[internetguru]

(Original post by justanotherposter)
Wild illogical theory I just came up with:
'God' is in fact a time travelling scientist from the future who, realising he is God, has travelled millions of years back in time to create the big bang, therefore giving us life.

I came up with a similar joke theory. Time does not travel forwards it travels in an endless loop, me and my friend create the big bang therefore ending the world and creating the new one again. This process then takes place for infinity.

[SquaredCircle]

Entertaining your argument would mean descending to such levels of stupid that it would undermine my performance in my exams.

So god bless you and have a lovely sleep.

[Christianlady]

(Original post by c471)
Im somebody who is quite an active follower of science and new developments. I am astounded by the number of atheists who use science as an all covering shield against any sort of higher power.

Now, I was raised catholic, and now firmly agnostic. I reserve judgement on the issue of god, and figure if it changes in the course of my life one way or the other, I can accomodate this, so i have no axe to grind

Hello C471,

Science is based on the scientific method of questioning, experimenting/manipulating variables, and observing.

It's an awesome system for what one can see,hear, smell, feel, and touch through whatever aids invented as well as with the naked eye! It's not a great system for what is outside the mere physical realm, however.

For reasons not completely understood by most humans who believe in God, we believe God chooses to not show Himself to all mankind. This, in human terms, hardly seems fair. However, when put into the perspective of the tiny minute size of the human being/population compared to the vast greatness of space, it merely shows that God is not on the same level as teeny tiny humans on the relatively small planet call earth circling not even the biggest star in our galaxy!

Humans have only begun to understand the mysteries of time, space, and dimensions. The more people learn, the more people can understand that there is so much more to learn!!! Science is a great way to study what we can see, but it has a hard time analyzing what is not apparent to the human eye or to a microscope or telescope, or any other physical device that helps humans study the the world.

Typically atheists clamour on about how science leaves no room for god etc, how we havent seen any evidence etc. I think this is a valid arguement for somebody with this view 100 years ago. today, however, it is very difficult to use science as a stick to beat religion.

Agreed.

I think however the main issue is the never-ending argument between Creation by Intelligent Design (Supreme Being) or Evolution that is a huge coincidence.

Some scientists mix the two theories, which is fine, but really, unless a person/group of people can invent a time machine (that can withstand going back in time where there was no modern man-made technology) in order to record how life on earth came into being, it is really hard to prove anything. Now, scientists have made inventions in order to measure the age of the earth and earth's artifacts, but they have not been proved through the test of time of someone actually going WAAAY back to BC and testing them out. That would be great if that could eventually happen... mere mortals manipulating time... and the weather... and space (I love science fiction)!

As an example, I would like to highlight a few widely accepted scientific principles.

An experiment called the 'delayed choice quantum eraser', (wiki it for details) for example, seems to provide compelling and pretty substantial results that indicated a violation of the 'cause and effect' principle. To put it simply, the results seem to fly in the face of our understanding of time, in that the end result seems to dictate the journey, rather than the other way round.

Another idea is entanglement and non locality. Basicly, it is well observed that particles can interact across vast distance with apparently no discernable physical connection.

The list is endless, i could bring up the countless examples of really well documented and accepted stuff, that does not go along with the whole 'how can my mind live on after I die, science doesnt see any possibility'. In fact, as we progress, we seem to unearth greater, more profound mysteries of how the universe works. If we (as a scientific community) can accept that the presence of conciousness has a fundamental and irreplacable role in even the most basic occurances of our universe, how can we dismiss the idea that the universe exists because of conciousness, which is a very deep and meaningful idea indeed.

I would like to see how these ideas sit with some staunch atheists, as i have yet to see any real strong position which extends beyond 'the idea of god doesnt sit well with me' or 'the bible says this and this so how can it be true'.

I am curious... do you think that eventually, mere mortals (humans) will be able to manipulate time and space and the weather? I am curious about that because that fascinates me.

Personally, if a person could create a time machine, that would be awesome if it could be used to go back in time and convince people slavery was wrong, for example. Imagine how that could change the world!!! yeah I know I sound like a dreamer.

However, today there are inventions that people in the past thought to be impossible. I personally don't know if God will allow people to learn how to manipulate time, space, weather, and even life. Imagine if a person could build a robot and put life into that robot, so that the robot is a living being? Wow.

I do very much believe in God, and I don't know what His limitations that He put on people are in regards to knowledge. I do believe He didn't want people to have the wisdom of good and evil, but He knew that would happen. He didn't create us to be robots. Free choice and the ability to hurt people comes with the ability to love people and NOT HURT people. It's kind of hard to love if there's no alternative.

Anyways, I'm rambling, but I enjoyed reading your thread. I understand why you are agnostic and I understand why people are atheists as well. It is true that some Atheists look down on people who believe in God, but I am learning to just understand that some people mock what they don't understand.

Peace and God bless

[ThatPerson]

(Original post by c471)
Im somebody who is quite an active follower of science and new developments. I am astounded by the number of atheists who use science as an all covering shield against any sort of higher power.

Now, I was raised catholic, and now firmly agnostic. I reserve judgement on the issue of god, and figure if it changes in the course of my life one way or the other, I can accomodate this, so i have no axe to grind.

Typically atheists clamour on about how science leaves no room for god etc, how we havent seen any evidence etc. I think this is a valid arguement for somebody with this view 100 years ago. today, however, it is very difficult to use science as a stick to beat religion.

As an example, I would like to highlight a few widely accepted scientific principles.

An experiment called the 'delayed choice quantum eraser', (wiki it for details) for example, seems to provide compelling and pretty substantial results that indicated a violation of the 'cause and effect' principle. To put it simply, the results seem to fly in the face of our understanding of time, in that the end result seems to dictate the journey, rather than the other way round.

Another idea is entanglement and non locality. Basicly, it is well observed that particles can interact across vast distance with apparently no discernable physical connection.

The list is endless, i could bring up the countless examples of really well documented and accepted stuff, that does not go along with the whole 'how can my mind live on after I die, science doesnt see any possibility'. In fact, as we progress, we seem to unearth greater, more profound mysteries of how the universe works. If we (as a scientific community) can accept that the presence of conciousness has a fundamental and irreplacable role in even the most basic occurances of our universe, how can we dismiss the idea that the universe exists because of conciousness, which is a very deep and meaningful idea indeed.

I would like to see how these ideas sit with some staunch atheists, as i have yet to see any real strong position which extends beyond 'the idea of god doesnt sit well with me' or 'the bible says this and this so how can it be true'.

I think you have picked some advanced areas of physics to prove your point that most people will not be familiar with, this may give the impression that you know what you are talking about but I don't think most people replying on their thread know enough about quantum entaglement, etc to give a valid opinion on this thread.

However, Although the standard of physics you are using to back up your point is currently above my understanding, I believe that for anything that happens in the universe their is a physical principle or mathematical proof that can describe what happens. It may be counter intuitive, but it is always there. Human knowledge is advancing everyday and we soon may find the answer such as "Is their a true theory of everything?", etc.

[Christianlady]

(Original post by SquaredCircle)
Entertaining your argument would mean descending to such levels of stupid that it would undermine my performance in my exams.

So god bless you and have a lovely sleep.

It does not take intelligence, integrity, or maturity to insult a person. Anybody can do it. Sad to say, I have made the mistake of insulting people before too, which is not wise or good. Instead of stooping so low as to insult, why not ignore? Why waste time in being a bully?

Peace and God bless you, and have a lovely sleep too.

[SquaredCircle]

(Original post by Christianlady)
It does not take intelligence, integrity, or maturity to insult a person. Anybody can do it. Sad to say, I have made the mistake of insulting people before too, which is not wise or good. Instead of stooping so low as to insult, why not ignore? Why waste time in being a bully?

Peace and God bless you, and have a lovely sleep too.

Because it makes me feel good about myself

[Christianlady]

(Original post by SquaredCircle)
Because it makes me feel good about myself

Lol!!! I have to admit it, I had to laugh.

That was so cute how can I help not laughing now instead of lecturing you further lol?

Awesome answer!

Peace and God bless you

[SsEe]

(Original post by Christianlady)
I am curious... do you think that eventually, mere mortals (humans) will be able to manipulate time and space and the weather? I am curious about that because that fascinates me.

I was going to respond to this when you asked in another thread but it didn't seem like the right place. But here will do:

One thing is for sure. We know the principle behind time travel into the future. You can slow the rate at which time passes for you while the rest of the world rushes by. If you managed to set the situation up correctly, you might feel a year of time pass while everyone else feels 20 years. You'd step into the machine, wait for one year, then step out 20 years into the future. Like I said, this is just a principle. Pulling it off in practice is a whole different kettle of fish as it involves either travelling very close to the speed of light or sitting very close to a very massive object like a supermassive black hole (or both). If you sat on the surface of the sun for 1 year, everyone else would feel 1 year and 1 hour (roughly... if memory serves). So it really has to be something massive to have any sizeable effect!

I wouldn't bet on time travel into the past being possible.

I have no idea if we could control the weather.

[harreeeee]

(Original post by c471)
Im somebody who is quite an active follower of science and new developments. I am astounded by the number of atheists who use science as an all covering shield against any sort of higher power.

Now, I was raised catholic, and now firmly agnostic. I reserve judgement on the issue of god, and figure if it changes in the course of my life one way or the other, I can accomodate this, so i have no axe to grind.

Typically atheists clamour on about how science leaves no room for god etc, how we havent seen any evidence etc. I think this is a valid arguement for somebody with this view 100 years ago. today, however, it is very difficult to use science as a stick to beat religion.

As an example, I would like to highlight a few widely accepted scientific principles.

An experiment called the 'delayed choice quantum eraser', (wiki it for details) for example, seems to provide compelling and pretty substantial results that indicated a violation of the 'cause and effect' principle. To put it simply, the results seem to fly in the face of our understanding of time, in that the end result seems to dictate the journey, rather than the other way round.

Another idea is entanglement and non locality. Basicly, it is well observed that particles can interact across vast distance with apparently no discernable physical connection.

The list is endless, i could bring up the countless examples of really well documented and accepted stuff, that does not go along with the whole 'how can my mind live on after I die, science doesnt see any possibility'. In fact, as we progress, we seem to unearth greater, more profound mysteries of how the universe works. If we (as a scientific community) can accept that the presence of conciousness has a fundamental and irreplacable role in even the most basic occurances of our universe, how can we dismiss the idea that the universe exists because of conciousness, which is a very deep and meaningful idea indeed.

I would like to see how these ideas sit with some staunch atheists, as i have yet to see any real strong position which extends beyond 'the idea of god doesnt sit well with me' or 'the bible says this and this so how can it be true'.

I am an atheist, and these are my views!

I do not agree that the universe exists because of consciousness. Sure the Universe would be hard to percieve without consciousness. But consciousness has been created, through the evolution of life on our planet over millions of years. Life is a result of the effects the Universe has on our planet, effects that leave us with the perfect conditions for life. So I believe that consciousness exists because of the universe.

[AnonymousPenguin]

(Original post by c471)
Im somebody who is quite an active follower of science and new developments. I am astounded by the number of atheists who use science as an all covering shield against any sort of higher power.

Now, I was raised catholic, and now firmly agnostic. I reserve judgement on the issue of god, and figure if it changes in the course of my life one way or the other, I can accomodate this, so i have no axe to grind.

Typically atheists clamour on about how science leaves no room for god etc, how we havent seen any evidence etc. I think this is a valid arguement for somebody with this view 100 years ago. today, however, it is very difficult to use science as a stick to beat religion.

As an example, I would like to highlight a few widely accepted scientific principles.

An experiment called the 'delayed choice quantum eraser', (wiki it for details) for example, seems to provide compelling and pretty substantial results that indicated a violation of the 'cause and effect' principle. To put it simply, the results seem to fly in the face of our understanding of time, in that the end result seems to dictate the journey, rather than the other way round.

Another idea is entanglement and non locality. Basicly, it is well observed that particles can interact across vast distance with apparently no discernable physical connection.

The list is endless, i could bring up the countless examples of really well documented and accepted stuff, that does not go along with the whole 'how can my mind live on after I die, science doesnt see any possibility'. In fact, as we progress, we seem to unearth greater, more profound mysteries of how the universe works. If we (as a scientific community) can accept that the presence of conciousness has a fundamental and irreplacable role in even the most basic occurances of our universe, how can we dismiss the idea that the universe exists because of conciousness, which is a very deep and meaningful idea indeed.

I would like to see how these ideas sit with some staunch atheists, as i have yet to see any real strong position which extends beyond 'the idea of god doesnt sit well with me' or 'the bible says this and this so how can it be true'.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if there were a credible explanation for life after death, but unfortunately this post simply does not make any sense.

The logic in the post is as follows:
-I've found contradictory experiments
-science can't explain everything!
-????
-God exists!

It's clear that consciousness is not some ethereal substance as described by Descartes, which could go on to live in quantum phenomena. It is caused by much more macroscopic phenomena, which neuroscience is slowly untangling - specifically signalling using action potentials (nerve depolarisations) seems an absolutely essential part. How this could be replicated at a subparticle level, I simply cannot see and your post does not explain.

Moreover, if quantum physics provided a plausible explanation for life after death - I would think Feynman would have introduced the world to this idea before a TSR poster.

[History98]

(Original post by internet tough guy)
Which is why I think the best position to take is to sit on the fence, neither an atheist or a believer in God, because how could you be? You simply don't know, and will never know.

Wait a minute, whats an atheist? I was under the impression that an atheist is a non-believer.

[Christianlady]

(Original post by SsEe)
I was going to respond to this when you asked in another thread but it didn't seem like the right place. But here will do:

One thing is for sure. We know the principle behind time travel into the future. You can slow the rate at which time passes for you while the rest of the world rushes by. If you managed to set the situation up correctly, you might feel a year of time pass while everyone else feels 20 years. You'd step into the machine, wait for one year, then step out 20 years into the future. Like I said, this is just a principle. Pulling it off in practice is a whole different kettle of fish as it involves either travelling very close to the speed of light or sitting very close to a very massive object like a supermassive black hole (or both). If you sat on the surface of the sun for 1 year, everyone else would feel 1 year and 1 hour (roughly... if memory serves). So it really has to be something massive to have any sizeable effect!

Hello Ssf,

It definitely sounds overwhelming to try! However, it would be interesting if a group of people managed to pull that off with documentation.

I wouldn't bet on time travel into the past being possible.

Going into the future does seem more probable.

I have no idea if we could control the weather.

That would be nice... many lives could be saved (hopefully) if people with kind hearts could control the weather. However, that could also throw off the delicate balance on earth and unleash issues we don't know about yet. Maybe it's best that people may not ever be able to control the weather, or even go back in time. Imagine if controlling the weather got into cruel hands who could care less for certain groups of people... The results would be worse than just "Mother Nature's" natural tragedies.

Peace and God bless

[Christianlady]

(Original post by AnonymousPenguin)
-God exists!

Hello Anonymous Penguin,

An agnostic atheist or agnostic simply doesn't know if God exists and leaves it at that. I doubt the OP thinks that God exists because of the inconsistencies in scientific thought... it just means he doesn't judge one way or the other, from my understanding. Rather, it's an acknowledgement that science doesn't know everything yet. Possibly, there are eons and eons of knowledge more to learn, so it is possible that "science" will never know EVERYTHING there is to know about everything, though science can sure continue to grow!

Peace and God bless you

[Christianlady]

(Original post by History98)
Wait a minute, whats an atheist? I was under the impression that an atheist is a non-believer.

Hello History

Apparently there are different levels of atheism... from agnostic atheism (doubting the existence of God but not a hardcore 'there is no God' person) to the hardcore in-your-face 'God doesn't exist and you're not intelligent if you dare to believe in god' kind of atheist.

That's what I have learned on this forum, which I have to say is very interesting. Most Atheists I know in real life are very kind, intelligent people who are tolerant and don't insult people who believe in God.

Peace and God bless you

[internet tough guy]

(Original post by History98)
Wait a minute, whats an atheist? I was under the impression that an atheist is a non-believer.

its a rather broad term, can mean a non-believer of any sorts (sitting on the fence), or someone who outright rejects any beliefs into the possibility of a higher being.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Lol OP has been raiding the "how to prove an atheist wrong" sites again. Basically he has found something that science has not fully explained yet and is now hinting at the predictable "therefore god".

Same old ****, different day. I tell you what, you give a clear explanation of how the quantum entanglement and god are related and I'll give you a tenner!

[willbee]

Good thread.

[JGR]

There is no more evidence of (a) god(s) (Christian or otherwise) than there is evidence of an Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Russell's Teapot, or any number of other such inherently unprovable entities.
Nobody seriously adopts an agnostic disposition as regards those equally tenuous bodies, and why should they? There is no good reason to assume that they exist.

There is no good reason (some old scripts are not a good reason) to assume that (a) god(s) (for any common value(s) of god) exists (for any useful definition of exists), either.
Therefore adopting the position of "God(s) may or may not exist, so I'm going to adopt a non-position on the matter" just comes off as appeasement of poor-quality thinking to me.



As an aside, none of the scientific cases the OP listed say anything at all about god(s).
The study of fundamental physics is entirely orthogonal with dreaming about sky-faeries.

[Astronomical]

(Original post by Foghorn Leghorn)
Lol OP has been raiding the "how to prove an atheist wrong" sites again. Basically he has found something that science has not fully explained yet and is now hinting at the predictable "therefore god".

Same old ****, different day. I tell you what, you give a clear explanation of how the quantum entanglement and god are related and I'll give you a tenner!

Have my £10 waiting.

[A.J10]

Completely ignoring everything that has gone before me, I am reminded of something I saw earlier today, explained by the amazing Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

Watch some of the videos of him on youtube, he's nowhere near as inflammatory as Dawkins and one of the most entertaining intellectual speakers I've heard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vfOpZD4Sm8&t=58m30s

The video is long, but I've put the nifty little time thing into skip to the relevent bit