scale levels of interaction, Newtonian mechanics makes predictions that are agreed with, within the accuracy of measurement. Poorly designed and fabricated guns and ammunition scatter their shots rather widely around the center of a target, and better guns produce tighter patterns. Absolute knowledge of the forces accelerating a bullet should produce absolutely reliable predictions of its path, or so was thought. However, knowledge is never absolute in practice and the equations of Newtonian mechanics can exhibit sensitive dependence on initial conditions, meaning small errors in knowledge of initial conditions can result in arbitrarily large deviations from predicted behavior.
At atomic scales the paths of objects can only be predicted in a probabilistic way. The paths may not be exactly specified in a full quantum description of the particles; "path" is a classical concept which quantum particles do not exactly possess. The probability arises from the measurement of the perceived path of the particle. In some cases, a quantum particle may trace an exact path, and the probability of finding the particles in that path is one. The quantum development is at least as predictable as the classical motion, but it describes wave functions that cannot be easily expressed in ordinary language. In double-slit experiments, photons are fired singly through a double-slit apparatus at a distant screen and does not arrive at a single point, nor do the photons arrive in a scattered pattern analogous to bullets fired by a fixed gun at a distant target. Instead, the light arrives in varying concentrations at widely separated points, and the distribution of its collisions can be calculated reliably. In that sense the behavior of light in this apparatus is deterministic, but there is no way to predict where in the resulting interference pattern an individual photon will make its contribution (see Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle).
Some have argued that, in addition to the conditions humans can observe and the laws we can deduce, there are hidden factors or "hidden variables" that determine absolutely in which order photons reach the detector screen. They argue that the course of the universe is absolutely determined, but that humans are screened from knowledge of the determinative factors. So, they say, it only appears that things proceed in a merely probabilistically-determinative way. In actuality, they proceed in an absolutely deterministic way. Although matters are still subject to some measure of dispute, quantum mechanics makes statistical predictions which would be violated if some local hidden variables existed. There have been a number of experiments to verify those predictions, and so far they do not appear to be violated, though many physicists believe better experiments are needed to conclusively settle the question. (See Bell test experiments.) It is possible, however, to augment quantum mechanics with non-local hidden variables to achieve a deterministic theory that is in agreement with experiment. An example is the Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics.
On the macro scale it can matter very much whether a bullet arrives at a certain point at a certain time, as snipers are well aware; there are analogous quantum events that have macro- as well as quantum-level consequences. It is easy to contrive situations in which the arrival of an electron at a screen at a certain point and time would trigger one event and its arrival at another point would trigger an entirely different event. (See Schrödinger's cat.)
Even before the laws of quantum mechanics were fully developed, the phenomenon of radioactivity posed a challenge to determinism. A gram of uranium-238, a commonly occurring radioactive substance, contains some 2.5 x 1021 atoms. By all tests known to science these atoms are identical and indistinguishable. Yet about 12600 times a second one of the atoms in that gram will decay, giving off an alpha particle. This decay does not depend on external stimulus and no extant theory of physics predicts when any given atom will decay, with realistically obtainable knowledge. The uranium found on earth is thought to have been synthesized during a supernova explosion that occurred roughly 5 billion years ago. For determinism to hold, every uranium atom must contain some internal "clock" that specifies the exact time it will decay.[citation needed] And somehow the laws of physics must specify exactly how those clocks were set as each uranium atom was formed during the supernova collapse.
Exposure to alpha radiation can cause cancer. For this to happen, at some point a specific alpha particle must alter some chemical reaction in a cell in a way that results in a mutation. Since molecules are in constant thermal motion, the exact timing of the radioactive decay that produced the fatal alpha particle matters. If probabilistically determined events do have an impact on the macro events -- such as when a person who could have been historically important dies in youth of a cancer caused by a random mutation -- then the course of history is not determined from the dawn of time.
The time dependent Schrödinger equation gives the first time derivative of the quantum state. That is, it explicitly and uniquely predicts the development of the wave function with time.
Click to expand...

ok im not sure that you disagree with what ive said, but to clarify, i am not saying that i think things work in ways we can always determine, rather i think taht things happen the way they happen based on the variables present, but that they're all natural occurrences, whether random or seemingly not

heeh2 · Apr 13, 2009

Sylph ish said:

ok im not sure that you disagree with what ive said, but to clarify, i am not saying that i think things work in ways we can always determine, rather i think taht things happen the way they happen based on the variables present, but that they're all natural occurrences, whether random or seemingly not
Click to expand...

technically everything is a natural occurrence, but you said this.

The way that my body formed was not random at all. it was based on the way things react with each other chemically. i dont see how the formation of things could be considered "unlikely" if thats just the way they work. under a different set of conditions, things would react differently and i may not have existed at all.
i think nature is a beautiful thing and yes im in awe of its complexity, but not because i think there are spiritual or mysterious things at work.
Click to expand...

asserting things cannot react in an unpredictable manner is one degree of determinism or another.

and saying we are too dumb to predict a reaction doesn't change that fact.

what i am saying is that approximation is evident in everything, including determinism which is basically what quantum mechanics is.

that's why some things can never be even potentially predetermined, because they do not follow the laws of causality.

Sylph ish · Apr 13, 2009

heeh2 said:

asserting things cannot react in an unpredictable manner is one degree of determinism or another.
Click to expand...

What is the issue here, semantics? or maybe i didnt word my previous statement well. thats most likely it. I feel as though I am in agreement but the wording is making it complicated
i dont see why things couldn't react in an unpredictable manner.
But whether things do or do not follow laws of causality does not necessitate a higher being, and for that reason i dont believe in one

StonerBill · Apr 16, 2009

I like that post of occam's but I think a deterministic reality is plausible

LSDMIKE · Apr 17, 2009

heeh2 said:

try this
Click to expand...

nvm

heeh2 · Apr 18, 2009

StonerBill said:

I like that post of occam's but I think a deterministic reality is plausible
Click to expand...

i agree

chaos and order are both quite deterministic.

if everything was random, that would just mean that random events dictate everything....which is very much the same as absolute determinism. the only difference is what we can and cannot know, and that is independent from how the universe actually works.

said the universe to itself.

deleted · Apr 18, 2009

I

can prove the existance of God. Right now. ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page )
Yeal

Today 01:57 PM
by heeh2
666 10,174 Agnosticism and Atheism
Click to expand...

Really now this is very strange because there isnt 666 post in this thread..
Or its in error and will not show me last page..

heeh2 · Apr 18, 2009

if mine was the 666th post in a thread that did in fact have 34 pages with the maximum post per page while only actually only having 612 posts, mine also being the 612th

666 or 6+6=12 /612

612 and 666 by themselves are coincidences, but the bugged thread and the simultaneous eventuality of the numbers.....

is also a coincidence

lol

Yert · Apr 19, 2009

heeh2 said:

i agree

chaos and order are both quite deterministic.

if everything was random, that would just mean that random events dictate everything....which is very much the same as absolute determinism. the only difference is what we can and cannot know, and that is independent from how the universe actually works.

said the universe to itself.
Click to expand...

That's hot.

deleted · Apr 19, 2009

This thread is possessed...

heeh2 · Apr 19, 2009

im sure its just the spirit of the lord

theacidpulp · Apr 29, 2009

This thread ought to be published, it's a fucking great read, if I do say so myself.

seekingalternatives · May 1, 2009

Yeal said:

Ok so assuming that there was a Big Bang (been pretty much proven), and theres soooooooooo many atoms spinning around everywhere. Fast forward a few billion years and planets, stars, and galaxies have formed from gravity. Now here's the proof. If all this happened, then where does life come from? What makes us conscious, and aware of ourselves? Atoms can't simply "click" and be like "OMG, I'm an atom!" And suddenly be aware of itself. Non-living things can't just turn living. So here's how it is. Either...

A. The universe was created and life was added later for whatever purpose.

or...

B. Life was always present in the universe, which means that from the start of the Big Bang, that tiny dot of all compressed matter as we know it, was alive. That means wherever that matter came from, it came from a living source. (aka God)

If you don't understand, read it again and try to understand. Once you get this post, you'll have solid evidence of a God.
Click to expand...

It has been suggested that intelligence will arise in any sufficiently-complex set of circumstances, organic or not. Therefore, your presumption is flawed because your definition of "God" could just as easily be a product of the universe, rather than the source.

dubtrice · May 1, 2009

if your looking for the presence of a god, then you should be thinking bigger.. like, where the hell did the universe come from, the rocks that smash and create planets, not the life that formed afterword. It supposedly goes on for an infinite distance, is that even possible?? This discussion is beyond the abilities of even the most genius human mind.

Monkey Boy · May 1, 2009

dubtrice said:

if your looking for the presence of a god, then you should be thinking bigger.. like, where the hell did the universe come from, the rocks that smash and create planets, not the life that formed afterword. It supposedly goes on for an infinite distance, is that even possible?? This discussion is beyond the abilities of even the most genius human mind.
Click to expand...

You're right it's not possible for the human mind to comprehend. The universe is infinite so it had to come from itself.

White_Horse_Mescalito · May 1, 2009

About 50 years ago they thought the universe was a lot smaller than today, go back futher and it was even smaller in man's mind.

Around the time first light hit the Palomar telescope all the sudden it got bigger.

there are now over a dozen telescopes that are bigger than the 200 inch, with each new telescope the universe gets bigger, although it never really changed size, now did it.

Now there are a number of projects that are going to kick it up a notch. I expect the Big Bang Theory.. to be reassessed here pretty soon, if not completely tossed aside.

We have a limited viewpoint of our universe and it is under constant change in our eyes. Most has been based on well... superstitions. We only see with ONE eye and that limits our perspective. Expect things to change real soon, once ALMA goes on line.

Okiefreak · May 1, 2009

A real scientist doesn't jump to conclusions about what science will discover soon.

White_Horse_Mescalito · May 1, 2009

Okiefreak said:

A real scientist doesn't jump to conclusions about what science will discover soon.
Click to expand...

It based on past observations and history. Not superstition or supposition .. try it sometime

Have you ever worked with any "real" scientist ?

Okiefreak · May 1, 2009

White_Horse_Mescalito said:

It based on past observations and history. Not superstition or supposition .. try it sometime

Have you ever worked with any "real" scientist ?
Click to expand...

It's based on empirical testing of refutable hypotheses, not speculation. If you'd ever worked with a "real" scientist, you'd know that.

Log in or Sign up

I can prove the existance of God. Right now.

Maitreya Member

Sylph ish Member

heeh2 Senior Member

Sylph ish Member

StonerBill Learn

LSDMIKE Member

heeh2 Senior Member

deleted Visitor

heeh2 Senior Member

Yert Member

deleted Visitor

heeh2 Senior Member

theacidpulp Member

seekingalternatives Member

dubtrice Member

Monkey Boy Senior Member

White_Horse_Mescalito ""

Okiefreak Senior Member

White_Horse_Mescalito ""

Okiefreak Senior Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

I can prove the existance of God. Right now.

Maitreya Member

Sylph ish Member

heeh2 Senior Member

Sylph ish Member

StonerBill Learn

LSDMIKE Member

heeh2 Senior Member

deleted Visitor

heeh2 Senior Member

Yert Member

deleted Visitor

heeh2 Senior Member

theacidpulp Member

seekingalternatives Member

dubtrice Member

Monkey Boy Senior Member

White_Horse_Mescalito ""

Okiefreak Senior Member

White_Horse_Mescalito ""

Okiefreak Senior Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches