Do you believe in God?

[nitrorocks]

Correct. Which is why I said "or most areas of it". Even in California though, there's plenty of mega-churches and fundamentalists.

I went to 2 different churches in California. Both were a bit odd. I live in AZ, so I don't know. They don't reply preach the message there (The ones I've been to) instead they mess around.

 

[Famine]

The best data we have (concerning the Big Bang) are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole.

Arno A. Penzias, Nobel Laureate

"The problem with quotes on the internet is that it can be difficult to ascertain their veracity."

Abraham Lincoln.

 

[TankAss95]

"The problem with quotes on the internet is that it can be difficult to ascertain their veracity."

Abraham Lincoln.

http://www.counterbalance.org/cosmcrea/meyer-body.html

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/teleological-argument-and-scientists-faq.htm

I originally found it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbAtCb9K_zs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[Azuremen]

"The problem with quotes on the internet is that it can be difficult to ascertain their veracity."

Abraham Lincoln.

I thought that quote was from Gandalf, Headmaster of Hogwarts.

On topic.

 

[Famine]

http://www.counterbalance.org/cosmcrea/meyer-body.html

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/teleological-argument-and-scientists-faq.htm

I originally found it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbAtCb9K_zs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I've dug through all of that and, while most things reference a book by Schaefer as the source, he cites an interview with the New York Times from March 12th 1978 as he was being given the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1978 for his work on the Cosmic Microwave Background in 1964.

Now, even assuming the quote is contextual - for which we have no evidence (I can pull a quote from you in this thread and, without changing anything, make you look atheist...), though Penzias more famously remarked that either the universe was accidentally right for us or there was an underlying ("perhaps supernatural") plan, which radically misunderstands the nature of the Big Bang in general and the universe specifically - Penzias's discovery was accidental. He was a - displaced Jewish German - radio engineer trying to eradicate static by culling pigeons that he believed were pooping on his radio transmitters/receivers (he was a radio astronomer by training and his work was on microwave radio astronomy applications for communication) and causing interference. The significance of it came to light after they published a paper about this seemingly all-pervasive universal, background microwave interference and radio astronomer Robert Dicke - who'd been looking for it for twenty years - realised he'd been treed.

So we're looking at a Jewish man (his family's faith was so important they left Nazi Germany) who accidentally discovered something so significant 50 years ago that he got a Nobel Prize for Physics for it 40 years ago. It's not a surprise, nor significant that he draws comparison between astrophysics (he isn't an astrophysicist) and his faith - and we've acquired a lot more information on it since then. He detected the existence of the Big Bang. We can now explain everything down to 1 x 10^-35s (that's 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001s) after it occurred - it's a difference between detecting a new species and having a Sunday roast of it.

 

[TankAss95]

I've dug through all of that and, while most things reference a book by Schaefer as the source, he cites an interview with the New York Times from March 12th 1978 as he was being given the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1978 for his work on the Cosmic Microwave Background in 1964.

Now, even assuming the quote is contextual - for which we have no evidence (I can pull a quote from you in this thread and, without changing anything, make you look atheist...), though Penzias more famously remarked that either the universe was accidentally right for us or there was an underlying ("perhaps supernatural") plan, which radically misunderstands the nature of the Big Bang in general and the universe specifically - Penzias's discovery was accidental. He was a - displaced Jewish German - radio engineer trying to eradicate static by culling pigeons that he believed were pooping on his radio transmitters/receivers (he was a radio astronomer by training and his work was on microwave radio astronomy applications for communication) and causing interference. The significance of it came to light after they published a paper about this seemingly all-pervasive universal, background microwave interference and radio astronomer Robert Dicke - who'd been looking for it for twenty years - realised he'd been treed.

So we're looking at a Jewish man (his family's faith was so important they left Nazi Germany) who accidentally discovered something so significant 50 years ago that he got a Nobel Prize for Physics for it 40 years ago. It's not a surprise, nor significant that he draws comparison between astrophysics (he isn't an astrophysicist) and his faith - and we've acquired a lot more information on it since then. He detected the existence of the Big Bang. We can now explain everything down to 1 x 10^-35s (that's 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001s) after it occurred - it's a difference between detecting a new species and having a Sunday roast of it.

That's actually quite interesting. Thanks for spending time and sharing. 👍

I have been spending time looking at stuff by John Lennox. I found this video great (I have yet to watch it all). I know it's very long but I'm just going to send a link in case you guys are interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVallWIA4G8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[Famine]

I watched the earlier video of John Lennox. He's utterly ridiculous.

 

[TankAss95]

Right. If the big bang did actually happen, unless some other kind of explanation of quantum physics could say otherwise, then the amount of energy that the universe contains must be 0. Am I correct? Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so the material that created the big bang (I know you guys seem to hate me using the word material, but I'm not quite sure what else to call it) must have had energy or no energy. Therefore the only plausible explanation that the big bang could be true if the universe has no energy, thus having more stance towards the origin of the big bang itself?

Not at all. I belief that God does not exist in a material sense (since Jesus). He cannot be studied because he has no matter or substance. I believe he is not within the realms of this universe. He created the universe, and gives it order and possibly even gives it the will to continue to exist (or motivation) if needed. He can see the time as the time of this universe itself is linear. He does not obey to these rules because he created them, and does not exist within them. He is the alpha and omega, he gives the universe the energy to exist in the first place. Any actions he must do is transferred into the realms of this universe. I'm really sorry I find this stuff really hard to explain and I know that is no excuse and I know you think my beliefs are ridiculous but bear with me.

No. The reason I brought up the question is because I highly doubt that our existence came into being from total destruction, without order from a higher power. If the big bang happened without order from a higher power then it would have given a totally chaotic universe, and in a chaotic universe any progress made towards us being in existence would constantly be disassembled or destroyed. Our universe is fascinating, because it is neither chaotic nor perfect. If it was perfect it would have been boring. If it was chaotic then any progress would have, as I have said above, been disassembled or destroyed. Infinite possibility may be true with infinite chance, but only in the right conditions.

That's my take on it.

I watched the earlier video of John Lennox. He's utterly ridiculous.

I actually think what he says is interesting.
And, only if you want, could you comment on the post I have displayed above please? I am questioning the origin of the big bang theory. Am I right with what I have said, or once again, is it BS?

 

[Famine]

I actually think what he says is interesting.

It would be if he didn't base all of his arguments on tiny quotes and reimaginations of others' words.

And, only if you want, could you comment on the post I have displayed above please? I am questioning the origin of the big bang theory. Am I right with what I have said, or once again, is it BS?

It's more vague than anything.

There's a problem with a statement like the total amount of energy in the universe being 0. The total amount of matter in the universe is also 0 (well... they're the same thing anyway). That's not the same thing as "there's no matter/energy in the universe" - it's pretty solid under your feet and the Sun's quite bright and energetic.

It's an issue that it's tricky to get your head around, but for every atom of matter there is an atom of antimatter - we have protons and antiprotons, electrons and positrons, neutrons and antineutrons. Matter clumps into huge things like comets, planets and stars and there's no reason why antimatter shouldn't clump into anticomets, antiplanets and antistars. Indeed entire antigalaxies are posited, but there's little evidence of antimatter-dominated space visible from Earth (they should be detectable by gamma ray bursts from annihilation events with normal matter along the boundaries between matter-space and antimatter-space).

Think of it as the difference between poo and food (poo very much being antifood). If you eat a quarter-pounder while crimping out a length of equal size, the net amount of weight change is 0. You still ate 1/4lb of burger and dropped 1/4lb of fudge...

 

[TankAss95]

It would be if he didn't base all of his arguments on tiny quotes and reimaginations of others' words.

It's more vague than anything.

There's a problem with a statement like the total amount of energy in the universe being 0. The total amount of matter in the universe is also 0 (well... they're the same thing anyway). That's not the same thing as "there's no matter/energy in the universe" - it's pretty solid under your feet and the Sun's quite bright and energetic.

It's an issue that it's tricky to get your head around, but for every atom of matter there is an atom of antimatter - we have protons and antiprotons, electrons and positrons, neutrons and antineutrons. Matter clumps into huge things like comets, planets and stars and there's no reason why antimatter shouldn't clump into anticomets, antiplanets and antistars. Indeed entire antigalaxies are posited, but there's little evidence of antimatter-dominated space visible from Earth (they should be detectable by gamma ray bursts from annihilation events with normal matter along the boundaries between matter-space and antimatter-space).

Think of it as the difference between poo and food (poo very much being antifood). If you eat a quarter-pounder while crimping out a length of equal size, the net amount of weight change is 0. You still ate 1/4lb of burger and dropped 1/4lb of fudge...

Ok I think I understand...
I really need to study science, or more particularly, physics more. I find it fascinating. Quantum physics is probably the worst place to start but I have been watching videos about quarks.
There was a statement about scientists actually achieving teleportation (kinda). When an atom is not observed, instead if being stationary, it is everywhere (I think). Crazy.

Edit: I better stop going off-topic.

 

[shmogt]

Hello science geeks lol I have a question for you all. What is love? All the drugs in the world can't beat it. It solves so many ailments and no matter how hard science tries to replicate it, nothing matches it.

 

[Tic Tach]

Hello science geeks lol I have a question for you all. What is love?

Nothing more than one on the spectrum of emotions.

In practical (agape) terms, it can described as the extension of yourself for the purpose of another.

 

[shmogt]

Nothing more than one on the spectrum of emotions.

In practical (agape) terms, it can described as the extension of yourself for the purpose of another.

Yes, but what is it? Why do you humans respond to it? We know what happens when you feel love, dopamine and such is released, this happens, that happens, but it's not a drug so why do we respond like it is?

 

[Tic Tach]

Yes, but what is it?

Already answered. Are you equally mystified by other emotions like anger or depression?

Why do you humans respond to it?

For the same reasons dogs do.

We know what happens when you feel love, dopamine and such is released, this happens, that happens, but it's not a drug so why do we respond like it is?

A drug merely magnifies the natural biochemical actions you've described. No magic, no mystery, just nature, and fully explainable in evolutionary terms.

 

[TankAss95]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeVuQXrK4Ww&feature=youtube_gdata_player
The more I watch stiff like this the closer I feel to God.
The human race has lost prioritisation. 10 billion pounds is likely to have went down the drain. Think people! What's more important? Real problems like starvation or finding this BS 'particle' that doesn't even exist.
I have no problem if you don't believe in God, but science is limited. Only a fool would disagree. I have lost any little trust that I had in the science community.

As in the words of Tic Tach: Pathetic.

Rant over.

Edit: Please tell me that this is not true.

 

[Tic Tach]

I have lost any little trust that I had in the science community.

Nonsense. If you got smacked by a truck tomorrow, you would run like a little baby to the one thing that you know would help you - science. You know deep deep down that your imaginary god wouldn't help one bit, nor would prayer, but your too far gone in your intellectual dishonesty to even see this, or admit it.

 

[TankAss95]

Nonsense. If you got smacked by a truck tomorrow, you would run like a little baby to the one thing that you know would help you - science. You know deep deep down that your imaginary god wouldn't help one bit, nor would prayer, but your too far gone in your intellectual dishonesty to even see this, or admit it.

Yes, I would be running for help from scientific studies that are actually productive to humanity. I would pray for strength and guidance. I accept that I am living in a world of sin, and it is man's sin why we suffer.
I believe that is different. Science explains how stuff works. Science, as I have said plenty if times before, has limitations.
Scientists are fruitlessly chasing after answers to these ultimate questions about the universe to make themselves feel misplaced importance. It makes me feel sick.
Now you tell me this. Do you think that we should have spent 10 billion dollars trying to find out wether this 'God particle' was real, or spend it on something more productive which we can act more immediately upon. I am angry because the world is corrupt. We spend masses of resources studying the stars, yet ignore the real problems which are on THIS planet.

 

[Tic Tach]

Scientists are fruitlessly chasing after answers to these ultimate questions about the universe to make themselves feel misplaced importance. It makes me feel sick.
Now you tell me this. Do you think that we should have spent 10 billion dollars trying to find out wether this 'God particle' was real, or spend it on something more productive which we can act more immediately upon. I am angry because the world is corrupt. We spend masses of resources studying the stars, yet ignore the real problems which are on THIS planet.

 

[TankAss95]

Christians give more money to the charities than any organization around the world.

http://www.christiandonor.com/

Meanwhile at CERN: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

Come on. There guys are supposed to be the worlds smartest people! Think!

 

[Tic Tach]

 

[shmogt]

Already answered. Are you equally mystified by other emotions like anger or depression?

Well ya, that's why I'm asking what science thinks of it since it seems to have an answer for everything

For the same reasons dogs do.

Ahhaha wtf as if I'm supposed to know why dogs react to it.

A drug merely magnifies the natural biochemical actions you've described. No magic, no mystery, just nature, and fully explainable in evolutionary terms.

Ya a drug mimics it. So it's more powerful than a drug and creates the same responses and how is this possible? It is a mystery. What would the evolutionary term that explains it be? I am unfamiliar with them. Evolution pretty much means survive at any cost. Love is irrelevant to this. The ability to procreate does not need love.

 

[dylansan]

If species feel compassion towards each other, they're more likely to help each other and prevent them from dying, thus giving them more of a chance to reproduce.

Before something can reproduce, it needs to survive, and many things can help a creature survive in many indirect ways.

 

[Tic Tach]

Well ya, that's why I'm asking what science thinks of it since it seems to have an answer for everything

Your question makes no sense. You seem to think that science is a thing, an entity, something that "thinks" it is not.

So it's more powerful than a drug....

Tell that to a cocaine addict.

....and creates the same responses and how is this possible?

I sense that you're not really posing this is a question, rather as a red herring. For if you truly wanted an answer to your question, you would go and find some books on the subject and read. You do read books don't you? I could recommend a few if you like; would you like that?

It is a mystery.

Your lack of understanding does not make it a mystery.

What would the evolutionary term that explains it be? I am unfamiliar with them. Evolution pretty much means survive at any cost.

Your scope of evolution is stunted. Do you really think that humans could have possibly got to where we are now without the components of cooperation, empathy, altruism, reciprocal altruism and yes, love?

Love is irrelevant to this. The ability to procreate does not need love.

Again,your ignorance level is staggering. Have you never watched any nature shows on television? You can clearly see forms of love, care and compassion in the animal kingdom of which we are a part.

 

[cullenand]

Yes, I would be running for help from scientific studies that are actually productive to humanity. I would pray for strength and guidance. I accept that I am living in a world of sin, and it is man's sin why we suffer.
I believe that is different. Science explains how stuff works. Science, as I have said plenty if times before, has limitations.
Scientists are fruitlessly chasing after answers to these ultimate questions about the universe to make themselves feel misplaced importance. It makes me feel sick.
Now you tell me this. Do you think that we should have spent 10 billion dollars trying to find out wether this 'God particle' was real, or spend it on something more productive which we can act more immediately upon. I am angry because the world is corrupt. We spend masses of resources studying the stars, yet ignore the real problems which are on THIS planet.

I kind of agree with this. They spend billions in finding a "God particle", but I just dont see what advantage scientists get if they do find it, please someone give me a reason because I might just be overlooking one. It probably wont change most religious peoples minds, they will just say that God created the God particle. And I also agree with Tic Tach on the churches, yes they give a lot of money to charity but there is no reason to have churches that take up an entire block. As the late Tupac Shakur once said, why does God need gold ceilings to talk to ME, why does God need colored windows to talk to ME, why cant He talk to me right where he put me, right where Im at. We have too many people starving and homeless to be spending all this money on things that just arent necessary. And this is coming from a theist.

 

[jagdrag77]

No I don't believe in God. I am a atheist for many reasons but the main reason is that with all the pain and suffering in the world, I don't think God does exist, and if he does, how does he let all this happen in the world?

I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but its just my opinion.

 

[Azuremen]

Nonsense. If you got smacked by a truck tomorrow, you would run like a little baby to the one thing that you know would help you - science. You know deep deep down that your imaginary god wouldn't help one bit, nor would prayer, but your too far gone in your intellectual dishonesty to even see this, or admit it.

You know, you are an ass as well.

"Look at me, I have science, let me mock your deep beliefs some more while I try to convince to understand my point of view."

You make the non-theists look just as bad as the blindly faithful theists.

 

[shmogt]

Your question makes no sense. You seem to think that science is a thing, an entity, it is not.

Tell that to a cocaine addict.

I sense that you're not really posing this is a question, rather as a red herring. For if you truly wanted an answer to your question, you would go and find some books on the subject and read. You do read books don't you? I could recommend a few if you like; would you like that?

Your lack of understanding does not make it a mystery.

Your scope of evolution is stunted. Do you really think that humans could have possibly got to where we are now without the components of cooperation, empathy, altruism, and yes, love?

Again,your ignorance level is staggering. Have you never watched any nature shows on television? You can clearly see forms of love care and compassion in the animal kingdom of which we are a part.

Lol I love science people. Can't find the answer so they get defensive and attack others.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the definition of mystery a lack of understanding?

The first thing they teach in rehab is to learn to love yourself. Once you love your self and are at peace you will not need cocaine or other drugs to escape the hatred and problems in your life. So love actually would be stronger than cocaine.

Your right I am not looking for the answer as to what love is because no one really knows. All the books I have read can't answer it either so yes please do recommend the few you were talking about that explain what love is as I would like to read them.

I completely agree again that humans wouldn't have made it this far without love and evolution. To evole tho you don't need to be able to come together and make random things like phones, DVD players, and music. To survive building these things doesn't matter. Emotions do to give us ways to express ourselves. Doesn't explain why we have emotions including love. Jellyfish are some of the most simplest creatures in the world and they don't have love, but still evolve. Female jellyfish have lots of eggs while males have sperm and when they are under attack they release it into the water to make sure their species survives.

In most of nature there is no love. They take care of their kids because the kids represent the future for the species. They don't care about any other creatures. We as humans have love and have things like PETA to protect mistreated animals even when those animals are going to be used as food to feed us. Little human kids have stuffed animals or dolls that they love and can't be without. No other creatures have stuff they care about. Apes I would say are the closest to humans and don't make things to love even tho they have the ability to make tools and such. They only make things that will help them survive.

I think you should read that sign as you are clearly the ignorate one. There is no answer to what love is or why we have it. It's just one of those mysteries of life that we are trying to find out. It's the same as why we are all alive in the first place. Could be a logical explanation that no one has figured out yet or it could be something as crazy as a all powerful god. You can't and probably will never know the answers, but it doesn't mean it can't exist. This was just a mind exercise to show their are things in life that we know exist and yet still science can't figure out the answers to so don't completely throw out any possibilities to find the answers. Anything is possible.

 

[niky]

Love is an emotion. That is, to say, a physiological, psychological and hormonal response to certain stimuli. It involves a mess of hormones, oxytocin, endorphins and whatnot, and brain activity akin to a seizure.

We know how people experience love, through brain scans and tests. We also have a good idea of why the different types of "love" evolved in our species and other mammals.

-

A species that "loves" its off-spring and nurtures them is more likely to survive. Parental nurturing allows the young of the species to finish their development ex utero. So instead of the mother being saddled with a baby bump for twice the period of time, they can have a relatively short pregnancy and then, whump, out comes baby. A mobile mother is less likely to be taken down by predators than a pregnant one.

It doesn't matter to the jellyfish, but then... who hasn't evolved in hundreds of millions of years and who's the global apex predator/consumer, again?

-

Love in the platonic sense... as love between friends, "bros" and family... cooperative love, helps species survival. That one's a no brainer. It's why humans form tribes, dogs form packs, dolphins form pods. While it may seem that a dog or a chimp has little choice or freedom inside an authoritarian pack or gang, there's no physical barriers that keep them within said pack.

Of higher order animals, none are as successful as those that practice pack or herd behavior. It's instinctual and in-bred. Doesn't change the fact that the members of these packs do feel genuine affection for each other. Just ask your dog.

-

As for "love" in the sense of "romantic love", that one's pretty obvious. Think about the "seven year itch." How long does it take to father a child, watch it be born, and stay with it long enough for it to be fully mobile and able to forage for itself beside its mother? Seven years is a pretty good estimate.

Sexual attraction and behavior have their evolutionary roots and uses. Women are generally attracted to men with power. "Cute butts" top many womens' lists of desirable traits... those butts mean strong legs and a good hunter. Men generally prefer women who are well-endowed with child-bearing hips. There is also a connection between men who desire power and who are actively polygamous, too. Men who desire power and wealth are often hit with the desire to father more children. Some see it as a sign of success or prosperity, having a dozen wives or mistresses and fifty children. Actually... that's just what your genes want you to think...

-

But just because we can explain love and its uses doesn't mean we can't enjoy it.

Do I know that the absolute feeling of joy I get when I hug my wife or child is a pre-programmed biological response involving the release of endorphins triggered by touch?

Yes.

Does it matter?

Absolutely not.

 

[Dapper]

Love is an emotion. That is, to say, a physiological, psychological and hormonal response to certain stimuli. It involves a mess of hormones, oxytocin, endorphins and whatnot, and brain activity akin to a seizure.

“Tell me why the stars do shine,
Tell me why the ivy twines,
Tell me what makes skies so blue,
And I'll tell you why I love you.

Nuclear fusion makes stars to shine,
Tropisms make the ivy twine,
Raleigh scattering make skies so blue,
Testicular hormones are why I love you. ”
― Isaac Asimov

You reminded me of my favorite poem.

 

[shmogt]

Love is an emotion. That is, to say, a physiological, psychological and hormonal response to certain stimuli. It involves a mess of hormones, oxytocin, endorphins and whatnot, and brain activity akin to a seizure.

We know how people experience love, through brain scans and tests. We also have a good idea of why the different types of "love" evolved in our species and other mammals.

-

A species that "loves" its off-spring and nurtures them is more likely to survive. Parental nurturing allows the young of the species to finish their development ex utero. So instead of the mother being saddled with a baby bump for twice the period of time, they can have a relatively short pregnancy and then, whump, out comes baby. A mobile mother is less likely to be taken down by predators than a pregnant one.

It doesn't matter to the jellyfish, but then... who hasn't evolved in hundreds of millions of years and who's the global apex predator/consumer, again?

-

Love in the platonic sense... as love between friends, "bros" and family... cooperative love, helps species survival. That one's a no brainer. It's why humans form tribes, dogs form packs, dolphins form pods. While it may seem that a dog or a chimp has little choice or freedom inside an authoritarian pack or gang, there's no physical barriers that keep them within said pack.

Of higher order animals, none are as successful as those that practice pack or herd behavior. It's instinctual and in-bred. Doesn't change the fact that the members of these packs do feel genuine affection for each other. Just ask your dog.

-

As for "love" in the sense of "romantic love", that one's pretty obvious. Think about the "seven year itch." How long does it take to father a child, watch it be born, and stay with it long enough for it to be fully mobile and able to forage for itself beside its mother? Seven years is a pretty good estimate.

Sexual attraction and behavior have their evolutionary roots and uses. Women are generally attracted to men with power. "Cute butts" top many womens' lists of desirable traits... those butts mean strong legs and a good hunter. Men generally prefer women who are well-endowed with child-bearing hips. There is also a connection between men who desire power and who are actively polygamous, too.

-

Just because we can explain love and its uses doesn't mean we can't enjoy it.

Do I know that the absolute feeling of joy I get when I hug my wife or child is a pre-programmed biological response involving the release of endorphins triggered by touch?

Yes.

Does it matter?

Absolutely not.

Thank you finally someone who puts effort into their response with no hate towards the questioner. I do seriously appreciate it.

So what you are saying basically is love worked into evolution to help us survive and that we love others to protect our species. When we see someone in trouble and don't no who they are we naturally feel bad for them and want to help because they are one of us. Our natural instincts to protect the species comes into play. Makes sense.

As for jellyfish they evolved to have crazy high venom to protect them. They also technically have been around for millions of years, but are not always out swimming. They make little eggs that hit the sea floor and turn into little almost flower buds. Pieces of coral it looks like than when the perfect time hits the flowers bloom shooting out a little baby jellyfish. It can take hundreds of years for one of these flowers to bloom as literally everything has to be perfect which is tough to do thousands of feet deep on the ocean floor. Lollol don't mess with my jellyfish knowledge.