Arrogance & Religion

M

martinhd28v01

Registered Member
Erogance & Religion

I have faught with Religion my whole life. Coming from a Southern Baptist family I was always told that God created everything and I was not to question that. I even know someone, who when showed in an Astronomy class that stars are what make up the elements, which in turn makes up each of us, she chose not to beleive it. Is this erogance or strong faith? I for one think that man-knid has been around for only a blink of an eye in cosmic perspective and I think its erogant to assume that some claim that they know in this blink of an eye how it all works and why and that God told them. I don't see how some people say that God created us in his image, it seems more likely to me that we created God in our image.
 
erogance ? you mean erotic arrogance.? sorry that has nothing to do with religion. :D
 
I was always told that God created everything

Then does the next logical question is:

who created god?

Maybe it's just easier to say that the universe has always existed and we can leave this god fellow out of it.


The Hindu faith is the most creative in answering the question of creation/destruction.

They believe creation/destruction is a cycle, just as there is a cycle in the creation and destruction of stars. Therefore the universe goes through this harmonius life/death cycle every 15-20 billion years.
 
Originally posted by kajolishot
I was always told that God created everything

Then does the next logical question is:

who created god?

Click to expand...

Please please please explain why that is?

Love

Jan Ardena.
 
Re: Erogance & Religion

Originally posted by martinhd28v01
I have faught with Religion my whole life. Coming from a Southern Baptist family I was always told that God created everything and I was not to question that.
Click to expand...

You are much better off as an Atheist than a Southern Baptist. I congratulate you.
 
Re: Re: Erogance & Religion

You are much better off as an Atheist than any religion. I congratulate you.
 
If we, and everything else have a beggining somewhere/ somewhen, why doesnt god?
How can god simply exist, without beggining or end?
 
Why couldn't the universe have just always existed? No reason for God.
 
Originally posted by Persol
Why couldn't the universe have just always existed? No reason for God.
Click to expand...

Cos thats just as stupid (almost)
if its always existed that implies infinity,throws out the big bang which is quiet firm as an explanation for things.

I think its better to say there is infinity of everthing outside the universe so anything that is physically possible will happen somewhere somehow,a multiverse if you like or something else along those lines.
 
Originally posted by doom
Cos thats just as stupid (almost)
if its always existed that implies infinity,throws out the big bang which is quiet firm as an explanation for things.
Click to expand...

Why can the Big Bang not simply apply to the "known" universe?

Picture NYC and LA.
Now imagine that there is no cities between them, just desert.

NYC is the Universe we know of.
With binoculars we can see pretty much to the end of our universe, and since there is nothing we can see beyond that, we assume there is nothing else there.

NYC was formed by "A" (not "THE") Big Bang.

That would explain the "evidence" (far from conclusive proof) of the Big Bang Theory, plus allow for many other Big Bangs to have happened, that we simply can not detect.
Not Multiverses, since they are not parallel (or related in any way) to the observable universe.
Just another cluster of galaxies that we can not see or detect yet.
Beyond the "border" of our known universe could be "nothing" for many billions of miles (that vast desert between NYC and LA).

With this (in my opinion, easily possible and much more probable than multiple parallel universes or much of the other outlandish crap I have heard come out of physicists that blur the line between science and philosophy and are no more plausible than a theory of an all-powerful cognizant God with a magic wand) the universe (whole, not just observable from our perspective) could have easily existed forever.

Or, the universe could simply be in a state of balance constantly going through cycles of bangs and crunches.

Why not?
 
Originally posted by one_raven
Why can the Big Bang not simply apply to the "known" universe?

Picture NYC and LA.
Now imagine that there is no cities between them, just desert.

NYC is the Universe we know of.
With binoculars we can see pretty much to the end of our universe, and since there is nothing we can see beyond that, we assume there is nothing else there.

NYC was formed by "A" (not "THE") Big Bang.

That would explain the "evidence" (far from conclusive proof) of the Big Bang Theory, plus allow for many other Big Bangs to have happened, that we simply can not detect.
Not Multiverses, since they are not parallel (or related in any way) to the observable universe.
Just another cluster of galaxies that we can not see or detect yet.
Beyond the "border" of our known universe could be "nothing" for many billions of miles (that vast desert between NYC and LA).

With this (in my opinion, easily possible and much more probable than multiple parallel universes or much of the other outlandish crap I have heard come out of physicists that blur the line between science and philosophy and are no more plausible than a theory of an all-powerful cognizant God with a magic wand) the universe (whole, not just observable from our perspective) could have easily existed forever.

Or, the universe could simply be in a state of balance constantly going through cycles of bangs and crunches.

Why not?
Click to expand...

If the entire universe is an isolated system, then, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy in the universe available for useful work has always been decreasing. However, as one goes back in time, the energy available for useful work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe that, according to the first law of thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition, thus implying the universe had a beginning.So even if there are many big bangs itself the system as a whole had a beginning.
Or i need to take up science classes,one of the two.

As i understand it the laws of thermodynamics cannot be broken,never will be broken,and any condradiction to these rules is like dead people coming back to life.

Many universes is not outlandish when considering the quantum world,its a usefull theory,and as far as i know we may be only 20 years away from prooving/disprooving it with the use of quantum computers.
 
Originally posted by doom
If the entire universe is an isolated system, then, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy in the universe available for useful work has always been decreasing. However, as one goes back in time, the energy available for useful work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe that, according to the first law of thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition, thus implying the universe had a beginning.So even if there are many big bangs itself the system as a whole had a beginning.
Click to expand...
That might be, however, since we have little more than conjecture as to how much total energy there is in the universe or how much there was, it is not solid at all.

Also..
Even if we do go with our assumptions on how much energy there is (which is still wide open to debate since 2/3 of it is still unaccounted for and is presumed to be this elusive "Dark Energy") and if we follow that model, then it will lead us to one of three (at least) conclusions...
1.) We can trace backwards to the beginning of the univere based on the balancing of your above hypothesis.
2.) That "extra energy" could be attributed to other parts of our universe that are now unobservable and support the hypothesis I drew above.
3.) We are totally wrong about the total amount of energy in the known universe and this unaccounted for 2/3 energy is not just something we haven't found YET, it is something that doesn't exist.

Even IF we are right about the amont of energy there is and was, all that would do would be to ascertain the date of the creation of OUR part of teh universe (NYC).
Energy travels at the speed of light (of course), so the energy in our currently observable system would not extend past the furthest stars that we can observe, so, in effect, it would be a closed system bordered by time only.

Originally posted by doom
Many universes is not outlandish when considering the quantum world,its a usefull theory,and as far as i know we may be only 20 years away from prooving/disprooving it with the use of quantum computers.
Click to expand...
I think quantum theory is a load of shit, and I have seen NO evidence to suggest otherwise.
 
I think quantum theory is a load of shit, and I have seen NO evidence to suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...
Why do you dislike quantum theory - quantum physics or mechanics? It is a little "too theoretical", but it arose out of the limitations of conventional physics, and the need to explain things that defy observation. It could even be called the "religion of science". Stephen Hawking certaintly believes in it:

"In order to resolve issues of the beginning and end of the cosmos, Stephen Hawking (British physicist), et al, proposed the idea of "unbounded boundary conditions". This constitutes an incorporation of quantum mechanics into the general theory of relativity, and postulates that there is no need to define the beginning and end of the universe."
- Hawking's Quantum Universe theory

To quote ConsequentAtheist: "Buffoon..."

The problem when going out on a limb in science, people never know in whose "favour" the results are going to be. It's just as easy to believe as it is to dismiss... The "safest" position is that of the pessimist or nihilist, because you can never be disappointed.
 
The Trinity: the union of Arrogance and Ignorance and Wishful Thinking in one Dogma.
 
do all atheists scream, "O, GOD" before they die?

you betcha that E(a)rrogance and religion stick together,
If you read the bible, there were lots of "chosen" who were arrogant as fuck. or was that before they converted?
Everyone who as grown up in a "religous"atmosphere will tell you that god has helped them in their life. Tell me how is that possible anyway? If one was an atheist, persay, couldn't you just believe that life had been good to you as well without the arrogance of religion? And what if god was just a giant,flying friction ball of super solar mass?
 
I think that religion is just a saftey blanket for people who can't handle the idea that there are some things out there(questions) that we haven't answered yet, and if it weren't for the people who openned there minds to different possiblities than the ones that were handed down to them(stories from the past, the bible), we would still be in the dark ages instead of sharing intelligent insight over the computer. Thanks to all those with open minds!:m:
 
The intended goal of physics?

Originally posted by Jenyar
It is a little "too theoretical", but it arose out of the limitations of conventional physics, and the need to explain things that defy observation. It could even be called the "religion of science". Stephen Hawking certaintly believes in it
Click to expand...
Hawking is an outrageously brilliant man.
He is on the very short list of my (idols? heroes? I don't know, pick a word).
However, I do not agree with everything he believes.
I agree that Quantum Theory can be seen as the Religion of science (much of modern physics, in fact).

There are two different approaches to the Philosophy of Science.
Hawking, Bohr, Einstein (to some degree), Feynman etc... fall into the first one.
1.) The role of Science and its intended goal is to accurately predict the outcome of observed phenomena. It is not necessary for the hypotheses to reflect the underlying truth and reality of what is happening. Actual reality is treated as subjective and relative to the observer. This approach blurs the line between the absolute and the abstract. It mixes philosphy and science.
2.) The role of science and its intended goal is to discover the underlying objective fundamental truths behind what we observe. Personal realities may be subjective and relative, however, that is no more than the objective truth filtered through our fallible subjective human perception.

I prefer approach #2.

I do see the value of approach #1 but as no more than a tool to reach #2.
When people forget that, they end up having things they can't explain, and rather than question the basis of their hypothesis, they invent Gods to fill in the spaces. (String Theory, Branes, Virtual Particles, Parallel Universes etc.) It doesn't matter if the result is realistic or verifyable as viable option, all that matters is that the math balances.

Quantum theory, in my opinon, fits perfectly in this.
They took a basic precept (wave/particle duality) and built an entire field upon it.
The problem, I think, is that the basic precept was formed as a result of experiments (most notably M&M and two-slit) that weilded results that were not only inconclusive but they seem to suggest other than the accepted conclusions.
Other experiments and observations (see blueshift and redshift of stars, bending of light around massive objects and others) are cited as evidence supporting these observations, however, depending on the way the observations are interpreted, they could just as easily (and I think more plausibly) suggest that the accepted hypotheses are less than accurate depictions of reality.
However, that doesn't matter as long as the math balances.
I wont go too deeply into what I think they do suggest (you will have to wait for the book for that one. :)).

Modern physics is looking for equations.
I think it should be looking for reality.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top