- 1,202
I'm just wondering how tall this building must have been to freak God out. He doesn't seem particularly bummed about astronauts, or BAC Lightning pilots, who frequently described their aircraft as being able to "climb like a homesick angel".
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 444,721 views
I'm just wondering how tall this building must have been to freak God out. He doesn't seem particularly bummed about astronauts, or BAC Lightning pilots, who frequently described their aircraft as being able to "climb like a homesick angel".
- 29,231
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
If ever there was a good explanation of why this topic is so interesting/important, then that was it right there 👍
Ironically, most scientists dropped that assumption a long time ago, only to be apparently contradicted by the observations/evidence!! As Walter said...
... we are at the centre of the observable universe! (but then again, so is everywhere else!) The particle horizon dictates how far we can see and hence tells us how old the universe must be. Ironically, interpreted another way, it also provides Creationists with their holy grail - that the Earth truly is at the centre of the universe.
- 29,231
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
That's a good question... I guess I would, if it were truly beyond reasonable doubt, although it's hard to imagine what that evidence might look like - plus it would also be subject to review in the light of further evidence.
One thing is for certain, there are plenty people who require no evidence whatsoever to be convinced - there are plenty others who tell us that the evidence is all around us already.
One thing is for certain, there are plenty people who require no evidence whatsoever to be convinced - there are plenty others who tell us that the evidence is all around us already.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
livemusic
Premium
- 10,239
- Blumenau, SC
- livemusic81
I remember a few years ago I was watching TV and they were interviewing this math genius in the US. I don't remember exactly what the interview was about but it caught my attention when he said he would prove God's existence through mathematics.
I'm still waiting...
I'm still waiting...
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,450
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
I was just curious. What if the answer was staring right at you, but you couldn't understand the mathematics behind it because of your own limitations? What do you do then? Can you accept the answer without a working understanding of the mechanics behind it?
- 1,202
I can't speak for the others on this, but personally, yes. When I first tried skydiving, I didn't know the full story behind how a parachute opens and fills up and aligns itself properly and all that. I knew bits, but not the whole story. But then, parachutes are used all the time, and they work. I'd been watching people people using similar parachutes the day I first jumped. So I took what I felt to be an acceptable risk - I believed that the instructor was telling the truth and that the parachute she had given me would allow me to land safely. However, If someone just gave a random looking rucksack, told me to put it on and jump out of that plane over there, then press this button and I won't die, I wouldn't accept that answer until I had a sufficient understanding of the mechanics behind it, or I had seen it in action enough times to be convinced that it works as described. Richard Branson once, on TV, tried to convince two people to join him in a barrel that would be dropped from a crane above a waterfall, for a long drop into the churning waters at the bottom. He told them it was safe. The lady was unconvinced and declined to join him. The guy put his faith in Richard and joined him in the barrel for the ride. The barrel was not dropped because it would indeed have seriously harmed or killed its occupants, and Richard knew this. Can't remember the show.
Some people stare at the world around them and see God in everything. Others just see a planet.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,407
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
You mean like 30ft high flaming letter on the side of Quentulus Quazgar Mountains?
If you could prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt there was a higher being then I would accept it barring it went through the scientific process. However, I would expect people to constantly question it and try to debunk it, just like every good scientific theory.
On the flip side what would you do if their was the same sort of evidence proving there is no higher being? No trying to be a smartass, I am just curious.
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,450
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
No, that's not what I meant.
I would have to demand explanations for my personal experiences as well as many other's testimonies of a higher being, God, intervening in their lives. I think I'd be sad as my faith gives me a hope and strength that gets me through the toughest situations. I can draw from a source (call it what you want) that is beyond myself. I also have a sense of never being alone, no matter what...., I know that no matter what, every thing is going to be o.k., that I don't have to be in control. I would also be sad, as much of my purpose for living would be gone. It would be really hard to accept, but even harder for you to prove.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
You mean like relativity? (not that it's beyond my limitations, I just haven't studied it in detail) I accept relativity, and I would accept a supreme being as an explanation too if it was what the evidence pointed to. And I'm not talking about having a lack of explanation, I'm talking about evidence pointing specifically to a supreme being.
But for me to "believe" it as you do? I think that's almost impossible. You're familiar with my standards for "belief".
Really? If it was proven to you that God didn't exist, you'd refuse to accept it due to a lack of explanation for your own personal experiences and testimonials??? The testimonial part really bugs me. If you've ever heard someone try to describe a car accident, or even argued over a football game, you know that even an eye-witness account can be HIGHLY questionable.
Pako
But on the flip side it would mean that all you have accomplished you have done yourself. It would mean that you personally are stronger that you think you are. And you'll know that you can handle being alone, that you can handle the tough situations, and that in the end, you're a capable individual responsible for your failures AND your successes. And that's got to be comforting.
Pako
You would certainly have to find a new meaning in your life, but I can tell you for certain that it can be done.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
I know we fundamentally differ on this, but I don't see how any explanation ("God must have done that") is better than no explanation ("I don't know why that happened yet, but maybe I'll figure it out").
To me it's equally likely that belief in God could remove my hope and strength: it might not matter how hard I worked, or what I faced up to. God might just have it in for me and I can't win. Evidence is about equal on either side of that question.
That's what my wife, family, and close friends are for. I'm also pretty comfortable being alone. Alone alone.
I've got equal evidence that everything's going to be OK for me, too!
Not being in control of my life would scare me worse. How do you guess the unguessable? Why should I have to second guess what God is doing to/with my life? Doing something with my life - no matter what it might be - is in MY power. I'd never voluntarily give up that control.
I don't see why I need a purpose for living beyond the simple opportunity of life itself. Isn't that enough? It is for me.
- 919
The essential problem with a "proveable" God is that if there were such an entity, it would cease to be a 'god' as we know the concept. It would simply be a form of sentient life more advanced than man, and as such, not a viable source of a moral code, nor an entity that necessitates our subjugation to it.
I wholeheartedly accept the fact that there is very likely life elsewhere in the universe - it's a really REALLY big place, and by current theories, there may be more than one, or potentially infinite universes. In fact, I'd be MORE freaked out if I were to find out for a certainty that we ARE alone. This life, if and where it exists, could possibly be more advanced than us.
What I reject is the idea of an all-powerful being that brought the universe into existence by a notion, a breath, a touch of a finger, a fart, or anything else like that. That's man projecting his own nature onto concepts that are mostly beyond his full grasp - inifinity, the vastness of the universe, etc.
I wholeheartedly accept the fact that there is very likely life elsewhere in the universe - it's a really REALLY big place, and by current theories, there may be more than one, or potentially infinite universes. In fact, I'd be MORE freaked out if I were to find out for a certainty that we ARE alone. This life, if and where it exists, could possibly be more advanced than us.
What I reject is the idea of an all-powerful being that brought the universe into existence by a notion, a breath, a touch of a finger, a fart, or anything else like that. That's man projecting his own nature onto concepts that are mostly beyond his full grasp - inifinity, the vastness of the universe, etc.
- 919
- 29,231
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
To everyone in the UK, The Guardian today has a great little guide to Charles Darwin's 'On The Origin Of Species' - Introduction written by Richard Dawkins, and it contains selected highlights from the original text as well as a fairly in-depth look at the significance of the book, including the Intelligent Design debate and some common misconceptions associated with Darwin and his book(s). A few interesting quotes I saw already:
- 1,202
Oddly enough, if I ever do meet a god who created the universe I live in, that description above is of the god I feel I'm most likely to meet.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,407
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Here is the online version for those of us who live state side:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.intelligent.design
RecklesAbandon2
(Banned)
- 68
From the link in Touring Mars' post: event horizon is the largest comoving distance from which light emitted now can ever reach the observer at any time in the future.
can anybody else hear a problem when they read this?
can anybody else hear a problem when they read this?
- 87,033
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
- 5,071
- Panama City, FL
That's kinda why it's called an "event horizon."
RecklesAbandon2
(Banned)
- 68
"can ever reach in the future"
ahem... how about now?
ahem... how about now?
- 87,033
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Still no problem here.
The event horizon of the universe is receding at a rate which is not bound by the upper limit of Special Relativity, because it is not a "thing". Things IN the universe - people, taramasalata, dolphins, dust, light - are bound by the upper limit of Special Relativity.
There are parts of the universe which we, at Earth, cannot ever observe. Similarly, the observers in those parts, they can never observe Earth.
- 15,855
- QLD, Australia
- Small_Fryz
you dont even understand what your saying.
The event horizon is the point at which we cannot see past because we have no light to see it. Things probably exist beyond it but as the light from those objects has not yet hit us we cant see them. As time goes on the light will eventually hit us and we will see them, but at the same time their will still be something beyond what we can see then. The way i understand it...
Night time on the highway, pitch black your doing 100kph/60mph and your headlights are shooting 100m / 300ft into the distance, that is similar, you cant see past that point because their is no light, that point is always moving as your travelling 60mph, but at any given moment your still limited to 300ft, things probably exist beyond it but you will have to wait for the light to reach it, to be sure.
The others could probably due a better job at explaining it, but you may have a clearer picture now.
The event horizon is the point at which we cannot see past because we have no light to see it. Things probably exist beyond it but as the light from those objects has not yet hit us we cant see them. As time goes on the light will eventually hit us and we will see them, but at the same time their will still be something beyond what we can see then. The way i understand it...
Night time on the highway, pitch black your doing 100kph/60mph and your headlights are shooting 100m / 300ft into the distance, that is similar, you cant see past that point because their is no light, that point is always moving as your travelling 60mph, but at any given moment your still limited to 300ft, things probably exist beyond it but you will have to wait for the light to reach it, to be sure.
The others could probably due a better job at explaining it, but you may have a clearer picture now.
- 919
Differing theoretical models exist, both for a universe in which there is an event horizon beyond which nothing can now or will ever be observed, and for a universe in which there IS no event horizon, save for the temporal type you describe, Small_Fryz. These theories differ depending on the idea of the universe in question.
Assuming the theory of an infinite universe (or a universe constantly expanding towards infinity), the comoving distance can never be defined save to say it approaches infinity, and as such, there will ALWAYS be things unobservable beyond it. In your analogy, this would be represented by an infinite (or constantly expanding) highway - though you will continually illuminate more and more of it, you can NEVER illuminate all of it.
In a theory of a finite universe, the comoving distance CAN be defined and thus an Event Horizon like the one you suggest is in place.
The issue is further complicated when different theories as to the nature of universal expansion come into play, but that's the point where my knowledge stops, so I can't really help there.
Assuming the theory of an infinite universe (or a universe constantly expanding towards infinity), the comoving distance can never be defined save to say it approaches infinity, and as such, there will ALWAYS be things unobservable beyond it. In your analogy, this would be represented by an infinite (or constantly expanding) highway - though you will continually illuminate more and more of it, you can NEVER illuminate all of it.
In a theory of a finite universe, the comoving distance CAN be defined and thus an Event Horizon like the one you suggest is in place.
The issue is further complicated when different theories as to the nature of universal expansion come into play, but that's the point where my knowledge stops, so I can't really help there.
RecklesAbandon2
(Banned)
- 68
It says the observer will never see. So, how exactly do we know what will ever be observed in the future?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Because you can figure out where the light will go and that it will never reach the observer.
- 87,033
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Because the expansion of the universe isn't constrained by the speed of light.
Parts of the universe are receding from us in excess of the speed of light. So the light emitted from them can never reach us. From their point of view, we're receding from them in excess of the speed of light and light emitted from us can never reach them.
The universe and the observable universe are not the same thing. Parts of the universe cannot ever be observed from our position - nor can we be observed from them.
