Intelligent Design

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I’ve never made the claim that god is the only thing that exist outside this universe. Photons only kind of exist in it. If you believe in angels and the sort, more than god exists beyond this physical world.

That’s fine, but again the point is that the existence of matter/energy outside this universe proves matter/energy didn’t require a supernatural being to create it out of nothing.[/quote]

Existing outside of time and existing outside of the universe are 2 different things. As I’ve stated the way it behaves is within the known laws of the universe, it’s only outside of traditional thought.

If something disobeys our “laws” on the passage of time, it proves that our laws are wrong, not that the particle is outside of the rules of the universe.

I never said the particle exists outside the laws of the universe, only that those laws allow for timeless existence, which nullifies the necessity of your god hypothesis.

[quote]forlife wrote:
I never said the particle exists outside the laws of the universe, only that those laws allow for timeless existence, which nullifies the necessity of your god hypothesis.[/quote]

Because things don’t follow preconceived notions of time, they don’t have to be created?

Yep.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Yep.[/quote]

And yet photons aren’t eternal. They are created and destroyed all the time.

They aren’t created and destroyed, they only change form.

E = MC2

[quote]forlife wrote:
They aren’t created and destroyed, they only change form.

E = MC2[/quote]

Actually that equation doesn’t work on photons, their mass is zero. They are essentially energy, except they have momentum.

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
Space and time aren’t real? LOL…I want to hear this explanation.

I think space and time are real, it was his argument not mine.

Space and time appear to be connected via the space-time continuum, and are relative rather than absolute.

Which scares people that view the universe in absolute terms, and are unable to see colors other than black and white.
[/quote]

Space and time are separate dimensions. We perceive time as linear, when it is not.

The equation does work because the photon has relativistic mass.

[quote]In relativity, all the energy which moves along with a body adds up to the total energy of the body, which is proportional to the relativistic mass. Even a single photon traveling in empty space has a relativistic mass, which is its energy divided by c2. If a box of ideal mirrors contains light, the mass of the box is increased by the energy of the light, since the total energy of the box is its mass.

Although a photon is never “at rest”, it still has a rest mass, which is zero. If an observer chases a photon faster and faster, the observed energy of the photon approaches zero as the observer approaches the speed of light. This is why photons are massless. They have zero rest mass even though they have varying amounts of energy and relativistic mass.
[/quote]

[quote]Makavali wrote:
forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
Space and time aren’t real? LOL…I want to hear this explanation.

I think space and time are real, it was his argument not mine.

Space and time appear to be connected via the space-time continuum, and are relative rather than absolute.

Which scares people that view the universe in absolute terms, and are unable to see colors other than black and white.

Space and time are separate dimensions. We perceive time as linear, when it is not.[/quote]

No, the 2 are related. Changes in one produce changes in the other.

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
There are quite few miracles that have been reviewed by scientists many times. I didn’t read all 400 posts.

How do you review a miracle?[/quote]

With heaping piles of exaggeration and bullshit.

[quote]forlife wrote:
The equation does work because the photon has relativistic mass.

In relativity, all the energy which moves along with a body adds up to the total energy of the body, which is proportional to the relativistic mass. Even a single photon traveling in empty space has a relativistic mass, which is its energy divided by c2. If a box of ideal mirrors contains light, the mass of the box is increased by the energy of the light, since the total energy of the box is its mass.

Although a photon is never “at rest”, it still has a rest mass, which is zero. If an observer chases a photon faster and faster, the observed energy of the photon approaches zero as the observer approaches the speed of light. This is why photons are massless. They have zero rest mass even though they have varying amounts of energy and relativistic mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence[/quote]

Yes, relativistic mass is a made up term used to make the equation make sense. That one to my knowledge hasn’t been observed yet.

Regardless, when they change forms, they cease going the speed of light and are subject to time again. or their energy they transfered is. what are we even arguing at this point?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, the 2 are related. Changes in one produce changes in the other.[/quote]

Related, yes. But I still maintain that they are separate in terms of observability.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
No, the 2 are related. Changes in one produce changes in the other.

Related, yes. But I still maintain that they are separate in terms of observability.[/quote]

I disagree, a length measurement is arbitrary without a noted momentum frame. You have to have both to have comparability between measurements. The same with time.

I don’t know much about science.
To me, it seems impossible to disprove the existence of some “higher being”, and arguing about it appears futile.

However…

Take the christian God, for example. The old testament is so full of hatred, intolerance and anger that I’m inclined to think that it does not reflect the wisdom of some “God”, but rather the fearful psyche of people who may in some respects be considered primitive. Unless God is an some awful pervert, and if he is, I certainly will not bow down. Even if I’ll suffer in the afterlife.

Does the above prove that the bible is BS? Nope.

One must make a distinction between theism and deism. It’s pretty damn easy to argue for deism. “How did the universe begin? How did something come from nothing?” The scientists, in their humility (wink), say they don’t really know and some people take that as proof that the bible is true, that Joseph Smith really was a prophet or whatever else one needs to believe in.

Theism, however, is harder to defend, if only because it sounds so unlikely.
Why does God want us to believe in him? If I’m a good person, yet do not believe, am I going to hell?

Why does he care who I sleep with?

Why are some prayers answered while some are not?

Why did God let humans suffer for 100 000 - 150 000 years before he sent himself to die for our sins? If God defines ‘sin’ why did he have to kill himself to make up for our fuck ups?

Sounds silly, right? Does it prove the bible is false? Nope.

Is the purpose of believing in God, that he wants to give us “rules for a happy life”? Or it it simply to worship him because he wants recognition? If the former is true, why not appear before the world and remove all doubt? (yeah, I know, if you’re like John Denver you think that “God is in nature! All you have to do is look”, or whatever.) Then most of us would at least give christianity an honest attempt.
If, however, the latter is true, God suddenly seems like a pretty screwed up guy.

But does that prove the bible is bs? Nope.

There simply is no proof for a God, as he is described in the christian texts. There isn’t even anything to suggest that there exists such a being. Can science accurately explain how the universe began?

Not that I’m aware of, but that does not prove that one man gathered two specimens of all the animals in the world (including anywhere from 1-10 million species of insects) and put them on some boat. Obviously that is a story created at a time when people did not have any understanding of the plethora of species inhabiting this planet.

Does that prove… ah fuck it! You know where I’m going with this. I can’t prove anything, but one can certainly point out the primitive, intolerant, implausible, illogical, inconsistent and vicious claims of christianity. Most people feel silly when confronted with this, and usually respond by saying that they don’t believe the stuff literally. Now, THAT is bullshit.

Now, deism… that’s another story. I certainly do not exclude the possibility of a creator, but I do not believe the creator cares where I stick my thing.

Sorry for the messy rambling.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
The equation does work because the photon has relativistic mass.
[/quote]

The photon is massless, it does not have a rest mass. If we choose units where c=1, what Einstein noted E^2 - p^2 = m^2, where E is the energy, p is the momentum and m is the mass. If you have a particle at rest, it has no momentum, so E^2 = m^2 or in conventional units e = mc^2. If we have a photon, m=0, so we have energy being proportional to momentum.

There is a discussion of this in Feynmann’s “Six Not So Easy Pieces” (around page 109). Or see Energy–momentum relation - Wikipedia

No. Imagine that I am holding a flashlight and point it due north. You are traveling due north at 50% of the speed of light. You measure the speed of light relative to your reference frame. What do you measure? The light is still moving past you at the speed of light. This is the mind blowing part of relativity.

It has been carefully verified by experiments (but obviously not with people traveling at 150,000 km/s as in my example).

[quote]
This is why photons are massless. They have zero rest mass even though they have varying amounts of energy and relativistic mass.

Yes, relativistic mass is a made up term used to make the equation make sense. That one to my knowledge hasn’t been observed yet.

Regardless, when they change forms, they cease going the speed of light and are subject to time again. or their energy they transferred is. what are we even arguing at this point?[/quote]
I agree that this is off topic, but physics is dear to my heart.

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
There are quite few miracles that have been reviewed by scientists many times. I didn’t read all 400 posts.

How do you review a miracle?
[/quote]

For you, I will show you, cause you have a brain…I will PM it to you.

If you only believe in what is physical then we are the pruducts of our genetics and experiences. Therefore we have no free will but each “decision” we make has been programmed by our genetics and the external influences through our lives.
Of course you can argue that if there is a creator there is no free will either. That if a god created us and controls the events around us that we are just pupets responding.
In a way true free will is like randomness and can’t exist if you beleive exclusively in cause and effect.

I’m arguing, or rather discussing, because I enjoy it.
Its good to come across something you’ve never considered before or just to have an idea sparked in your mind when discussing these things.
I dont see any real point in these discussions beyond that, its unlikely that one person will convince another, it is interesting though when two opposing points of view, after much discussion realise that they agree on most things.
Unless you believe in an afterlife or higher state of being there is no point to knowing anything beyond what you will experience directly in your lifetime.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Scrotus wrote:
If god healed people more often than expected by chance alone, how would we know? Could we say, “Hey god, could you cut out that healing people bullshit so we can see if you are healing people faster than would be expected by chance alone?” Or wait, since we are talking to god now, lets just ask god.

As pointed out earlier, here is one way:

Praying for the health of strangers who have undergone heart surgery has no effect, according to the largest scientific study ever commissioned to calculate the healing power of prayer.

In fact, patients who know they are being prayed for suffer a noticeably higher rate of complications, according to the study, which monitored the recovery of 1,800 patients after heart bypass surgery in the US.

The findings of the decade-long study were due to be published in the American Heart Journal next week, but the journal published the report on its website yesterday as anticipation grew.

The power of intercessory prayer has been studied by doctors for years in America, but with no conclusive results. This $2.4 million study, funded in large part by the John Templeton Foundation, which seeks “insights at the boundary between theology and science”, was intended to cast some clear light on the matter.

aBut the study “did not move us forward or backward” in understanding the effects of prayer, admitted Dr Charles Bethea, one of the co-authors and a cardiologist at the Integris Baptist Medical Center in Oklahoma City. “Intercessory prayer under our restricted format had a neutral effect,” he said.

Members of three congregations - St. Paul’s Monastery in St. Paul; the Community of Teresian Carmelites in Worcester, Massachussetts; and Silent Unity, a Missouri prayer ministry near Kansas City - were asked to pray for the patients, who were divided into three groups: those who would be told they were being prayed for, those who would receive prayers but not know, and those who would not be prayed for at all.

The worshippers starting praying for the patients the night before surgery and for the next two weeks, asking God to grant “a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications”.

The study found no appreciable difference between the health of those who did not know they were being prayed for and those who received no prayers. Fifty-two per cent of patients in both groups suffered complications after surgery. But 59 per cent of those who knew they were prayed for went on to develop complications.

The reports authors said they had no explanation for the difference beyond a possibility that the prayers made people anxious about their ability to recover.

“Did the patients think, ?I am so sick that they had to call in the prayer team?”? said Dr Bethea.

The results of the study provoked discord among doctors and scientists in the US, many of whom questioned the wisdom of subjecting prayer to the conditions of a research project.

Dr Richard Sloan, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia and the author of a forthcoming book, Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine, told The New York Times: “The problem with studying religion scientifically is that you do violence to the phenomenon by reducing it to basic elements that can be quantified, and that makes for bad science and bad religion.”

But Paul Kurtz, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, and chairman of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, had a simpler response when asked why the study had found no evidence for the power of prayer. “Because there is none,” he said. “That would be one answer.”

Dr. David Stevens, executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, told the AP that he believed intercessory prayer could influence people’s health, but that scientists were not equipped to measure the phenomenon.

“Do we control God through prayer? Theologians would say absolutely not. God decides sometimes to intervene, and sometimes not,” he said. As for the new study, he said, “I don?t think… it?s going to stop people praying for the sick.”

[/quote]

How do you know that god doesnt just help people at random, on a whim or on the basis of some other standard? It didnt even occur to me that prayer could be used to get stuff from god, so I hadn’t thought of that lol. So, my question is, how do you know god doesn’t help people? If god was all-knowing then he would know who he should help and who he shouldnt, and all that.