50/50
Offline This topic intents to measure the possibility for God's existence or at least to discuss that possibility.
Although it questions the science and scientific theories, the topic might not be accepted in the "Science" section of this forum.
I'll leave it to the moderators to find the right place for it.
The Universe
There were two theories about the nature of the Universe:
1) 1 There is no moment of creation and the Universe is ever existent
2) 2 There is moment of creation, therefore the Universe has beginning
The evidences do not support the first theory, because it is obvious that the Universe expands, which leads the science to the conclusion that there is a moment in which the expansion started.
That moment is considered to be the birth moment of the Universe.
That is how the Big Bang theory took place in the modern science.
However there is a weak point in the Big Bang theory.
Due to the quick cooling matter in the Universe we should not observe such equally distributed matter in the observed Universe.
There is also problem with the mass of the Universe and its gravitational force related to the speed of expansion and its eventual end.
Alan Guth came with new theory called Inflationary Universe which corrects three major points in the Big Bang theory one of which is: there wasn’t “explosion process” but the Universe inflated in “a fraction of a second”. According to the theory the inflation was possible thanks to the “repulsive gravitation”.
In both theories the Universe got its “birth” from a stage called Singularity.
Singularity is scientific taboo and the laws of physics are helpless for its explanation.
We can only say that Singularity is the Universal stage where is no time, space and matter.
Knowing that the matter is motion we can say that Singularity is Absolute Rest or… NOTHING.
Mind the NOTHING word!
We use that word to express lack of presence but in an absolute meaning NOTHING is unexplainable notion, because it is not only lack of presence but also lack of space for any presence.
Now, as we all can see a scientific theory is making us to believe that the observed Universe appeared from NOTHING.
Actually we don’t really believe it, because we don’t think about it.
We have the evidence of an existence and we are happy with it.
We don’t notice the lack of evidence for the assumption of “repulsive gravitation”, because it makes sense in explaining evidence – equally distributed matter in expanding Universe.
We don’t also notice something very illogical:
Obviously the “repulsive gravitation” must be greater than the one we know; otherwise the expansion wouldn’t take place. If so, why the “repulsive gravitation” is not evidently present and working IN the Universe?
It can only be explained if it is placed outside (!) the Universe or to avoid the stupid “outside” word we can use the less stupid expression “the repulsive gravitation only applies to the Universal borders” (correct my English if wrong).
We know that the science uses highly sophisticated abstractions to fit the theory to our understanding; such as “the Universe expands in itself” which is suppose to explain the question “in what space the Universe expands?”
The above abstraction does not explain the NOTHING notion due to the fact that in NOTHING there are no borders.
What do I mean?
Imagine that the Universe did not start from NOTHING but from the possibly smallest particle or even fireball if you prefer so. I’m quite sure that this is much easier to imagine than the birth from NOTHING.
A material particle has properties one of which is “end” which end we call “border”.
If we have border we have space and time to travel in direction opposite of the border.
We need very abstract explanation to accept that a border is possible only from inside but never from outside of material volume (the Universe in this particular case)
We can only make sense in explaining all this if we assume that a border is possible only through observation or conscious understanding about it. That would mean that since there is no consciousness out of the Universe, no outside border exists even if the Universe has the size of a fireball or the size of the smallest known particle.
Now we can correct the theory by saying that the Universe needs consciousness in order to exist in itself even when it is as small as the smallest imaginable particle.
Let’s talk about this before we move forward.
[Update by Truden] This entry is part of a concept which is to be found in the first four pages of the topic.
- Login to post comments
I'll limit what I'll say on the topic since I'm not well read on it.
But this seems to devoit the possibility of a multi-verse.
I don't see why there needs to be something that the universe is contained, it could just be empty space.
I think your leap to conciousness is dramatic and that's the part I want to hit on particularly. There is much ignorance on the topic, that does not justify applying conciousness or anything supernatural. I hope that you'll avoid continuing down the path of "because we don't know god is just as likely".
This would solve nothing. In fact, it would add a new problem -- from whence did this intelligence come? How can intelligence, which relies on matter, exist without it? How, in a pre-expansion universe, can life exist, and how can such a being wield so much power?
I could go on for hours asking questions about this being, but of course I would not receive an answer. You would reply that you've already established that nothing can be known about pre-big-bang, so you don't have to explain it.
But that's exactly the problem. You've just made up a non-answer. Goddidit is not an answer to anything, for it is just inserting a word, not a quantifiable thing -- something with ontological identity.
However, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that by some stroke of luck, you're right and that there was an intelligent being who existed before the big bang. Since you know absolutely nothing of this entity -- you said so yourself -- there is no way to know that the creation of the universe wasn't the death of this being!
In fact, if there was such a being, and even if we concede this for the sake of argument, you are still under the obligation to prove that this being still exists, and if he does, that he interacts with the universe. You silly theists think that by inserting goddidit into the argument that you can win some great victory. The reality is that it's all in vain. Such a being existing pre-big bang has absolutely no bearing on whether it exists now, and the burden of proof is still on you to demonstrate the post-big-bang existence of any such entity.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Tarpan, I'd like to clarify that the "God" word in my postings does not imply any personality or any known meaning of this word.
Well, obviously it is not empty space. There is matter in the Universe.
By the way, "space" is word which implies conscious observation or understanding.
But if it is really really empty even from a cosciousness, then there is nothing to come out of it.
The empty space I meant outside of the universe.
I took issue with "conciousness" specifically, I did not mention God.
So, you know something about ontology, right? You know that a word that points to something without identity is meaningless.
So, you recognize that you have proposed as the answer.
Also, do you have a reply to my observation that even granting a pre-bang entity, you are still obligated to demonstrate its existence post-bang?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
You are coming from the assumption that the brain (matter) produces though.
That is only a theory based on the evidence that the brain is responsible for the thinking.
I must remind you that "responsible" does not mean "producing" and that is why it is still theory.
The aerial is also responsible for the broadcasting but does not produces the signal.
May be my theory will solve the problem with the brain-thought theory.
And why do you assume that this consciousness would be intelligence, entity or being?
It could also be pure consciousness without personality.
No. I'm observing that the very definitions of intelligence and thought are entirely dependent on matter. If you are to propose something else, you must define it.
Pardon me. I mean to make no assumptions.
Now, will you please answer my question? What difference does it make whether there was a pre-bang entity? You are still under the obligation to prove such an entity's current existence.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I know that a word is needed to explain a meaning.
I did not say that I put no meaning in the "God" word, but only that it defers to all knowing meanings. Think it as pure consciousness without personality.
I did not say that in the Singularity there was an entity.
I simply stated that consciousness is needed in order to define borders.
In my previous comment I said that this consciousness could also be pure consciousness without personality.
As for demonstration of the consciousness I think that our conversation is proof for existence of consciousness
You are right. But that does not make the matter producer of the consciousness. It only means that intelligence and matter are dependent on each other.
Note that there is difference between consciousness and intelligence. Intelligence comes in place when the consciousness starts to separate and define subjects and events in the material world, thus creating knowledge.
I did never mentioned the "entity" word. If you apply this word to consciousness, then it is evident in this very discussion.
Could you please try to express yourself more clearly?
I hardly know how to discuss what you've written because it's very difficult to understand what you are trying to say.
You seem to have disagreed with my statement that matter and intelligence are dependent by saying that matter and intelligence are dependent. I'm having a hard time figuring out how to refute that. I never said anything about matter causing intelligence.
You are correct on one thing, though. I am perhaps reading too much into your proposition. Will you please express your proposition in full, and fully define any words that are not used in their currently understood sense?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Not yet.
Lets talk on what I posted.
"I think your leap to conciousness is dramatic and that's the part I want to hit on particularly. There is much ignorance on the topic, that does not justify applying conciousness or anything supernatural"
This is the main issue I take as well. Are you proposing that this consiciousness MUST be right, or is simply a POSSIBILITY?
From what I understand, you are contending that it is only a possibility?
This would ultimately mean that all you are doing is concocting a possibility with no reference to it's validity. Correct?
It all comes to your question:
and form there it started.
Did you say the above with the assumption that matter produces thought?
If yes, you could be wrong, because it is only theory that the brain produces though.
I separated the meanings "consciousness" and "intelligence" because they are two different things.
Intelligence depends on matter, because it is conscious separation of material subjects and events.
Consciousness does not depends on matter (at least such dependency is not proven), since consciousness is needed to observe the matter.
Quantum physics already has a theory about superposition of states where conscious observation is needed for the system to take a position.
Someone said that you have scientists in your forums.
Please, if someone knows more on Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (superposition of states) let explain it.
If you haven't noticed, people here aren't all that fond of wild goose chases.
So many arguments are used over and over again that we're skeptical that you are going to say something new. You're going to have a hard time 'leading' us into something.
If you aren't willing to define "god" or define "conciousness" then you're not going to receive a very receptive audience.
Please be clear and concise with the point you are trying to make / concept you are trying to propose.
I'm still not drawing any conclusions.
I simply offered you to comment on scientific theory and on my notes on it.
I'm interested in your vision of the theory for our Universe and on your understanding about the nature of the Universe.
The very fact that the Universe started from no matter, space and time is disturbing and leads to major questions about the belief we have for the material world.
I've not read enough of it, but isn't this leading up to Schrodinger's Cat?
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Tarpan, from my experience in forum discussions I know that people are biting on the easiest for them part of the topic and chewing it to the end.
I know that it is easy to confront me on definition of God, but it might not be that easy if you firstly understand the position from which the definition is pulled.
Let's not go backwards.
What would be consciousness?
If you heard of "pure consciousness" it would explain it.
Or the possibility to observe without being dependent on biological matter.
Or Spirit.
I did not say that it is a fact.
But if it is not a theory then Google is wrong about Big Bang
1) That isn't the Copenhagen interputation
2) That is the Consciousness Causes Collapse (CCC) interputation
3) The Copenhagen interputation seems to be the most widely accepted
4) Any information interaction of the state will collapse the wave function.
Yes, Schrodinger confronted the theory with his cat in the box.
Apparently his mind experiment could not prove the theory wrong.
There are answers to it.
Stop trying to turn the burden of proof around. You posited intelligence as extant before the big bang. If you mean something other than intelligence as we know it, you are obliged to define it.
All I have done is point out to you that you are using words imprecisely. I am not making any claim. You're the one saying you have something to show us.
Um.... what?
You seem very confused. You don't just get to say something offhanded and then challenge us to disprove it. If you're suggesting that consciousness can exist without matter, you must demonstrate how this is possible.
Deludedgod might be the one to do that.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Can conciousness exist without intelligence, can intelligence exist without conciousness? Or are they both the same, one cannot exist without the other, why cannot the universe exist without conciousness as the universe does not show any form of intelligences per se, or conciousness per se either. The natural world and universe shows no need for either to exist. So far the idea of conciousness required for the universe to exist....well you haven't show it. The singularity, which is not really nothing, energy of this universe compressed into an infinitly dense singularity, now why it expanded is the question, but so far you haven't show a need for a "god" to have caused this, a natural imblance in the singularity, a quantum flux or any other natural cause may have done this without the need of a concious.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Actuallay, could you clarify your position on consciousness and wave functions?
After re-reading it, I see how I could have mistaken it with CCC.
The defintion of god is critical to the approach that we take.
Just lay it all down.
If you're claiming a Deist god, you'll get a different reaction than a stricit christian god, which will get an even different reaction than if you claimed a pantheist god.
At this point it feels like you're playing games with words rather than getting to the point.
Intelligence is information stored and used by consciousness.
Very close explanation for consciousness is the one of new born creature.
Spirit is to have the same consciousness without the need of a body.
You can not be sure that the Universe can exist without consciousness, latincanuck.
Existence is provable through observation.
That is why atheist want evidence for God's existence.
Note that Consciousness is provable through observation of conscious act or through self awareness.
Matter don't have self awareness.
And I did not say that God caused the expansion.
Now, what is Singularity?
What is matter and what is energy?
What is the mass of the Universe and the gravity of that mass?
How the motion which we call matter will remain alive (spinning) under its own gravity?
Is it possible the matter of Universe to annihilate itself?
I suppose all that was taken in account when was said the Singularity is no matter, no space and no time.
I'll post links from Wikipedia, because the explanations are synthesized and in understandable way.
Consciousness Causes Collapse
Copenhagen interputation
Schrödinger's cat
1) I'd rather look in my Quantum notes/texbook thanks
2) I still think that your confusing CCC with Copenhagen, the way you said it suggests you are.
3) Why am I posting in lists all of a sudden?
Well, sorry but that was a matter of speech momentum.
I do say in the same quote "belief we have for the material world".
If it was fact it wouldn't be belief.
And you can read the results from Google about Big Bang.
Just comment on my posting please.
Ignore the title of this topic.
Truden, you're doing a lot of clarification about your perspective on the differences between intelligence and consciousness, and you've said that matter being needed for consciousness is 'only' a theory because it hasn't been proven.
First off theory, for the record, is a word that should never be paired with 'only'... 'only' a hypothesis, perhaps, but theories are very, very strong things. All of the principles referred to in science as 'laws' are actually Theories, including thermodynamics.
Secondly, theories don't get proven. They get disproven, or they continue to make predictions that match observation. Thus far, the theory that matter gives rise to consciousness matches observation. The burden of proving otherwise rests on the shoulders of those seeking to disprove the theory.
So: where is your empirical evidence that consciousness is not dependant on matter?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
First, you say that 'matter is motion'. Expand on this please, as the rest of your point is significantly dependant on this. And please include your proof for this.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
The science proved it, BMcD.
When science go in atomic and down level it observes moving in orbits an spinning particles.
Actually, the inflationary expansion isn't gravitation at all. Gravitation stems from the interaction of masses in space-time. Inflationary expansion was an expansion of space-time itself. Now, you then ask 'in what space does the Universe expand?' but this question is flawed in itself, as space, ie: the 3 spatial dimensions we interact with, is a property of the universe. It's like asking 'in what space does 1 expand by 1 into 2?' while working in pure math.
Just as abstractions like numbers do not occupy space, the universe defines space, it does not occupy space. All space exists within the universe, and what is outside the universe (and thus, what the universe 'exists in' ) is not space as we understand it.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
No offense, but I'd like to request that you actually use coherant sentences in English.
I believe what you've said is:
"When scientists look at matter on the atomic and subatomic level, they observe particles spinning and moving in orbits."
However, the movement is not the matter, the particles are the matter. The movement of particles is the behavior of matter. Spin (as in Spin 0 or Spin 2 or Spin 1/2 particles) is a property of those particles of matter.
If you've said something else, then please, say it again using a coherant sentence in English.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Wrong wording can deceive you, DMcD.
I would say that we have evidence for relation between consciousness and matter.
When we prove that matter produces consciousness we can change the wording.
You just gave an example how an observation can create a belief.
A quick search in the internet gave me this:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/98/3.12.98/Guth_coverage.html
The problem with space comes before the Universe to become space and is just about to start its expansion.
Or if we decide to define space as volume of the Universal mass (assuming it present in the Singularity), that volume should be contained in a space.
To say that the space expands makes sense if there is no matter which defines borders.
And this is what I pointed in the entry - How the borders are to be explained.
Universal space does not have borders, but matter does.
How would you explain the borders before the expansion started?
Yet you have still not shown that the universe requires a concious to exist, you simply avoided answering it, and simply asked another question. This is the problem, you have made a claim and yet have not backed it up, and yet made another claim, intelligence is also the ability to process information, what is conciousness, no one knows for sure, because for millenias, philosophers, theologists, scientists and even the common man has tried to define what is conciousness, in order to be aware of your surroundings you must comprehend it, understand that there is something to be aware of, which inter requires intelligence.....even at the most basic level, I don't want evidence for god's exitance I want evidence for what you are claiming, you are making a statement without any backing at all, yet only saying well youd can't say it doesn't require a conciousness, well yes I can, and i have shown it, where and how can you show me that the universe require a concious to start and exist.
What is singularity, or better put, what was the singularity that scientists speak of when talking about the big bang? Well it's a gravitational singularity, which is infintely dense, exteremly high temperature, now more than that it gets far beyond my technical knowledge (to date, I have started to study this with a science professor friend of mine from McMasters University), now can the universe self annihalate, I don't know what you mean by this, by this do you mean all of it's matter? I don't know if it is possible for an non intelligent, non concious entinty.
Matter is per se the substance which physical objects are made of, which does not include energy or any force fields (which contribute to the mass of an object)
As for the last part about matter remaining alive (it isn't alive in the first place) I really don't understand your question, because it doesn't make much sense, I assume you are not including that fact that energy is force fields are factors in it's spinning and gravity per se.
So yes all those were taken into account when describing the singularity which you have shown not to have taken into account at all. However I will leave it to far more knowledgable people on this topic to speak about it, so far, you have yet to present you case in a coherent format, and one that goes beyond, well you can't prove me wrong. How about you prove yourself correct.
Ugh, I think I'm done here. Rather than just laying out all the details he's just feeding bit after bit and being unclear about his definitions of words that he started the premise with.
I'm not up for running around in circles for what I fear is just jumping to conclusions and assigning attributes just because there's no evidence against those attributes.
Latincanuck, I did explained few times what do I mean by "consciousness".
Do not fall in the words.
If you don't agree with the "consciousness" word, then use Spirit.
You have to know how the mind works in order to understand the difference between pure consciousness and intelligence.
Intelligence is when the consciousness starts to separate objects from each other thus creating knowledge about the surrounding world.
Before any knowledge is gained we can say that we don't have intelligence but pure consciousness.
Now separate this consciousness from material bearer and you'll have Consciousness (Spirit).
For your convenience I'll right the non material consciousness with capital C (Consciousness) or just Spirit.
And by the way are you aware of the fact that you define matter with matter.
No problem. We don't have better definition neither for time nor for space.
Now I hope you'll coment on the entry posting
I wouldn't. Space, in the 3 spacial dimensions we perceive, is finite but limitless, just as the surface of a ball, in 2 dimensions, is finite but limitless.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
I missed this.
I could say that in this case "property" fully covers the "essence" word.
Because every particle is motional and consist of motional particles.
What is important here is that if the motion stops, the matter is impossibles.
Wrong wording can indeed deceive, which is why I object so strenuously to yours.
We can demonstrate the existence of matter that does not have consciousness. Can you demonstrate the existence of consciousness that is not bound to matter? If you cannot, then all you are doing is making an unfounded claim and demanding it be given the same credibility as observed behavior.
It's like saying 'we have evidence that people can't fly, but you haven't proven nobody can fly!'
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Except you haven't shown the slightest shred of empirical evidence that such a thing exists at all beyond 'because I say so!'
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
*edit*
Some people posted really quick before me, so this is a little late. Sorry. =)
*/edit*
Just caught up on this topic, and I'm going reinvoke the David Mills reference from the other topic, I think.
Listen, Truden. We know you want to discuss your theory and attempt to make sense of it, but nobody here is doing to listen to you unless you define the concepts that are components of your theory.
If you are not making any kind of god claim, then say so. But if you ARE making ANY kind of god claim, then you must tell us exactly what you mean by "god".
It doesn't matter what you mean by "god". For you, "god" might be a synonym for orange jello. We just need to know what you mean before we can continue, otherwise we won't be able to make any sense out of your theory. You can't build a house without first laying the foundation.
Suppose you said that in you theory there are three witches. While witches 1 and 2 were out of town, your cabbage patch was cursed, so it obviously must have been witch 3.
Internally, this theory makes perfect sense, but the rest of us stopped caring when you said the word "witch".
If by "witch" you mean an ugly woman with supernatural powers, you first need to establish proof for such a woman, since we would all be skeptical and would want to dismiss the theory because it has no foundation to start from.
But if by "witch" you simply mean an ugly woman, then your theory is suddenly more believable, and we'd be more likely to go along with you.
Just as we would need you to define "witch" before continuing with your cabbage patch theory, we need you to define what you mean by "god" and "consciousness" before we continue with the rest of your theory. Until you do that, no one will be interested, because your discussion will have broken down into a subjective, abstract, anything-goes type of discussion.
We're going to need the definitions first, not later. Sorry. :-\
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
No, actually, if the motion stops, the particles are still there. "Property" means an attribute of the object, ie: a descriptor that can be used to accurately convey information about the object. It is not the object.
You have a fondness for using words incorrectly and then hiding behind your usage, insisting that we have to conform to your methods in order to have meaningful discussion. To repeat something you said in what appears to be an amazingly small window of clear communication, using words improperly can lead to deception, and you appear to be doing everything you can to use every word you type improperly. You're not going to be successful in deceiving the people on this forum, so I'm left with wondering how much of this is an attempt to deceive yourself into thinking you're constructing coherant arguments.
Frankly, you're not even doing that good a job of constructing coherant sentences.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Ok lets separate the definitions here for ya, first I will define Conciousness as per the most common understood definition.
Conciousness is self awareness, subjectivity, sentience, sapient and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's enviroment. Ok this is the definition of conciousness right? Now, see how I defined what I am speaking about, this is what you need to do, defined what the hell you mean. You have so far thrown out words and not defining what you mean when you use those words. Now all of this....requires some basic intelligence, to be self aware.....it needs knowledge, and you said knowledge is part of intelligence, there for to be concious you need intelligence....even at the most basic level. So far they are intertwined, you cannot have conciousness without any intelligence, even a new born baby has basic intelligence, intelligence you said is dependent of matter, so far no matter no conciousness. See how I have defined what I mean, now can you please define what the hell you are talking about because so far, incoherent terms in an incoheret format, spirits don't exist, nor does conciousness without matter, because it goes hand in hand so far by these defintion, now if you have another definition, please present it far better than conciousness is awareness.
I think he's gettin the 'matter is motion' part from the uncertainty principle which dictates absolute 0K (No particle motion..) is impossible.
I think he's getting the 'matter seperate from conscousness' part from wave function collapse.
Or something, I don't know what he's talking about either.