Higgs boson?

[NEO]

WTF? Did you make that up, Gramps?

So all I have to do is learn their secret handshake, and boom! I'm a god? Eff this, I'm becoming a Mormon.

I tried this secret handshae with some guy I met on the street. Oddly he just handed me a dime bag and wanted money.

 

[VOLatile]

WTF? Did you make that up, Gramps?

So all I have to do is learn their secret handshake, and boom! I'm a god? Eff this, I'm becoming a Mormon.

I'm not Mormon, so how did I become a god?

 

[Gramps]

WTF? Did you make that up, Gramps?

So all I have to do is learn their secret handshake, and boom! I'm a god? Eff this, I'm becoming a Mormon.

I tried this secret handshae with some guy I met on the street. Oddly he just handed me a dime bag and wanted money.

I'm not Mormon, so how did I become a god?

This is for real. It is part of the Mormon beliefs.


First you must tithe 10% of your income. You don't do that you don't become a God...

That might may be the undoing of all three of you.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

There is no evidence of a worldwide flood. None. There is plenty of evidence of other floods virtually everywhere around the world; however they are all localized and at various times in history. That's the problem.



I am not sure what this has to do with geology. Geological dating is generally a lot easier than fossil dating. Most geologists don't use fossils to date soil and rock formations/layers. The opposite is generally true through.



I'm not sure petrified trees destroy the geologic column. If you are implying that they prove the earth is radically younger than the conventional wisdom, then I believe you are mistaken. They are certainly intriguing mysteries though.

The problem with multi strata fossils and inverted petrified trees is that they supposedly stood this way for millions of years while the coal seams or limestone around them was formed. Right? Wrong. Of course that's absolutely impossible so millions of years can't have passed while the tree stood upside down. My ten year old can figure that out, yet the opposite is assumed to be fact because the geologic column ranks right up there with evolution as the best ways for scientists who don't believe in the God of the Bible to convince themselves that they're not going to spend eternity in hell. One example of circular reasoning on this matter is when scientists use limestone to date index fossils, then use those same fossils to date limestone. There are many, many examples of outright lies and circular reasoning in CSE videos entitled "lies in the textbooks" and "dinosaurs and the Bible" they provide specific examples of modern textbooks used along with page numbers and pictures of the covers. Children in America are being force fed absolute bullcrap science on a daily basis. I spend more money on Christian school every month than I do on my mortgage to keep this garbage out of my kids heads.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

So you believe each bang created more? How do you think life got here?

I think it's pretty clear that heavier elements did not exist at any point close to the big bang. They required first the formation and death of generations of stars.

I may be wrong on thbis but has anyone ever witnessed the formation of even 1 star? I know we see them explode. Is there any solid..keyword...evidence of even a single star currently forming?

 

[PKT_VOL]

You're saying the universe couldn't have existed before the big bang? Either on a different scale, or with different types of matter/forces and different laws of physics?

By "eternal" I mean it in it's truest sense. Forever in both directions of time.

1) If there was nothing before the Big Bang and the universal wave function randomly created everything, then there was nothing (of substance) before the Big Bang. This includes space-time. Thus, time did not exist before the Big Bang. The universe cannot be eternal.

2) If our universe is the victim of a perpetual expansion/collapse cycle (Big Bang/Big Crunch) then time is periodic. If the transition between the two states is continuous, then time, thus our universe, would be eternal (albeit in a different way).

3) If our universe comes from another universe, space-time, matter, energy, etc. could be recyclable. Thus our universe could be, in a sense, eternal. However, there is no guarantee that the natural laws and logic which govern our universe are found in other universes.

I can't answer these questions, because I don't necessarily subscribe to Many Worlds. I recognize it has some merit, but I don't really see any overwhelming evidence.

In my opinion, the multiple worlds interpretation is logically more coherent and has more evidence (implicit) than collapse theory. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I think there is a greater leap of faith that must be made to believe in collapse theory.

What does rule out the possibility of a creative deity? I don't understand how this would make intelligent design any more or less likely than any other theory.

It depends on what level of intelligent design we are talking about. To broadly answer your question, I would say that a creative deity can only be ruled out once we know where the natural laws materialized from. Until then, the door to a creative deity will be left open.

If you lump mathematics and natural laws together, which I do in my own branch of pantheism, then you must ask yourself: Did we (humans/intelligent life) invent mathematics/natural laws? Or did we discover it?

 

[Thrasher865]

I may be wrong on thbis but has anyone ever witnessed the formation of even 1 star? I know we see them explode. Is there any solid..keyword...evidence of even a single star currently forming?

nebulas

It happens over a very large time frame, so it would be difficult for us to actually watch the entire process.

 

[Thrasher865]

In my opinion, the multiple worlds interpretation is logically more coherent and has more evidence (implicit) than collapse theory. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I think there is a greater leap of faith that must be made to believe in collapse theory.

Collapse theory being "Big Crunch?" I absolutely do not believe in the reverse of the Big Bang. This isn't an either or, proposition. There are tons of alternatives to either choice.

 

[Thrasher865]

If you lump mathematics and natural laws together, which I do in my own branch of pantheism, then you must ask yourself: Did we (humans/intelligent life) invent mathematics/natural laws? Or did we discover it?

Lost me here. We invented mathematics to explain natural laws...

I don't really understand the distinction you're making.

We created laws that define phenomenon we observe. I do not think they tell the whole story, but they do describe the behavior of bodies of matter, particles, etc.

 

[Thrasher865]

By "eternal" I mean it in it's truest sense. Forever in both directions of time.

1) If there was nothing before the Big Bang and the universal wave function randomly created everything, then there was nothing (of substance) before the Big Bang. This includes space-time. Thus, time did not exist before the Big Bang. The universe cannot be eternal.

2) If our universe is the victim of a perpetual expansion/collapse cycle (Big Bang/Big Crunch) then time is periodic. If the transition between the two states is continuous, then time, thus our universe, would be eternal (albeit in a different way).

3) If our universe comes from another universe, space-time, matter, energy, etc. could be recyclable. Thus our universe could be, in a sense, eternal. However, there is no guarantee that the natural laws and logic which govern our universe are found in other universes.

I never made the assertion that eternal meant anything other than eternal. It depends on how you want to define "our universe." If a universe, that happened to be this one, existed prior to the big bang, but matter looked entirely different, and the fundamental laws of physics behaved completely different, would it still be "our universe?"

I say yes, and I don't discount this possibility.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

By "eternal" I mean it in it's truest sense. Forever in both directions of time.

1) If there was nothing before the Big Bang and the universal wave function randomly created everything, then there was nothing (of substance) before the Big Bang. This includes space-time. Thus, time did not exist before the Big Bang. The universe cannot be eternal.

2) If our universe is the victim of a perpetual expansion/collapse cycle (Big Bang/Big Crunch) then time is periodic. If the transition between the two states is continuous, then time, thus our universe, would be eternal (albeit in a different way).

3) If our universe comes from another universe, space-time, matter, energy, etc. could be recyclable. Thus our universe could be, in a sense, eternal. However, there is no guarantee that the natural laws and logic which govern our universe are found in other universes.



In my opinion, the multiple worlds interpretation is logically more coherent and has more evidence (implicit) than collapse theory. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I think there is a greater leap of faith that must be made to believe in collapse theory.



It depends on what level of intelligent design we are talking about. To broadly answer your question, I would say that a creative deity can only be ruled out once we know where the natural laws materialized from. Until then, the door to a creative deity will be left open.

If you lump mathematics and natural laws together, which I do in my own branch of pantheism, then you must ask yourself: Did we (humans/intelligent life) invent mathematics/natural laws? Or did we discover it?

I personally give you credit for admitting that it takes faith to believe in ANY origin for this universe. I argued for about a week in a different thread with a whole host of pseudoscientists and scientist wannabes that would openly mock my beliefs but refused repeatedly to admit that their beliefs also required faith. I believe it takes more faith to believe you came from evolution than it does a Creator. Trillions of mathematical near impossibilities would have to occur to make it from a single protein to a human. Plus there's the whole "spontaneous generation of life" thing which has never been observed or replicated. Is it not fair to assume that if something has never been observed and cannot be replicated despite a concerted effort by man that it is likely impossible? Many. Many attempts have been made to give life to inanimate creations. All have, and will fail. Only God gives life, or takes it away. Whether or not we choose to believe this has no bearing on its accuracy. All men are appointed once to die, and then the Judgment.

 

[PKT_VOL]

At some point, something either had to arise out of nothing, or it was eternally existing. I don't claim to know which, but one is no more absurd than the other. Like I said, the argument over First Cause has been going for centuries.

The thought of anything being truly "eternal" is absurd. If one was to say that something (the universe) was eternal by matter of scale or perspective, then that is a different story and I am completely fine with it.

We are most likely never going to know about the other universes which exist outside of our own. Their nature, their laws, their creation, etc. Therefore, in my opinion, whether or how everything came from nothing before the Big Bang is inconsequential.

I never meant to imply that I thought that all universes branched off our own. That wouldn't make sense logically. Do these universes have to branch off as we move forward in time? Or could they all have been created simultaneously, and our consciousness simply interprets them on a fixed time scale?

In the multiple world interpretation of quantum mechanics, the parallel universes branch off from our own universal wave function as we move both forward and backward in time. Obviously we don't perceive time as going backwards, but time has no direction mathematically. When thinking about it from a phase space point of view, there are as many on the "front-side" of our moment or slice in time as there is on the "backside".

This is not to say that there couldn't be other universes independent of our universal wave function. M-theory would seem to indicate such a phenomenon.

In that scenario, no universe would be created from another universe. More simply, I meant that I don't necessarily believe the Many Worlds Interpretation.

In the multiple world interpretation the parallel universes are connected. In M-theory, they don't necessarily have to be connected but are not restricted from interacting with one another (hence the Big Bang).

 

[Thrasher865]

The thought of anything being truly "eternal" is absurd. If one was to say that something (the universe) was eternal by matter of scale or perspective, then that is a different story and I am completely fine with it.

No. It's just absurd because you cannot wrap your head around it. Something coming from completely nothing is just as absurd...

 

[Thrasher865]

We are most likely never going to know about the other universes which exist outside of our own. Their nature, their laws, their creation, etc. Therefore, in my opinion, whether or how everything came from nothing before the Big Bang is inconsequential.

Nor will we know if they even exist.

 

[Thrasher865]

In the multiple world interpretation of quantum mechanics, the parallel universes branch off from our own universal wave function as we move both forward and backward in time. Obviously we don't perceive time as going backwards, but time has no direction mathematically. When thinking about it from a phase space point of view, there are as many on the "front-side" of our moment or slice in time as there is on the "backside".

there are infinitely many universes with each possible outcome, but "ours" is the origin?

 

[Thrasher865]

I personally give you credit for admitting that it takes faith to believe in ANY origin for this universe. I argued for about a week in a different thread with a whole host of pseudoscientists and scientist wannabes that would openly mock my beliefs but refused repeatedly to admit that their beliefs also required faith. I believe it takes more faith to believe you came from evolution than it does a Creator. Trillions of mathematical near impossibilities would have to occur to make it from a single protein to a human. Plus there's the whole "spontaneous generation of life" thing which has never been observed or replicated. Is it not fair to assume that if something has never been observed and cannot be replicated despite a concerted effort by man that it is likely impossible? Many. Many attempts have been made to give life to inanimate creations. All have, and will fail. Only God gives life, or takes it away. Whether or not we choose to believe this has no bearing on its accuracy. All men are appointed once to die, and then the Judgment.

There is a difference between faith in something with empirical evidence, and blind faith.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Collapse theory being "Big Crunch?" I absolutely do not believe in the reverse of the Big Bang. This isn't an either or, proposition. There are tons of alternatives to either choice.

No. Collapse theory of quantum mechanics. It has a more scientific name that I can't think of off the top of my head.

There are only two viable theories to explain Schrödinger's equation. One being collapse theory and the other being the multiple worlds interpretation. Collapse theory basically says that on the quantum level the wave function randomly (or by a way nobody understands) falls into the precise pattern we know when measured. Given what we know at the moment, I think Collapse theory is crazy. Maybe there will be something in the future that sways my mind, but until then multiple worlds interpretation makes the most sense.

The Big Crunch is in trouble with the advent of dark matter and dark energy unless gravity can make a comeback. You never know though, gravity might be the ultimate comeback kid.

Lost me here. We invented mathematics to explain natural laws...

I don't really understand the distinction you're making.

We created laws that define phenomenon we observe. I do not think they tell the whole story, but they do describe the behavior of bodies of matter, particles, etc.

So you believe we invented mathematics and the natural laws instead of discovering them? Interesting.

I never made the assertion that eternal meant anything other than eternal. It depends on how you want to define "our universe." If a universe, that happened to be this one, existed prior to the big bang, but matter looked entirely different, and the fundamental laws of physics behaved completely different, would it still be "our universe?"

I say yes, and I don't discount this possibility.

Matter, energy, and fundamental laws would not play a role in the equation at all. Eternalness is a function of time. The only thing of any relevance is space-time which was created and came into existence with the Big Bang. Time, as we know it, simply does not exist before the Big Bang. Thus, eternalness is not possible.

 

[PKT_VOL]

No. It's just absurd because you cannot wrap your head around it. Something coming from completely nothing is just as absurd...

It is absurd. The second isn't as absurd. Particles on the quantum level pop into and out of existence all the time. If one thinks that our universe came from another universe, the other universe could support nothingness from something as a logical law.

Nor will we know if they even exist.

Disagree. There is more evidence than not that they exist. However, I doubt we will ever know their nature or how they function.

there are infinitely many universes with each possible outcome, but "ours" is the origin?

Not necessarily the origin. At the Big Bang, our phase space could have been apart of another phase space (if only for a fraction of a second). However, they are all connected to us via our universal wave function.

 

[PKT_VOL]

The problem with multi strata fossils and inverted petrified trees is that they supposedly stood this way for millions of years while the coal seams or limestone around them was formed. Right? Wrong. Of course that's absolutely impossible so millions of years can't have passed while the tree stood upside down. My ten year old can figure that out...

I am not a geological expert. I do not know the answer to the inverted petrified trees. There might be a logical explanation out there; I dunno.

However, practically everything else on the Earth, our solar system, and in our universe support the notion that everything is very old. You have to weigh the preponderance of evidence.

yet the opposite is assumed to be fact because the geologic column ranks right up there with evolution as the best ways for scientists who don't believe in the God of the Bible to convince themselves that they're not going to spend eternity in hell.

I hope you seriously don't believe this.

One example of circular reasoning on this matter is when scientists use limestone to date index fossils, then use those same fossils to date limestone. There are many, many examples of outright lies and circular reasoning in CSE videos entitled "lies in the textbooks" and "dinosaurs and the Bible" they provide specific examples of modern textbooks used along with page numbers and pictures of the covers.

I have seen those videos. The "circular reasoning" has undoubtedly contributed to inaccurate dating. However, once this was discovered and addressed, many of the same fossils were reanalyzed using different procedures. Sometimes they were right the first time, sometimes they corrected their mistakes. Either way, the "circular reasoning" did not skew the result to the tune of millions or billions of years.

Children in America are being force fed absolute bullcrap science on a daily basis. I spend more money on Christian school every month than I do on my mortgage to keep this garbage out of my kids heads.

The nugatory mistakes in a scientific textbook pale in comparison to those in religious scripture.

Nothing is perfect, but there are certainly some options which are much better than others.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I personally give you credit for admitting that it takes faith to believe in ANY origin for this universe. I argued for about a week in a different thread with a whole host of pseudoscientists and scientist wannabes that would openly mock my beliefs but refused repeatedly to admit that their beliefs also required faith. I believe it takes more faith to believe you came from evolution than it does a Creator. Trillions of mathematical near impossibilities would have to occur to make it from a single protein to a human. Plus there's the whole "spontaneous generation of life" thing which has never been observed or replicated. Is it not fair to assume that if something has never been observed and cannot be replicated despite a concerted effort by man that it is likely impossible? Many. Many attempts have been made to give life to inanimate creations. All have, and will fail. Only God gives life, or takes it away. Whether or not we choose to believe this has no bearing on its accuracy. All men are appointed once to die, and then the Judgment.

I dunno what to tell you. I follow science where it takes me. I think science and metaphysics are more closely linked than most people think. However, if one puts all their faith in a preconceived notion of metaphysics, they are doomed to never have a valid working concept of the world. I would much rather have science guide me back to the most probable metaphysics.

 

[Thrasher865]

No. Collapse theory of quantum mechanics. It has a more scientific name that I can't think of off the top of my head.

There are only two viable theories to explain Schrödinger's equation. One being collapse theory and the other being the multiple worlds interpretation. Collapse theory basically says that on the quantum level the wave function randomly (or by a way nobody understands) falls into the precise pattern we know when measured. Given what we know at the moment, I think Collapse theory is crazy. Maybe there will be something in the future that sways my mind, but until then multiple worlds interpretation makes the most sense.

Okay, I knew that lol. I think collapse theory makes more sense than an infinite number of universes, but we're really only at the beginning of our understanding of these concepts, so it could be another explanation entirely.

 

[Thrasher865]

So you believe we invented mathematics and the natural laws instead of discovering them? Interesting.

What? No, I guess I misworded that. I guess we "discovered" mathematical equations to explain physical phenomena that we've observed. I don't understand your distinction between the two. How could we "invent" the laws of physics? Implying that they are not true, but explain certain aspects of the universe? Implying that we somehow affected the universe by stating these laws?

Matter, energy, and fundamental laws would not play a role in the equation at all. Eternalness is a function of time. The only thing of any relevance is space-time which was created and came into existence with the Big Bang. Time, as we know it, simply does not exist before the Big Bang. Thus, eternalness is not possible.

Space did not exist before the big bang. At least not space as we know it, and in this universe. Time absolutely could have existed before the Big Bang, and for you to suggest you know that there's no way it could is absolutely foolish.

 

[Thrasher865]

It is absurd. The second isn't as absurd. Particles on the quantum level pop into and out of existence all the time. If one thinks that our universe came from another universe, the other universe could support nothingness from something as a logical law.

Particles pop into and out of existence, but if those particles never existed elsewhere in the universe, this would not be possible. Start over. If our universe came from another universe, then where did that universe come from? And where did the universe that created it come from?

 

[Thrasher865]

Disagree. There is more evidence than not that they exist. However, I doubt we will ever know their nature or how they function.

Absolutely cannot agree with this. There is no empirical evidence of these infinitely many other parallel universes. I'm definitely not dismissing it. I'm just saying that your statement is pretty out there to suggest that the "multiverse" is even close to scientific fact. A single universe, at least single in the eyes of the many worlds interpretation, is just as likely.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Okay, I knew that lol. I think collapse theory makes more sense than an infinite number of universes, but we're really only at the beginning of our understanding of these concepts, so it could be another explanation entirely.

Well, have to agree to disagree on the first part.

I agree with the second part though.

What? No, I guess I misworded that. I guess we "discovered" mathematical equations to explain physical phenomena that we've observed. I don't understand your distinction between the two. How could we "invent" the laws of physics? Implying that they are not true, but explain certain aspects of the universe? Implying that we somehow affected the universe by stating these laws?

It is simple but whichever you choose has major philosophical implications. We either discovered the laws of nature and mathematics meaning they were/are in effect over everything or we invented such notions to grip with the apparent phenomena of our external world.

There are strong cases on both sides of the fence. If they are not a figment of our imagination (invention), then they were in existence long before our arrival. It begs the question, where did they come from? Who or what created them? Why?

Space did not exist before the big bang. At least not space as we know it, and in this universe. Time absolutely could have existed before the Big Bang, and for you to suggest you know that there's no way it could is absolutely foolish.

Space-time is a single entity. One does not exist without the other. To say that space did not exist before the Big Bang but time could have is an oxymoron. Either both existed or both ceased to exist.

The above paragraph is the physics, the following is more my opinion on time.

Time is a function of space. I think time is nothing more than a figment of our imagination. I do not believe time is real. To be more specific, I think the "flow" of time is just an illusion. I view time as an illusion much like a movie reel. At it's most fundamental level, I think reality is static. Reality is nothing more than an infinitude of slices of space time which is experienced like a movie to us (humans and other life forms). Our perspective of this experience is what we deem as "time" or more specifically, the "flow" of time.

Particles pop into and out of existence, but if those particles never existed elsewhere in the universe, this would not be possible. Start over. If our universe came from another universe, then where did that universe come from? And where did the universe that created it come from?

Hence the cosmological argument is alive and well.

Absolutely cannot agree with this. There is no empirical evidence of these infinitely many other parallel universes. I'm definitely not dismissing it. I'm just saying that your statement is pretty out there to suggest that the "multiverse" is even close to scientific fact. A single universe, at least single in the eyes of the many worlds interpretation, is just as likely.

There is a difference between implicit and explicit evidence. Your right, there is not explicit evidence for the multiple world interpretation; but neither is there explicit evidence for collapse theory or anything to counter the multiple world interpretation. However, there is a decent amount of implicit evidence for the multiple world interpretation; at least more than collapse theory imo.

From your posts, it seems like you give zero credence to implicit evidence. That is fine. Sometimes, in my opinion, you have to take implicit evidence where explicit evidence is not possible.