Would you even bother to read me if I didn't?You? Trouble?
Never...!Who says I do now?
;-)
You just betrayed yourself...
I fail to see why we have to have a reason to exist, isn't enough that we just do?Well in this case, the experiment was looking at not just why we as humans exist, but why the universe itself exists. The fact that more matter is formed than antimatter is fascinating.
There's a nice idea in String Theory that can be used to answer this.
It went a bit like this:
All possible universes (one for each energy formula, i.e. the ratio of matter to antimatter) will come into being one at a time. Some last only for an instant (as their energy set-up just cannot persist), but those with stable configurations will run their course, taking all the time they need. When they end, it's the next one's turn again.
And again, and again, and again.... Until our number is drawn. At the point, our universe phases into existence, leading to the creation of the stars, the solar system, life on our planet, intelligence on our planet, and finally a civilisation full of thinking minds that wonder how we came to be here.
Our universe is a 13something billion years old. But before it came into being, an indeterminate time span passed. Maybe only seconds. Maybe googolplex years. We'll probably never know.
Really? Considering the vastness of space, when you multiply any probability, no matter how small, by infinity, you end up with a positive value.
Note that the leading theory is that the universe is not infinite.
There's a problem with that logic, only because we don't have the proper context to know for sure. Basically we have no idea how rare life in the universe really is. Therefore we can't put it into proper context.There are very few accidents and the 'chance' of us being here by pure happenstance is so high as to be a leap of faith to believe such.
Exactly. We simply cannot draw any conclusion from our existence to any probabilities.
The chances of us existing is exactly 1, because we do exist. No matter whether it was a sure thing that we showed up or the chances were 1:googolplexplex, we are here.
I was speaking more then just the drake equation. Which by the way with available data the answer is 1. Of course Carl Sagan used to say if we are the only intelligent life in the universe what a waste of space.So you are saying we were seeded by aliens? :)
Yeah! Aliens from planet 01011001.
We exist only to bake cookies.
Maybe we exist as a counter-example. "See children, this is how you should not go about it."
Maybe we exist as a counter-example. "See children, this is how you should not go about it."
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."
~Douglas Adams
We exist only to bake cookies.The Nestle Tollhouse recipe was the greatest invention in the history of mankind.
Nestle is God's middle name.
Jesus Nestle Christ?Nestle is God's middle name.We exist only to bake cookies.The Nestle Tollhouse recipe was the greatest invention in the history of mankind.
Most people think his middle name is Hershey hence the initials J.H.C.
|
I did my own taste test in Church yesterday and determined that Dove is more heavenly than Hershey. Hence, Dove chocolate is why we exist.That Dove chocolate is better than Hershey is self-evident. Hershey is a sugary confection bearing only a passing resemblance to chocolate.
I have to wonder if there is more chocolate bloom in Dove. It seems creamier and stays in your mouth longer, spreading around and transporting you to sheer bliss.
The poodle exists to put "landmines" in the pathway of faith. :)To learn to walk by faith is one of the chief reasons that the divine placed us here, at least if you are a religious person.That explains why we are here; Now, explain the poodle. You can't, can you?
By Jove, I think he's got it.
NO! We can't agree to that!/Shut up you!
Is it possible possible to scientifically prove that God exists?
Sorry to pop in so long afterwards, but I saw this and had to interject. Your question is an oxymoron, inasfar as, according to scientific thought, one NEVER "proves" anything -- one can only disprove things. That way, there is always the possibility of revising a previous hypothesis, or generating new ones, rather than assume that one has reached some kind of "end point" of knowledge.
It is not possible to "scientifically prove" anything at all.
Is it possible possible to scientifically prove that God exists?Sorry to pop in so long afterwards, but I saw this and had to interject. Your question is an oxymoron, inasfar as, according to scientific thought, one NEVER "proves" anything -- one can only disprove things. That way, there is always the possibility of revising a previous hypothesis, or generating new ones, rather than assume that one has reached some kind of "end point" of knowledge.
It is not possible to "scientifically prove" anything at all.
Then you should be able to disprove god exists.
Then you should be able to disprove god exists.
Only if the goalposts don't keep shifting. But the God most often espoused is a "God of the Gaps," who keeps retreating further and further into whatever dark crannies we haven't yet disproved. Either that, or it's a "God of nothing," who is declared to exist "outside of all observations" anyway, no matter what is disproven.
Science works on the natural world, and deals with physical reality. Claims of a "magic land" that no physical methods are capable of studying are therefore pretty much impervious (or moot, depending on who you ask).
On the other hand, there are specific claims related to God that can and have been disproven:
|
Then you should be able to disprove god exists.Is it possible possible to scientifically prove that God exists?Sorry to pop in so long afterwards, but I saw this and had to interject. Your question is an oxymoron, inasfar as, according to scientific thought, one NEVER "proves" anything -- one can only disprove things. That way, there is always the possibility of revising a previous hypothesis, or generating new ones, rather than assume that one has reached some kind of "end point" of knowledge.
It is not possible to "scientifically prove" anything at all.
But despite all attempts this too has been in vain. Even though every other month someone seems to claim it.
Even though every other month someone seems to claim it.
See above. "Someone" is an idiot. Scientists claim to disprove hypotheses regarding physical reality: assertions like a young Earth, or that prayer is effective in healing people. And they can back up their statements with demonstrations of incorrect predictions on the part of these hypotheses.
No serious scientist claims to disprove a vague assertion that lacks any physical reality to test. Mostly, they say that there is no evidence supporting it and therefore provisionally reject it -- which is not the same thing at all -- because if physical evidence of God's existence is offered, they'll have to evaluate it at that time.
I have to wonder if there is more chocolate bloom in Dove. It seems creamier and stays in your mouth longer, spreading around and transporting you to sheer bliss.I did my own taste test in Church yesterday and determined that Dove is more heavenly than Hershey. Hence, Dove chocolate is why we exist.That Dove chocolate is better than Hershey is self-evident. Hershey is a sugary confection bearing only a passing resemblance to chocolate.
Chocolate is like sex, even when it's not great it's still pretty good.
Then you should be able to disprove god exists.But despite all attempts this too has been in vain. Even though every other month someone seems to claim it.
This post deals with what science can or cannot test, with respect to the supernatural.
Only if the goalposts don't keep shifting.
Oh agreed! Given that most of us agree that all the Zeuses of history were human creations, I find that substantial circumstantial evidence that all gods are human creations…including I Am.
|
|
Chocolate is like sex, even when it's not great it's still pretty good.I have to wonder if there is more chocolate bloom in Dove. It seems creamier and stays in your mouth longer, spreading around and transporting you to sheer bliss.I did my own taste test in Church yesterday and determined that Dove is more heavenly than Hershey. Hence, Dove chocolate is why we exist.That Dove chocolate is better than Hershey is self-evident. Hershey is a sugary confection bearing only a passing resemblance to chocolate.
I hate to disagree but I have had bad chocolate.
To learn to walk by faith is one of the chief reasons that the divine placed us here, at least if you are a religious person.That explains why we are here; Now, explain the poodle. You can't, can you?
"Divine Comedy"
"Divine Comedy"To learn to walk by faith is one of the chief reasons that the divine placed us here, at least if you are a religious person.That explains why we are here; Now, explain the poodle. You can't, can you?
Then you should be able to disprove god exists.
How?
Chocolate is like sex, even when it's not great it's still pretty good.
I did have really nasty chocolate.
I have disproved your chocolate.
I hate to disagree but I have had bad chocolate.Chocolate is like sex, even when it's not great it's still pretty good.I have to wonder if there is more chocolate bloom in Dove. It seems creamier and stays in your mouth longer, spreading around and transporting you to sheer bliss.I did my own taste test in Church yesterday and determined that Dove is more heavenly than Hershey. Hence, Dove chocolate is why we exist.That Dove chocolate is better than Hershey is self-evident. Hershey is a sugary confection bearing only a passing resemblance to chocolate.
Don't eat the chocolate that the dogs drop.
Note that the leading theory is that the universe is not infinite.
Really? Considering the vastness of space, when you multiply any probability, no matter how small, by infinity, you end up with a positive value.
Very right, in fact the universe almost certainly can't be infinite. No physical quantity can be infinite, the universe is so stunningly vast that it may be effectively infinite, but it is not infinite in a true mathematical sense.
But this latest experiment came up with an unbalanced ratio of matter to antimatter that goes beyond the imbalance predicted by the Standard Model.
What is the reason for this imbalance? Why does this imbalance exist? How does it affect us? It is of my personal opinion that there are so many unexplained scientific that the rationale of it all doesn't come crumbling apart. How much further will test studies go in science? Theres only one of two like outcomes; either we prove the existance of the divine or we completely destroy ourselves.
I'm sure people said the same thing about Maxwell's equations? Or about the problems with the luminiferous ether. If every time we are posed a question about nature, we sat back and said 'Oh well, its a mystery, so God must have done it' we would never have gotten to the point were we could understand the concept of matter and anti-matter.
The standard model isn't the end of Science, no genuine scientific theory claims to be absolute or true, that is not the realm of science. You are gravely misunderstanding if you interpret scientific postulation as the religious texts for scientists.
Faith, and religion must be iron clad and inviolable, lest one be led astray.
Science is studying the real world, and accepting that you don't know everything, but trying to know more.
Faith is to claim an answer, Science is to seek one. There is nothing wrong with faith in the big things, or metaphysical things, but one must be careful when dealing with reality.
As far as I am aware the current theory is that the universe is infinite rather than closed. This is supported by the findings of the WMAP experiment that measured the light from very soon after the big bang.
Science will never prove or disprove the existence of the divine. In the same way, we cannot access the fundamental quantity of what it is to be conscious. There are things that science cannot prove or disprove and it's a mistake to claim that it bears upon them at all. In fact I read that there are more religious scientists than in society in general. I guess that's what comes of looking for patterns in an apparently chaotic world and finding simple laws that govern everything down to the very smallest scales and up to the largest.
The standard model of particle physics can be written down on one side of paper and governs everything apart from gravity. It makes the whole universe tick. Now that's a remarkable thing. If you want to claim that natural laws are evidence of the divine then I'm not going to stop you, but I'll warn that those laws will be disproved and replaced by deeper and more fundamental laws. I also believe such laws have no need of any divine creator. However that has no bearing on my work and is my opinion. I certainly won't stop anyone believing otherwise.
I will argue that science will not come crumbling down under the weight of unanswered questions. This is the first time in 40 years that the Standard Model has failed to explain a process discovered in a collider. This result was predicted 5-6 years ago by theorists and is seen to be the first signal of new physics such as supersymmetry that we expect to find at the LHC. It's exciting and suggests we will find many more interesting things at the LHC that will expand our knowledge of how the universe works.
... and now I'll let the thread return to it's normal programming.
|
|
I find it highly unlikely that we would ever prove the existence of the divine. If such an event happened it would destroy the need for faith. To learn to walk by faith is one of the chief reasons that the divine placed us here, at least if you are a religious person.
I would have to disagree with the idea that proving the existance of the divine would eliminate the need for faith.
Assuming the all knowing, all powerful deity of the various Judeo-Christain faiths, knowing for an absolute indisputable fact that God exists still would require faith in said deities "divine plan"
I would go so far as to say that "proving" God exists would make it harder, not easier to maintain faith in such a "plan". It would open up more questions than it would answer. It would also make it easier for zealots amd the criminaly insane to use and abuse others in the name of the divine.
Proving God's existance would not alter the universe or the rules we live by anymore than disproving said existance.
Yep, we can only know something about stuff within a 42 billion light year volume. Anything beyond that is unknowable (right now) and there's no point discussing it.
|
|
Yep, we can only know something about stuff within a 42 billion light year volume. Anything beyond that is unknowable (right now) and there's no point discussing it.
It does not stop some from trying however. Both mathematically and philosophically. I imagine one day we may well have deep space probes that can see the limit, if there is one, of the universe. The further we see though also mean we look backwards in time. It boggles the mind in some ways thinking of what it might be that we see. Seconds before the big bang? Something staring back at us? More likely then not, we can not conceive, as of yet, what we will find. It will however be well worth the task to try to find out. I can imagine God smiling back and saying took you long enough. :0
I can imagine God smiling back and saying took you long enough.
Or more likely, retreating further back into hiding again, the way He's always done... but your answer is more fun.