Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Please Present The Best Explanation For Our Existence


believeingod

Recommended Posts

The author was referring to M-Theory, not evolution......

 

Perhaps you should direct your question to CERN, the MIT Center for Theoretical Physics, the Official String Theory web site, the Center for Research in String Theory or some place like that. They would know better than I would.

Another polite way to say "Fuck off!" would be: "Move along, nothing to see here!", but I like what you just said better. smile.png

Who is not fed up with this guy yet?

What guy? Oh, that guy. The guy that asked for a "better" explanation and got one from me but he refuses to answer to. Wendyshrug.gif

 

Pixies are real and much better explanation to the existence of the Universe. But he intentionally refuses to see the Absolute Truth™, and he does so because he's most likely evil.

 

I just saw a revelation on TV from the Holy-Ghostbusters that he (believeingod) is the disciple of the Anti-Pixie! (and also, we should not cross the streams!) The end times are near brothers and sisters...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: All Regularly Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.

The author was referring to M-Theory, not evolution......

 

Perhaps you should direct your question to CERN, the MIT Center for Theoretical Physics, the Official String Theory web site, the Center for Research in String Theory or some place like that. They would know better than I would.

 

I am making the question to who made the assertion, and brought the issue up.

 

The best I can do is google, find an article that is several years old written by someone like I mentioned, and then quote it. Is that what you would like for me to do? I am not a theoretical physicist. You didn't ask a question that can be answer by someone who has an IQ below 160 and I am not quite there. If I assert brain surgery is something humans have learned to do would you demand that I lay out every step of removing a brain tumor? That is another topic where we can't just google to find the best answer. Laymen have limitations you see.

 

With the Bible explanation every additional question boils down to "God did it", "Believe it or burn in hell forever", "God isn't going to tell us any more than that", "God moves in mysterious ways" and "God is testing us". You can't get any other answer out of the Bible because the Bible was written by ignorant men who often did not agree with each other. In theoretical physics we can always build a larger particle collider, a more sensitive space telescope and so on to get better answers. Perhaps later we will invent even better technology and new techniques. Every time we push the boundary we discover more about our natural universe and uncover new questions with every one we answer. Last I heard building a very large radio telescope array on a scale that has never been done before was the proposed answer on how to test M-theory. However that was a while ago and hundreds of the best minds on Earth are working on it. If you want a better answer then ask an expert rather than a layman. My point was that the natural explanation, by these experts, kicks the ass of the Bible explanation.

 

Edit:

That is just one more way that the natural explanation is superior to the Bible explanation. Anybody who has an I.Q. of 90 can understand the Bible explanation. It's just that crude. No special training required. No work required.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The author was referring to M-Theory, not evolution......

 

Perhaps you should direct your question to CERN, the MIT Center for Theoretical Physics, the Official String Theory web site, the Center for Research in String Theory or some place like that. They would know better than I would.

Another polite way to say "Fuck off!" would be: "Move along, nothing to see here!", but I like what you just said better. smile.png

Who is not fed up with this guy yet?

 

I probably should just tell him to fuck off. Laymen can understand the evidence of Evolution which absolutely proves that the Bible is wrong. I can give him as much of that as he likes but he is going to keep believing his Bible anyway. If I was the successor of Stephen Hawking he would just ignore the theoretical physics I provided as well. He is playing a game rather than looking for answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope it's not too late, 'cause I found the answer.

 

"In answer to the question of why it happened, I offer the modest proposal that our Universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time."

-- Edward P. Tryon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take you by your word. Nothing really to do here, anymore.

 

Gone......

 

Couldn't resist, mate.

 

OT: I like the quote by mr. Tryon! The sheer magnitude of the universe is so big it is hard for us to wrap our heads around. I find it totally likely that, indeed, things like our universe happen from time to time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but I'm not betting on it - he scarpered off once before, didn't he?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the problem I have with "Christians" who use this type of argument where they say something couldn't have come from nothing, and "what caused big bang?"

 

This is just a distraction. I'm fine with saying I don't know what happened before the big bang, but we never may know, and I don't see why there couldn't be a natural explanation. But it just doesn't follow for me that ... There may be a creator, therefore there are virgin births, original sin, zombie Jesus, walking on water, healing the blind, and all the rest.

 

To me it is not about proof. I know the natural world exists as much as I can know anything. After studying evolution, and cosmology as much as I can, it makes sense to me how this all could have happened without a supernatural intervention.

 

The thing about Christianity is they say all you need is the faith of a child to accept it, but you are expected to get a doctorate on cosmology, evolutionary biology, biblical studies, history, and theology to reject it?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nothing really to do here, anymore.

 

Gone......

 

Aww, did you get fed up because no one was buying into your nonsensical crap? LeslieHappyCry.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another polite way to say "Fuck off!"

 

I'll take you by your word. Nothing really to do here, anymore.

 

Gone......

 

There was nothing you could have said or done to be of any help here in the first place. Except de-convert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

The author was referring to M-Theory, not evolution......

 

It is said that 99% of all species that ever lived is now extinct.

 

The reason God used such a wasteful process is....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope it's not too late, 'cause I found the answer.

 

"In answer to the question of why it happened, I offer the modest proposal that our Universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time."

-- Edward P. Tryon

 

 

I have come to that conclusion too. It is possible hat the universe came from literally nothing, that unknown billions of years from now it may return to nothing, and unknown billions of years after that, a new universe appear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Science is still researching how the laws of physics are determined, but everything that we know today tells us its not the universe that is fine-tuned for life, but life, through evolution, that has fine-tuned itself for the universe.

 

BS.

 

http://www.sciencean...se-lead-to-god/

 

The laws of nature.

The constants of physics.

The initial conditions of the universe.

 

Collins makes a threefold “fine-tuning case” for God.

 

 

“How many universes then would you need to make it at all probable that one of them could be like our universe? String theorists posit a number of 10 to the power of 500….Now that is an awful lot of universes, particularly since the estimate for the total number of atoms in the entire observable universe is no more than 10 to the power of 80.”

 

The universe is finely tuned to permit life on our planet. Over 120 fine tune constants are know up to know, and as more time pasts, more are discovered. This might be due to chance, to physical need, or to design. Chance is a very bad explanation. Some advocate a Multiverse. But to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done. Thats a 1 with 500 zeros. If we put it in comparison, that in our universe, there exist around 10^80 atoms, this shows how improbable it is, that a Multiverse could explain finetuning. Beside this, the Multiverse argument does not explain away God. A mechanism needs to be in place to trigger these multiverses. It could not be by physical need, since if so, why are there many planets, which are not life permitting, but our is ? So its best explained by design. Our earth/solar/moon system is a very strong evidence. Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. Its also the only location, which alouds us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds. The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle. Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible. The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun. The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right. And so is the axial tilt of the earth. Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth, and more over 70 different paramenters must be just right. To believe, all these are just right by chance, needs a big leap of faith. This is indeed maibe the strongest argument for theism.

 

While I personally have problems seeing a totally mechanistic/materialistic universe as very coherent (it's just too big of a leap for me mathematically. Not saying it's not true... I don't claim to be all-knowing, maybe I'm just too big of a moron to grasp it..., just that it's a leap bigger than my brain can handle.)... that does NOT lead to "biblegod did it." I think it's a gigantic leap to go from: "There are maybe other layers of stuff going on here" to: "creationism/intelligent design and biblegod". I don't really understand why thinking there could be some higher reality necessitates believing in personal deities. It's just a huge leap for me. So I'm not sure it's possible for you to win the argument you want to win.

 

There are plenty of people here for whom complete materialism to the point of: "our consciousness can be boiled down to a totally materialistic reality of chemicals interacting that only gives us the illusion of free will/consciousness/etc" makes logical sense. If that makes sense to them, you aren't going to sway them. But even people like me, who acknowledge the possibility of a "conscious universe" and think consciousness is another type of thing itself... i.e. not entirely materialistic... that still won't win you the "BIBLEGOD DID IT" argument.

 

The main problems with creationism/ID from my perspective are that they are dependent on a personal deity who is somehow outside of time and reality who is creating all this stuff. Well... okay... where does he get HIS building materials? Who created him? You can say that's just God's nature that he can magically create things out of nothing and that he doesn't require a creator, but then... he becomes extraneous. If that's possible then the universe can be "god" itself, (in the interest of keeping the same symbolic language, not meant to be taken in a literal and CERTAINLY not a monotheistic sense of that word.)

 

It's just as logical and coherent to say this is somehow part of the nature of the universe itself. What I personally believe is that we will need a paradigm shift in science that accounts for a universe that CAN create itself (and I know that word "create" makes some break out in hives, but it shouldn't be overly anthropomorphized IMO). I think that paradigm shift is going to be necessary for the entirely naturalistic theory to be filled in. Unfortunately that paradigm shift sounds too much like religion and spirituality, as such, many atheists are quite allergic to it. However, I think if a shift was embraced it would make your arguments look even more foolish because I do feel you have a few good points that are often glossed over, but the problem is, I feel you're drawing the wrong conclusions and a personal deity creates far more problems than it solves.

 

It's like saying: "There are presents under my Xmas tree. I didn't put them there. They didn't create themselves. So Santa must have done it". Most people don't default to Santa as the agent by which they acquire gifts. Creationism/ID is IMO that same kind of thought process.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If neurological activity is the key to awareness how do I know which universe is the real one and which one is the dream one? It's all processed in the same place, right? If neurological activity can create a whole world of experience, how do I know that what is frequently called the objective universe is really not just my invention (like the dream world)? If I ask someone in the waking world if they are real, they tell me in no uncertain terms they are real. But then again so do dream characters. Maybe this is the dream and the other silliness I go through every night is the real objective universe. And thank you for the debate. smile.png

 

I think I heart you. Can I have your babies, please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goddammit. He left. This is what I get for replying to something before going through the entire thread. Meh. It wouldn't have penetrated anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just as logical and coherent to say this is somehow part of the nature of the universe itself. What I personally believe is that we will need a paradigm shift in science that accounts for a universe that CAN create itself (and I know that word "create" makes some break out in hives, but it shouldn't be overly anthropomorphized IMO). I think that paradigm shift is going to be necessary for the entirely naturalistic theory to be filled in. Unfortunately that paradigm shift sounds too much like religion and spirituality, as such, many atheists are quite allergic to it. However, I think if a shift was embraced it would make your arguments look even more foolish because I do feel you have a few good points that are often glossed over, but the problem is, I feel you're drawing the wrong conclusions and a personal deity creates far more problems than it solves.

 

Great post here. The problem I run in to when debating creationists/ID'ers is that sometimes it's best to just resort to a scorched earth policy, and argue solely for materialism. I myself am not a materialist (atheistic pantheist), but it's a good foundation to start on. Sort of that build your house on the land vs. sand story. The problem with most creationists is that trying to explain my opinion of an emergent system is usually lost on them because they still think in the context of separateness and anthropomorphic sky daddy.

 

But good point though, even if we grant that some higher power started the universe there's a huge leap in logic to get to baby Jeebus in manger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the problem I have with the fine tuning argument is that they claim that this is the only way the "parameters" for the world can be for it to exist. So does this mean that other worlds, other universes, other dimensions can't exist that are differently "tuned"? If so, heaven and hell can't exist. But if there can be other realities, "tuned" different ways, it means that the chance of random universes coming into existence isn't so unlikely anymore. It can't be both ways. It can't be "other can't exist," yet "other universes like Heaven and Hell can exist."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If neurological activity is the key to awareness how do I know which universe is the real one and which one is the dream one? It's all processed in the same place, right? If neurological activity can create a whole world of experience, how do I know that what is frequently called the objective universe is really not just my invention (like the dream world)? If I ask someone in the waking world if they are real, they tell me in no uncertain terms they are real. But then again so do dream characters. Maybe this is the dream and the other silliness I go through every night is the real objective universe. And thank you for the debate. smile.png

 

I think I heart you. Can I have your babies, please?

 

LoL. You want the babies I already got? Or make some new ones? haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BrotherJosh If I wasn't trying to stop labeling myself and fit myself into boxes I'd be squee'ing right now over "atheistic pantheist". Good designation! And "defaulting to materialism" makes sense on some level. At the same time, though, they STILL will argue all sorts of things against materialism, and some of their points are actually addressed by a third alternative. If I'm going to argue (which I try not to do too much since it just tends to irritate me), I'm going to argue from my actual position because arguing from materialism is still going to result in equal amounts of stupidity from them. I also think arguing from pure materialism tends to reinforce the idea in their head that the only options are creationism/ID or materialism, which tends to give these people a false sense of smugness. And I think "most" people in the west seem to think those are the only two options. I've actually seen theories that didn't fit either of those categories that got labeled "creationism/ID" by atheists because they weren't "materialism". So I don't think the misunderstanding just happens from Christians. I feel that those of us who want our third alternative viewpoint to be heard will have to start speaking from that viewpoint. But I respect if your mileage varies. This is just where I'm coming from on the issue.

 

@Ouroboros, oh I agree definitely! The parameters we live within define OUR laws of physics. The physics that governs our immediate reality may not necessarily be the only physics that can govern a universe, which is an idea I find very interesting! smile.png And excellent point re: heaven and hell haha. I hope you use that argument with them. My starting idea is that somehow matter flows from consciousness because it makes no sense "to me" to accept consciousness somehow came from matter. *I* feel that consciousness is the X-factor. I feel also that materialists try to boil consciousness down to chemicals interacting but I don't think that really makes sense. It would mean, logically that free will is an illusion because we are really all machines reacting entirely by a set of conditioned responses and chemical reactions and nothing but that. If that is the case, a discussion of morals with a materialistic atheist makes little sense, since it would all be an illusory circle jerk anyway.

 

But, I also think that when I say I'm not a materialist it opens up all sorts of assumptions about what I "do" believe about the nature of reality as if I think this "automatically means" personal consciousness survives death. (I actually think personal consciousness is a "possibility" in that sort of framework, but not a necessity). Or there is an assumption that I believe in "gods", "ghosts", etc. etc. So I find I'm never sure how to open a dialogue about my perception of reality. Largely because... on the Christian end, Christians for some bizarre reason think my view of things makes me "easier conversion material" for them, when nothing could be further from the truth. And then on the materialistic atheist (as opposed to other types of atheists) end, the assumption is that I don't "understand science" because of "other" assumptions about where I'm coming from that aren't true like supernatural beings and such. And also, at the end of the day, it comes down to my perception and interpretation of the reality I've been presented with, which is... opinion and perception. Two things which can't really be debated.

 

I don't find a totally Newtonian/mechanistic explanation of the world very logical in light of quantum theory. Quantum theory is exceptionally weird, but many physicists keep ignoring it and waiting for a grand unified theory of everything. But what if that theory requires a rejection of a mechanistic universe as the whole story? That requires a paradigm shift. And while I see us moving toward that shift with ideas like String theory, M-theory, multiverse theories, holographic universe theories, parallel universes, biocentrism (which I think is wrongly labeled as ID/Creationism) etc., I think the implications aren't being talked about as much as they should be. As long as no "survival of personal consciousness" or "spiritual sounding talk" is invoked, it seems to pacify materialists... but... as the playright said... "There are more things in heaven and earth..." And it's my opinion that that's about where we are right now.

 

I also think that even MENTIONING quantum theory as a reason I don't accept "pure materialism" as a logical endpoint, creates yet another set of assumptions. Like.. that I think "What the Bleep?" is some kind of legit scientific treatise. I don't. I think it's pseudoscience that serves to give wrong impressions about non-materialist theories about the nature of reality, which pisses me off. Because the second someone says... "Well I think this because in quantum theory..." a materialist just shuts down and goes: "OH, you're one of those 'What the Bleep' followers."

 

I think clinging to a solid materialism seems safer in light of encroaching religious fundamentalists who may feel atheists who start to accept a broader explanation of the universe are "backtracking" and coming closer to a "God theory". So a lot of it feels like politics and reactionary behavior to me. Though, I also fully acknowledge that materialism makes the most sense to many people. And I respect that position. I just can't embrace it as my own.

 

@midniterider Making new ones is more fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

@Ouroboros, oh I agree definitely! The parameters we live within define OUR laws of physics. The physics that governs our immediate reality may not necessarily be the only physics that can govern a universe, which is an idea I find very interesting! smile.png And excellent point re: heaven and hell haha. I hope you use that argument with them. My starting idea is that somehow matter flows from consciousness because it makes no sense "to me" to accept consciousness somehow came from matter. *I* feel that consciousness is the X-factor. I feel also that materialists try to boil consciousness down to chemicals interacting but I don't think that really makes sense. It would mean, logically that free will is an illusion because we are really all machines reacting entirely by a set of conditioned responses and chemical reactions and nothing but that. If that is the case, a discussion of morals with a materialistic atheist makes little sense, since it would all be an illusory circle jerk anyway.

 

@midniterider Making new ones is more fun.

 

I agree that saying consciousness or awareness is the result of electro-chemistry is short sighted. Chemicals and electricity really can create a whole landscape 'out there' ? I don't think so. Then again if chemicals and electricity in the brain brought 'to us' what we call objective reality, then why should we consider objective (waking) reality to be real? It is just as fake as the electro-chemically created dream world, no? One might argue that the difference between waking and dreaming is that the waking world is a composite of sensory input from that real world 'out there' but my contention is that 'this world' is only an illusion. The body is an illusion, the 5 senses are illusory senses that detect an illusory universe 'out there.' Every night "I" create a dream universe that doesnt use any 'external physical senses' whatever that is just as 'real' as this one appears to be.

 

What is this 'matter' stuff , anyway? Inside of a transitory appearance commonly called physical reality, an object appears out of nothing. This object, in the form of a bag of skin declares to other skin bags, "There is nothing more and nothing less than atoms. Atoms (though largely made up of nothing) are the building blocks of everything." After a while the transitory appearance (including the bags of skin and all other objects made of atoms) disappears and is temporarily replaced by another 'world' with fewer structural rules.

 

Transitory appearances trying to persuade other transitory appearances that they are permanent. Sorta funny, isnt it?

 

As quantum physics and eastern thought begin to intersect I think we can drop the 'super' from supernatural and just call it nature. There is no woo-woo about consciousness creating matter. There is no matter without conscious awareness of that matter.

 

So there! hahahaha.

 

Alright, let's make babies! Or go thru the motions...nah, my wife would get pissed..lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very much on the same page with you. I'm not sure there IS a world "out there". (And I get that to other people besides us, that might sound like crazy talk, but pretty much everything in quantum physics sounds like crazy talk. We read a study, say: "Oh, that's interesting" and then we try to forget it so we can go back to interacting with our comforting illusion.) The only difference I see between dream reality and waking reality is that waking reality is more linear. But that would make sense with a "consensus reality". (i.e. shared dream.) After having a lucid dream that was more "real" than "this real", it's pretty hard for me to objectively say dreams and waking reality are not opposite sides of the same coin.

 

The way I perceive it is as follows: When I go to sleep and have a dream, my consciousness basically divides itself up to create other dream characters for me to interact with. In regular waking reality, perhaps that's what I'm observing on a different kind of scale: consciousness dividing itself up, evolving, creating. That's why I say I think consciousness is the X-factor. Ignoring it and reducing it to chemicals makes little sense. But even if you can do that, then we are right back to your point re: chemicals in the brain.

 

The waking and dream experience are pretty much the same as far as chemical reactions in the brain. So by what logic do we call one real and one un-real? They are two realities with a different logic/set of rules in each one. For example... lucid dreamers tend to find that certain behaviors bring about certain results for staying lucid, changing the dream scene, etc. These same strategies can be used by other lucid dreamers with similar results. There is an internal logic to the dream world. It's just different than the logic in the consensus reality. Those who spend time getting to know it tend to question the nature of reality a little bit.

 

And yes, if my mind every night can create a dream world that I can touch, feel, smell, taste, hear, see, etc... without actual incorporation of a physical body in that world, then I'm not sure why this isn't another layer of the same thing. It may be a little esoteric for some, but the assumption isn't without logic or precedent.

 

You say: "As quantum physics and eastern thought begin to intersect I think we can drop the 'super' from supernatural and just call it nature. There is no woo-woo about consciousness creating matter. There is no matter without conscious awareness of that matter." <---- Yes. That.

 

I like to wonder what my kitchen looks like when I'm not in there. Like what it "objectively" would look like outside of human visual perception. I imagine it's quite different than I think it is.

 

And another thought experiment I like: if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? No. It does "something" but what we call "SOUND" is a specific perceptual experience that MUST have an experiencer to exist. People who say it makes a sound with no one to perceive something called "sound", cannot imagine the scenario without an observer. They can't remove themselves fully from it. Sound requires a hearer.

 

And re: babies, yes, my husband might not like it either. Damn consensus reality!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The quest is not to present proof's for God's existence, or non existence. We cannot proove conclusively either one of them.

But we can rationalize, and try to figure out what might be the best explanation for our existence. So i ask you to present a alternative to God, which makes more sense.

 

The deity that I believe may exist is an alternative to "Bible God" and is not omniscient. We exist because it wants to experience/feel/learn from the physical realm. That is one of the ways it experiences it's own life (other ways being in spirit realms or other dimensions, etc.).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quest is not to present proof's for God's existence, or non existence. We cannot proove conclusively either one of them.

But we can rationalize, and try to figure out what might be the best explanation for our existence. So i ask you to present a alternative to God, which makes more sense.

 

The deity that I believe may exist is an alternative to "Bible God" and is not omniscient. We exist because it wants to experience/feel/learn from the physical realm. That is one of the ways it experiences it's own life (other ways being in spirit realms or other dimensions, etc.).

 

Yes. This! I find it so intriguing that this idea keeps popping up in more and more places now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what's been bothering me about the title of this thread from the beginning?!

 

WHO IS US?

 

I don't believe we

can speak

meaningfully

of "our"

if we don't know

who "us" is

 

 

YAAAAA!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.