I have no affiliation; an atheist.
EDIT: The poll isn't working!
Printable View
I have no affiliation; an atheist.
EDIT: The poll isn't working!
If you get the poll working, be sure to stick Naturalistic Pantheism in there so I can vote ;)
Polls work for me :?
Whut polls?
Poll added at request.
I am a Deist; I dont really know what I need to specify. If you want to know about Deism read Thomas Paine's Age of Reason.
People seem to like to break up general terms like "Atheism" "Pantheism" "Christianity" into different sections etc... I just put that there for good measure :tongue:
I went ahead and voted atheist, though in reality I'm more of an agnostic nontheist. I don't actively reject the idea that there is some sort of deity, but if there is a deity I believe that it is not a personal one, and thus there is no point in really contemplating about it.
I voted apathetic. Technically I'd say I'm an atheist, but I can't really claim it to be a researched and contemplated standpoint. It's more of a "Yea, that sounds about right" feeling, with little incentive to do real research on any philosophies or religions. (Unless watching Internet 'debates' counts as research :P) Kinda waiting for the time where that will start bugging me.
Atheist
Atheist, 100% sure that there is no god.
atheist, but 99.99% unsure about everything. The last 0.01% is what I think I know.
You missed transcendental panenthiesm.
animist
Apathetic. None of these "fundamental questions about life" really matter to me anymore. If there even is objective truth I've submitted to the fact that its beyond us and far greater than myself. I used to think about these things all the time, but I've found it just distracts me from more productive activities I could be doing in this short window of time we have here.
100% unsure about everything I perceive, and 100% uninterested either way.
What a boring, unsatisfactory life you must lead, not caring about anything and being completely unsure about everything. :|Quote:
Originally Posted by Speesh
Jehovah's Witness, though I am currently disfellowshipped (not a recognized member of the congregation until I straighten my life out).
Atheist. I believe in God about like I believe in the Great Pumpkin. Technically, though, I think there is a higher likelihood that the Great Pumpkin exists than there is that God exists.
Noooo! You must not say that. I love when atheists are very rational thinkers - in which case you'd have to say something like you think the probability of there being no god is 99.999999%. :boogie:Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
There is as much reason to suppose the existence of god as there is the flying spaghetti monster once you get out all of the superstitious cultural ideas around it. Hell, the FSM is actually more likely, since he makes no illogical claims, is bound by similar universal laws, and spaghetti is an observed state of matter. :P
Well, if you're conceiving of a benevolent God, for instance, you can be 100% of his nonexistence, due to the indisputable empirical evidence for the fact that shit happens.
OR...are we just perceiving shit to happen? Everything that has ever happened in the history of the universe has followed a certain set of rules...never failing: the laws of physics. Its much more likely that humans, through our retarded sense of the consequences of our actions, in other words our myopia, and the fact that we only use a fraction of our brainpower, not to mention the power of the mind, have misconceived the universe to be inherently evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Actually I have faith in my abilities to make the rational judgement that entities such as the smallpox virus are bad things.
But thats only your perception. Yeah, they are bad to the human race, because they kill us. But they are only participating in what every form of life does, which is to kill or be killed; reproduce or die. Thats not to say that I think the smallpox viruses have rights or anything, or that im going to go start a new group called PETV, or people for the ethical treatment of viruses
Im just trying to get people to look at this objectively.
Yeah what he said! :D
Besides I said god in general, not being specific. A big man thing in the sky.
That's pretty specific tbh.
But anyway, viruses aren't alive (biologically speaking). That's why they make a good example. Humans have consciousness and experience, and I believe that I make the right judgement when I say that consciousness is intrinsically (but ineffably) virtuous, and that it is therefore correct to prefer a conscious being to live a full life rather than to suffer horribly and then be destroyed by something which is no more appreciative of the whole thing than a rock is appreciative of good weather.
But what is life? Who's to say that someday there wont be a computer with all of the basic characteristics of life. I dont think there is any real definition of what consciousness is and what types of life posess it annd what types are so unfortunate as to not posess it.
I am "Other".
I am a mess of beliefs, superstitions, worries, instincts, experiences, practices and cultures that originate from Satanism, Evangelical Christianity, Marxism, Discordianism, Buddhism, Thelema, Neopaganism, Hinduism, Baha'i, Anglicanism, Quakerism, The New Age, Atheism and Transhumanism. Frankly, bad habits I have picked up from all of these traditions makes life hard in my head where religion is concerned.
Marxism isn't a religion :P
We'll have to agree to disagreeQuote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
It started out as a cult, but it is big enough now to be considered a religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
hahaha
Atheist here. Is it just me or is there an uncannily high number of us around here?
Voted atheist, but I'm way more lax with the whole religion thing than I used to be.
This sums me up rather well.Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCarnie
Yeah... I'm not really agnostic because I do have an opinion, but that opinion is essentially that all religions are most likely wrong, because none of them has any empirical or logical justification. I'm open to the idea that the universe could have been 'created' by a 'conscious' entity or some other such idea, just as I'm open to the idea that it wasn't. At the moment there's no evidence either way (although the former seems far fetched).
Presbyterian Christian (one of the more prominent Protestant sects).
Well, at least you've got your bases covered :PQuote:
Originally Posted by My Other Brain
I disagree with both you and Ninja. Marxism started out as a philosophical school of revolutionary socialism. But it grew up. For a lot of people the philosophy basically functioned in people's life in a way that is indistinguishable from a faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
In the Soviet Union Material Dialecticism became a dogmatic organised philosophy that I would say had the worst qualities of a religion without very many of the good ones.
But no, never really a cult.
:/Quote:
It started out as a cult, but it is big enough now to be considered a religion.
Why do you say that exactly? I am not really clear on your explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by My Other Brain
I was making a joke about the blind and passionate devotion some people develop for Marxism. It is like a cult that became a religion, but technically it was never either. I was just using a metaphor to make fun of Marxism because I think it is such a retarded economic philosophy with so many cult like followers.
I'm an atheist as of a year and a half ago or so. A multitude of reasons, too long to list.
Um, what about agnostic?
I don't really believe in God, but I don't not believe in him.
If you don't believe in god, then you don't believe in him/it/her/them.
You are an atheist then, but you claim agnosticism.
There's really no gray area. It's either you believe in him or you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by slayer
Hehe, that's an awful lot of bold assumptions you're making about my personal life based on the 5 sentences I typed. On the contrary, I forget about that elusive higher nature of reality and indulge myself in the tangible one in front of me. The way I see it, whatever happens to us is going to happen, there's really no point sitting here trying to predict what it is. Just because I don't care about why we exist doesn't mean I don't care about life itself!Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
I'm an atheist. But I acknowledge that there's still is a small chance that a god may exists.
I was just kidding :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Speesh
But the way you worded that made it sound like you go through life like a scared child in the woods or something.
Haha not quite the theme I was going for, guess I better watch what I type eh? :PQuote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
But I don't really know if I don't believe in him or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Eagle
Then you, sir, are indecisive.
Hmm. How to start this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
First, I think a good basic start is to look at how to define religion. I go along with Feuerbach's thesis that religion is a projection of material values and desires onto something transcendental and conceptual. I believe that Marx would go along with this interpretation too. After all, he wrote:
The problem is, I think that by Marx's own definition, Marxism became a religion. It became a way of expressing a hope for a better world and, in the communist world, a hope for socialism to come even prevented people from attaining true class consciousness.Quote:
Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of manstate, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
On a more positive note, the biographies of great Marxists read very similarly to the biographies of saints or religious believers. They have the same conversion experiences, faith communities, surges of hope and spiritual low points. There's also hymns, mythic characters, and no end of pomp and ceremony.
The thing is, Marxism grew out of its cult stage pretty fast. I guess because it grew out of an already very successful left wing movement. By the time it had stabilised into a dogmatic form with its own distinct culture it was already a highly significant world-wide belief system. Therefore, it kind of skipped over the cult stage because it didn't stabilise as a religion until it was too big to be a cult.
That's my flawed interpretation, anyway.
That's sort of my interpretation as well. One of my favorite quotes is by Marx: "One thing that I'm sure of is that I'm not a Marxist."
Atheism = Irreligious. You are an indecisive atheist.Quote:
Originally Posted by slayer
You could call me a potential Scientific Pantheist, except I definitely believe there is something after death....and I think it's either you live within your memories of what you expect/believe, or the plane/density concept is true( 8 densities of reality, with our reality being in the 3rd density, and the 8th being completely at one with the Universal Mind/Cosmic Consciousness with no ego )
I think the Law of One is very interesting, that everything in existence is God, the Divine...everything is part of a Universal Mind or Cosmic Consciousness. God is you and me..with no ego. I believe consciousness IS a soul. and the universal mind is like a giant self-transcendent machine, a cube that encompasses all of creation: every world, every reality, every dimension. It holds within it every concept, every idea, every being ever created or that will be created, every dream, every thought.....it IS the singularity and nothing exists outside of it.
http://image.wetpaint.com/image/2/Gx...0388/GW400H400
I think the Ancient Egyptian Religion was pretty cool, it made sense if you take into consideration spirituality( the God's they worshiped, such as Ra- the sun God, or Thoth, or Pharaohs) were actually spiritually enlightened beings and were immortal through Kundalini awakening. Hence the snakes coming out of the Pharaoh's head.
http://www.crystalinks.com/kundalini.jpg
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehisto...utankhamun.jpg
By immortal I mean living for an extended life span rather than regular human life span.
Can't stand pantheism. It's the ultimate in superficial delusion.
If the whole universe and God are identical then the entire religion is completely meaningless. It doesn't say anything about reality. It just gives the universe another name... it's no more profound than calling the universe 'apple pancake'. What do you learn from doing that? Nothing.
It depends on how you interpret it I suppose. The way that I interpret it, it is a word game that collapses in on itself if you poke it too hard and I've never once explicitly used the word god to describe the universe but I very much like the fact that it essentially posits that "spirituality" can emerge from cold hard facts with no need to fudge them with new age garbage. It's completely interchangeable with atheism and my answer to the question largely depends on my mood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
My favorite example is Dennett's assertion that even though our consciousness is nothing but an emergent phenomenon of neural networks, we can still, in a meaningful sense, regard ourselves as having a soul. He gets called a Darwinian Fundamentalist all the time, so you know he's a stand-up fellow.
It also encapsulates a certain sense of wonder that some people are inclined to have towards the universe. It surely doesn't include any sort of worship or prayer though.
Granted, there may be some crazy people that can't tell the difference between relativity and quantum mechanics that claim to be 'Scientific' pantheists and then spout off a bunch of non-scientific, new age garbage in the next paragraph without even catching the irony but I think that they just do it because they like the name.
EDIT: Put another way, "spirituality" (whatever that means) seems to be a fundamental aspect of the human animal and I see no reason why the theists should have a monopoly on it.
I have the same stance really. Using pantheism to mean 'the universe is mysterious enough to not require unfounded mystical elements' is all good; the problem is of course that the majority of self-proclaimed pantheists have no such stance but rather, as you say, are just full of New Age delusions and sentimentalities.
I don't think the former really warrants a distinct religious category though... most atheists would say that such a philosophy is encapsulated in theirs.
Christian, agnostic. I don't reject the idea that God (or any other deity) may not exist.
But the fact that so many reject the mere possibility of such an existence, solely based on the fact that there is "no proof" of it, is just fucking stupid, and makes for a great display of how many people claim they're supporters of science, but in reality contradict all the main principles of science. Real scientists don't even touch upon the subject of religion; they're brave enough to say "I don't know" regarding subjects they don't understand, because they realize it's impossible to truly disprove anything. Instead of wasting all their time arguing against religion and attacking the religious - as atheists do nonstop - they spend their time looking for alternate explanations. They have no bias because real science doesn't allow for bias. Real scientists...are unfathomably wiser and more intelligent than the ignorant, self-proclaimed supporters of (pseudo)logic that can be found by the dozen within the ranks of atheists. No offense, but you know you see us in exactly the same way, so I'm not inclined to feel sorry for any offense I may cause.
To me, there are only two possible explanations for the existence of the universe: A) There is no explanation, the universe always been there, or B) something had to create it.
I refuse to support A on the grounds that I believe everything has a beginning; everything will come to an end; everything will begin anew. The things that happen within the universe are all about cycles. Why shouldn't the universe itself be cyclical?
...And I didn't even list the Big Bang theory since, frankly, it's really not even worth discussing, it's so groundless. It doesn't have so much as a particle of the supporting evidence that evolution has.
If anyone wants to rip me a new asshole for my beliefs, that's fine...I'd like twelve of 'em, personally. Yay, I've got a Charlie Brown ghost ass!
The idea of a god creating the universe is as viable as the idea that the sun is held together by the will of the great pumkin, and not gravity. your points are ridiculous and show you ahve no understanding of science at all.
If there is no proof for something, it cannot be discussed really. The big bang theory is an observation. It's called red shift. You, sir, are the ignorant one here :)
Anyone who accepts religion but questions god is just as deluded as the next guy. I suppose you also dislike people who don't believe in the tooth fairy or santa clause just because there isn't any proof?
Again, you are the only person here who's logic is flawed. Noone disproved god. They said that the idea is unprovable, baseless and therefore wrong and not even worth discussing.
Was your first impression when you saw a mountain "Wow that must have been created"?
Thanks Roxxor. I didn't want to have to respond to that.
Is that the sole reason most people reject the idea of god? I'd say it runs a little deeper than that in many cases. Would you agree that there is not a monster made of spaghetti who controls the universe? There's no evidence for that, either, and I'd venture to guess that you hold the existence of that monster about as likely as most atheists hold the typical notion of god. That being so, where do you see the difference between your regard of the spaghetti monster and an atheist's regard for god?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lėzen
Saying you don't know when you don't is fine. That's just honesty. But being unable to commit to a belief because it's "wrong" is not bravery. In the case where someone thinks they do know, what do you call this? Your comments here seem to imply that it is necessarily arrogance in this case. Do you accept that denying the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or any other conceivable thing, circumstance or situation) is also arrogance on the grounds that it cannot truly be disproven? If not, what is the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lėzen
I submit that what you call "arguing against religion and attacking the religious" in many cases is an offering of an alternate explanation (and in the context of an argument, an invitation for one as well). Explanations aren't any good if people don't believe them or can't understand them. Attempting to facilitate the exchange of these ideas is not a bad thing. That the exchange is often hard-headed and vitriolic is not at all to the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lėzen
Is a part necessarily representative of the whole it's contained within? Clocks indicate the time, but gears and batteries by themselves don't do much of anything. If the parts of a clock cannot individually tell time, then a whole clock should not be able to tell time by that reasoning. But what is the universe other than the collection of things within it? Shouldn't that be like saying that if a ball is round, then a pile of balls must also be round? It seems to me that a group of things does not inherently have the form or function of the things it is comprised of on a level other than the level of the individual thing. The universe seems much the same way. Things work vastly differently on a scale of millions of lightyears than they do on the scale of fractions of a millimetre. If it was even at every magnification, it would appear and function more or less the same at every level of zoom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lėzen
For that matter, is the idea that "things that happen within the universe are all about cycles" even true? Do you really mean all things or just some things?
Duhhhhhhhhhh...Quote:
...And I didn't even list the Big Bang theory since, frankly, it's really not even worth discussing, it's so groundless. It doesn't have so much as a particle of the supporting evidence that evolution has.
Sorry but this is the standard response you'll be getting now for trying to speak authoritatively on a subject you clearly have no clue about.
What about the Cosmic Microwave Background?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lėzen
And red shift.
Like I said, he's just making shit up as he goes along.
That's 5 new assholes. Can we get 7 more?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lėzen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hercuflea
Yay, another Deist! :banana:
For anyone interested in the basic of the basics, this website is useful:
Deism in a Nutshell
I'm interested that the foundation is listed as 'reason' rather than faith. What is the reason?
They mean reason as a form of logic or thinking, not in the sense of a cause.
Reason
Uhhhuh. So what is the logic which supports deism?
If you're curious about reading more on Deism, try here:
Deism Defined
As I understand, this thread is just to state an affiliation, not for defending a particular belief or affiliation. If you would like to debate Deism, please make a new thread inviting Deists to defend their position instead of derailing this thread. Thanks. :)
I was just curious. Apparently you don't have an answer so I won't trouble you any further by asking a third time.
If you want to learn more about something, start with reading the links I gave or do your own research. Again, this thread isn't about every person having to defend their beliefs to you or debating with you. Please stay on topic. Thanks.
Far too busy, sorry. Atheism it is.
@ Naiya.
Are you a Deist too? If so, sweet i have only met one other Deist in my life, and he was sort of borderline at that.
Yea, I was a Southern Baptist until I was 17, when i read The Age of Reason. I was kind of opposed to it for a while, but i kept going back to it and it made sense, so here i am. I dont have any beef with Christianity though, I just think its fundamentally incorrect. I want to say something, though. On that website you linked it says that Deists believe that there is no personal relationship with the Creator. I'd have to disagree with that, I believe I have a relationship with God through the sole, simple medium of the Creation itself. The natural laws, life, true goodness, etc all come from God, and the fact that he made them all readily available to me proves to me that he is a loving God, contrary to what a lot of Deists believe, which is that he is indifferent.
Thanks. :)
Well, from what I've read, Deism really doesn't have any official tenents, so I think it's perfectly possible to go the route you have. I'm all for having the freedom to fit a philosophy or belief system to your own personal experiences and feelings. I like your take on it though, it's definitely got me thinking now. :D
I agree with you Lezen, people are always thinking something has a beginning or an end..that's linear thinking. But we need to start thinking cyclical like you said. People are always looking to science to prove God or something..IT CANNOT. It's not supposed to and it never will.
Science only proves what we can observe/perceive. What about speeding up a tape recording so high and fast that you can't hear it anymore. Does that mean it's not there? No, we just can't perceive it in this frequency range.
The answer is consciousness(self-awareness). And consciousness cannot be proven because it is subjective. You could possibly argue that consciousness is caused by synapses in the brain..but what about the people who have had experiences while being brain dead for longer than an 15 or 30 minutes. Regardless if it was a dream or not, they still had an experience with no brain activity. Consciousness is the missing piece to the puzzle.
The Ekpyrotic Model of the Universe proposes that our current universe arose from a collision of two three-dimensional worlds (branes) in a space with an extra (fourth) spatial dimension.
http://media-files.gather.com/images...96/f3/full.jpg
Michio Kaku has a lot of truth, his theory about the multiverse seems almost "precise" to me. We're like flies trapped on fly paper. We can't leave that fly paper unless we can reach the speed of light. That fly paper being the 3d universe we're in bound by time and space.
The beginning of the universe starting from big bang, but there are big bangs happening everytime there is a quantum movement. Like say if your on a basketball court and you decide to drive left, well a big bang would happen and there would be an exact copy of the universe except this time you went right. But not that macro, it's quantum. So big bangs happen constantly..instantly, and infinitely.
It's almost like a machine.
The singularity explodes caused by two 3-dimensions crashing into each other...well that's the theory anyway. But their pretty close..it's not about focusing OUTside in the cosmos, it's about focusing IN...subjective to find the truth. These "membrane crashes" occur in a 4th dimensional hyperspace. People will never be able to experience this 4th dimensional hyperspace objectively IMHO, unless you can somehow travel AT the the speed of light, ( which would then be existing outside of time and space, allowing you to leave the fly trap.
That can't happen because the speed of light is the barrier and can't be reached. Whoever created everything knew what he/she was doing. Mass( your body) cannot reach the speed of light, it probably would be ripped apart into oblivion. But CONSCIOUSNESS can travel at the speed of light, it IS light. Within the 4d hyperspace you can see the multiverse, an infinite number of 3d universes. A lot of people have claimed to see the multiverse on Psychedelics such as Salvia and DMT. It seems the multiverse can look like anything you expect or want it to be. Such as a huge infinite book with each page being a different universe.
or
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...3145a-i1.0.jpg
http://roberthowardweb.com/Multiverse%20sml.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ULYS62ugM9...multiverse.jpg
Here is Michio Kaku's theory of the multiverse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyXVCggV6EU
Who are you hearing this from? What "scientists"?Quote:
Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD
Nope, that is complete nonsense. The universe is determined, not random. Probability is the 5th dimension to us and it can be said to be 0 dimensions. I.e. a point, or fixed. Unchanging.
The theory of the multi verse has no proof and is quite frankly completely ridiculous.
I am yet to be convinced that there is a God. So I am an Atheist. (Y)
I don't understand that.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
I agree that there is no proof for it, but it is the best way to have determinism in light of quantum phenomena. That's something that a lot of the new age crew doesn't understand. The whole reason to postulate the multiverse is to recover determinism.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
And I too am curious about scientists trying to get to light speed. Of all people, they understand why it's not possible.
You seem pro-deterministic to untenable levels. You can't just ignore quantum theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
Firstly, why is it completely ridiculous? If the creation of a large number of universes is infinitely ridiculous, it follows that the creation of a single universe is infinitely ridiculous, yet such an event has occurred, reductio ad absurdium.Quote:
The theory of the multi verse has no proof and is quite frankly completely ridiculous.
Secondly, how do you explain the fine tuning of the universe for life?
From the voices in your head I presume?Quote:
I'm hearing that scientists have or are trying to get to light speed..
I thought I read that somewhere, but i was mistaken, they were talking about photons I believe.
I believe..Once you reach the speed of light you BECOME light...pure energy. Outside of time and space. Interesting stuff really.
Saying that every probable event creates a new universe is an unfounded idea. Where does all the matter and energy necessary for the new universe come from?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Creation?Quote:
Firstly, why is it completely ridiculous? If the creation of a large number of universes is infinitely ridiculous, it follows that the creation of a single universe is infinitely ridiculous, yet such an event has occurred, reductio ad absurdium.
How do you explain the fine tuning of the universe for silicon-based computing devices?Quote:
Secondly, how do you explain the fine tuning of the universe for life?
The theory of the uni-verse has no proof and is quite frankly completely ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
The theory of there being no god has no proof and is quite frankly completely ridiculous.
You have never observed the universe before?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hercuflea
I am not going to comment on the second one since it makes you sound like a complete idiot :rolleyes:
Yeah, and your multiverse comment made you sound like a complete idiot. Thats what I was doing there...
You've observed a universe being created? You do realize of course that that is like the find of the millennium?
I'm not talking about the quantum theory interpretation, I'm talking about the idea that there may be more than one universe, with different fundemantal constants.Quote:
Saying that every probable event creates a new universe is an unfounded idea. Where does all the matter and energy necessary for the new universe come from?
Obviously the energy point makes no sense because, again, the idea that there could be several other universes containing energy is no more bizarre than the existence of this one.
Uh yes, it means something wasn't there previously and then it was.Quote:
Creation?
If the EMF constant differed by around 1 part in 10^40, molecules would not form; particles would just be floating around in a big soup.Quote:
How do you explain the fine tuning of the universe for silicon-based computing devices?
Either the universe for some reason wants matter to form (i.e. argument for theism) or there are lots of universes, in a tiny proportion of which matter forms. Which do you think is more reasonable..?
There are many other examples of tiny variations in constants destroying any possibility of complex phenomena.
It's worth just considering the fact that there is no reason that these constants are what they are. It's completely arbitrary.
No, but based on your conclusion, I'm guessing you've observed the infinite reaches of the "uni" verse?
The theory of there being no teapot orbiting the sun has no proof and is quite frankly completely ridiculous.Quote:
The theory of there being no god has no proof and is quite frankly completely ridiculous.
For God's sake just THINK before you post this dumb crap.
The point of that was: that none of these theories can be proven, God, no god, universe, multiverse, etc etc
To each his own.
There's a different between the lack of proof for an affirmative and the lack of proof for a negative.
Consider: should I believe that there is a teapot orbiting the sun?
No, because it's ridiculous, and there's no empirical or logical proof.
Same applies to God.
It does not apply to the multiverse because, although empirical proof is inherently impossible, there are clear logical arguments.
Hard Wired specifically said that at every moment in time a new universe is created. Where from?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I didn't say it wasn't possible, I said it was unfounded, which it is.
Why do you think that there was once no universe?Quote:
Uh yes, it means something wasn't there previously and then it was.
Obviously multiple universes, since a universe is an observed phenomenon, but that isn't proof that at every moment in time new universes form into other universes with the 'other possibility' of what just occurred in this universe. That is unfounded.Quote:
If the EMF constant differed by around 1 part in 10^40, molecules would not form; particles would just be floating around in a big soup.
Either the universe for some reason wants matter to form (i.e. argument for theism) or there are lots of universes, in a tiny proportion of which matter forms. Which do you think is more reasonable..?
Okay.Quote:
There are many other examples of tiny variations in constants destroying any possibility of complex phenomena.
It's worth just considering the fact that there is no reason that these constants are what they are. It's completely arbitrary.
Sorry it looks like we just misunderstood each other, I don't particularly believe in multiverses in the sense of the quantum interpretation.
In fact I don't have any particular views about that, because I haven't studied any quantum physics yet. I think it's one of those things that laymen are just completely unqualified to talk about.
Yeah it seems so.
Just a general question but why do a lot of people insist that time is 'cyclic'? And 'non-linear'? Doesn't make much sense to me seeing as I seem to experience the universe in at a consistent rate in chronological order according to my memories.
Way to get off topic guys.
That is a good observation and question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I have a question for you. You have read my recent posts haven't you?
Try to answer the question with the assumption that this reality is digital, virtual, simulated and computed. I look forward to your answer.
(Btw, I feel we are spreading the discussion over way too many different threads, can we continue in http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...t=83470&page=4 ? )
What's the question? :)
Im Catholic.
Conservation of energy: Conservation of energy is grossly violated if every instant infinite amounts of new matter are generated.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
MWI response: Conservation of energy is not violated since the energy of each branch has to be weighted by its probability, according to the standard formula for the conservation of energy in quantum theory. This results in the total energy of the multiverse being conserved.[36]
From the wiki article on MWI.
But he said a new universe that is basically a copy of the last except one quantum particle is different. How does this happen? Just because?
That's sort of a simplification. It's a long story. We can choose to think of it like that from the perspective of a single observer though, I believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
That's sort of the wrong question because I can choose to ask it about inertia. We have no idea what causes inertia. It's just because. Now granted, we can actually observe inertia. The main criterion for the multiverse theory has to be that it makes measurable predictions (and it does as it makes the same predictions as standard QM) and that it makes the theory simpler. The latter is what would distinguish it since the other universes would be fundamentally unobservable. I'm just getting up to actual calculational speed with QM so I cant really comment but the feeling among its supporters does seem to be that it does that.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
It is weird that one can fire a photon through a double slit and have it interfere with itself though, is it not? If they go through one at a time it still happens. That's pretty ridiculous. If there were one for each universe where that photon was at the starting point of the experiment though, then it sort of makes sense to think of them interfering with each other. It's a particle in this universe and a wave across the multiverse.
Lots of unanswered questions though.
A property of matter isn't a process. The spawning of a new universe is.
Your own question: "how do you explain the fine tuning of the universe for life?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Read my post again and try. :)
Agnostic Atheist (i.e. 99.999...% atheist).
As for my take on the Universe thing, I personally find it hard to believe that this is the only Universe that will ever exist, and this is the only cycle in that Universe as it will expand forever whilst dying of heat death, or having all particles decay in to photons or something.
The Universe came about once, and I don't find it inconceivable it could happen again.
Obviously this position is unfounded, and as we learn more I may well revise it. Even if the universe looks like it is expanding faster, there's so much that's unknown. Hell. it's even possible that our tiny perspective has some thing skewing it that is leading us to the wrong conclusion, which we wouldn't draw if we could take a very large step back. Who knows?
One hypothesis I like is the idea of infinite crunches and bangs in an infinite cycle. It's interesting because it would mean the same as the quantum interpretation of multiverses, i.e. everything possible happens in some universe. In fact, it'd mean we'd have universes identical to this one, where we've had this exact same discussion before, or even ones where the random arrangement of atoms created 'memories' of events from previous universes. It is rather mindblowing I find.
He did....Quote:
Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia
He said that since it is such an unbelievable coincidence that the emf constant was just right that there must be an infinite amount of universes in which only a few have the constant just right to allow complex structures to occur.
What exactly are you getting at?
No he did not.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
The option most representative of my beliefs was atheism, though that's not what I believe at all.