Just to add something incase some people are confused.
The reason an athiest is someone who doesnt believe in god is because the “a” is a greek prefixe which means “not”.
[quote]blazindave wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
Also, for those just getting into the idea, the reason there are 11, and not 100 or 29 or any other number, is because that is where the math seems to lead. Although I think some people believe it to be 21.
42
Damnit, i was just about to post that.
Basically the 10th dimension is infinity in every sense of the word. An infinite amount of universes, people, possibilities.
By the way, beyond the 4th dimension, things are incredibly simplified. I cant even begin to image to what point.
The oddest thing, imo, is our own existence. Can you remember when you were born? How you suddenly came into awareness out of nowhere?
Where does it start? And how can something start out of nothing?
Infinity is such an impossible concept that i think it is the only thing we will never understand.
For example, the number infinity exists between 0 and 1.
Think about it.
You can have 1.999999 and the 9s keep going until infinity. And yet, you can bridge that gap from 0 to 1. So it is both infinity and not.
What a world.[/quote]
I hope you’re not serious.
These “dimensions”, their order, and these “folds” (lol wtf, who thinks of this shit?) are completely arbitrary concepts. It explains why they say “imagine” beforehand…retarded
The concepts in this video are very interesting to me. I want to read more about all of this, as i think about it alot. Anyone have any literature they can link my way?
Also, this may be a stupid question but what is the correct term for this subject?
The more I think about it, the more I think that actually understanding the universe is impossible because how can you understand a system when you are merely a part of it? You’d have to be on the outside of the universe to really grasp it.
[quote]mthomps wrote:
The concepts in this video are very interesting to me. I want to read more about all of this, as i think about it alot. Anyone have any literature they can link my way?
Also, this may be a stupid question but what is the correct term for this subject?
[/quote]
string theory
[quote]
The more I think about it, the more I think that actually understanding the universe is impossible because how can you understand a system when you are merely a part of it? You’d have to be on the outside of the universe to really grasp it.[/quote]
No. We understand the system we are a part of to the best of our abilities right now, that’s why we have biology books. The problem is only the depth and given human survival and continued evolution, we will understand the entire system eventually.
[quote]allNatural wrote:
mthomps wrote:
The concepts in this video are very interesting to me. I want to read more about all of this, as i think about it alot. Anyone have any literature they can link my way?
Also, this may be a stupid question but what is the correct term for this subject?
string theory
The more I think about it, the more I think that actually understanding the universe is impossible because how can you understand a system when you are merely a part of it? You’d have to be on the outside of the universe to really grasp it.
No. We understand the system we are a part of to the best of our abilities right now, that’s why we have biology books. The problem is only the depth and given human survival and continued evolution, we will understand the entire system eventually.
[/quote]
That is what I’m talking about right there. I really hope the string theorists are correct and can nail down the theory in my life time, that would just be awe inspiring. Unfortunately it looks like they are barking up the wrong tree from what I understand.
The Large Hadron Collider is hoping to find some of the experimental evidence for things that are already built into the theories but not yet observed. The Standard Model has long predicted the existence of a Higgs Boson, but as of yet our machines have not been precise enough to detect. With any luck Higgs himself will be able to witness the experimental verification for his work in a few months here.
After the Singularity is reached, non-biological intelligence will start to decifer shit like this. Soon after AI will become so smart that it will do something ridiculous like create a billion new universes and make us seem as dumb as rocks in comparison.
In short, the only words to describe the future will be limitless and unfathomable with infinite potential.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
LightsOutLuthor wrote:
I think you’re wrong - especially given your citation of Mr. Dawkins.
An atheist is a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
My citation of Dawkins was well warranted, given that he himself on a scale of certainty from 0-7 stated he was a 6.9. Every good scientist knows that you can never prove anything with 100% certainty.
The definition you’ve given is for an agnostic…one that doesn’t have the gnosis to make the decision.
I’ll clarify again for you: Theism is a claim about belief, specifically it is the belief in gods or God. If one is a Theist, one believes in the existence of God. Therefore Atheism is the lack of belief in gods or a God.
Gnosticism in a knowledge claim. If one is a gnostic, one claims to know whether or not God exists(it actually applies to other things as well, but for this discussion we’ll stick to God). If one is agnostic, one claims that the truth cannot be known about the issue.
It is possible to be an gnostic atheist(I do not believe because I know there ist), or an agnostic atheist(I do not believe, not do I think it can be known), or even an agnostic theist(I do not know, but I still believe)… But religious people must be gnostic theists, in part because they claim to follow the word of God.
And while you’re throwing out generalizations about groups of people, typically atheists are the ones that will say that RELIGIOUS people, or those that believe, are 100% wrong that there IS a God.
This misses the entire point of what I said, which was that atheist in general do not claim to KNOW that God does not exist, but simply lack belief in it(the very definition of Atheism). While religions, by their very nature, claim absolute certainty. All religious followers(not theist) MUST claim, without a shadow of a doubt, that there is a God.
And to reply further, I’ve never said that complexity defines the need for a creator…as someone else stated, my point is that, if you have a universe that theories like this can MAKE sense and fit in a logical schema, then my belief in a God is not illogical as so many ‘atheists’ have claimed it is.
My proof of the illogical nature of their claim that I’M illogical is that there is FAR more complexity to this universe than humanity may EVER be able to comprehend, so being able to make the 100% assertion that there is no God (admit it or not, you KNOW most atheists are as adamant about that point) is wrong.
I just dont get that leap of “logic”… The universe is very complex, therefore my belief in God is justified. Why does complexity justify God? Of course being able to make the claim that there is no God with 100% certainty is false, and I typically only see novice atheists make such a claim. When an atheist says the phrase “There is no God” it is implied that he/she is saying “I am as certain as possible that there is no God.” more often than not. to claim 100% certainty is foolish.
But I’m not saying you’re in that group, any more than I hope you’re assuming I’m some bumpkin Christian that believes just “cuz”.
I havent seen any indicators that you belong to any religious group in particular, only that you are theistic. I just find it interesting that one can look at the issue(and indeed every issue) and think that God is necessary to describe everything in the universe.
If you are in fact a Christian, I hope that you have at least read the bible and understand the many implications that go along with it(stoning unruly children, silent women in churches, condoned rape and mass murder), along with the denial of many scientific facts. [/quote]
And you’ve missed my point. My point was that if you can say “there is no god” because the ‘things’ you know about existence. My point is that our ‘existence’ is based in truths that are for the most part hidden 99.9% of the time, yet exist and are real.
This video shows this - that subatomic particles COULD VERY WELL be oscillations in the 10th dimensions, yet you can’t prove that, I can’t prove that, and there’s only THEORIES that say it could be so…but it makes sense.
So, I do make the ‘leap of analogy’ if you will to say that, if reality can be based ontop of things that we cannot experience, cannot directly (or maybe even indirectly) experience, is it REALLY such a stretch to say there could be a God?
If you are saying that you don’t believe in God because you can’t experience or measure it, well, I can call that arrogance.
That’s the only point being made here…there is more unseen that is 100% real than the seen.
So yes, I am a physicist. I studied that in trying to understand the universe. I also am a Christian.
I grew up ‘catholic’, not ‘christian’, and all the dogma and ‘thou shalt nots’ blah blah blah got to me…it had to be simpler. I too, only knew the ‘bullet points’ of the bible and the negative items you cited were an issue for me.
The bible has things about murder and death and subjugation and all the ‘bad things’ you’ve mentioned, (and believe me, those points are ALWAYS brought up as a reason NOT to be a Christian).
A side note here that I’d like to interject is that you definition of atheist may be more ‘textbook’ (even though the one I gave came directly from the dictionary, but hey, who’s counting), most atheists proudly claim 100% assertion of no god…and any internet message board survey is proof of that.
But the point to even the most cursory reading of the Bible is to show that God used very flawed, very REAL people to get things done.
But I’m not going to try to explain that, because it’s not the place for that here.
I’m just going to back up my statement:
The universe is complicated - more complicated than the human mind may EVER be able to fathom. And in that complexity, if you don’t believe there is even ROOM for God to exist, you are being arrogant. Note I didn’t say complexity is proof or evidence, simply that the very close-mindedness that christians and those of faith are often accused of is practiced when this is stated.
I can see this argument from both sides, because I believe both in God and science. Maybe the anomaly there is the issue, but I don’t post this sorta stuff to puff out my chest and be ‘proud’ of anything, but rather share that it CAN be both ways, and I’ve traveled through those questions and am still learning.
I’m done now, thanks for reading and responding above.
I’ll just say a few things in closing on the issue:
-I still dont understand why complexity has anything to do with God at all, whether it be proof of his existence, or making “room” for him. I realize I may be harping on this minute point, but I do so because certain religious organizations(Discovery Institute) like to use complexity as definitive proof for Gods existence, which it isnt, and then parlay that into substandard science teaching in public school systems (They are generally the backers of creationism getting into the SCIENCE classroom.)
-The reason I dont believe that there is a God is quite the same reason I dont believe in faeries or flying unicorns, because there is no proof short of some books and stories that say they are real. Thats why religions demand faith from their followers, because they cant prove it.
-In regards to your last paragraph, It is perfectly agreeable to believe in both God and Science(although I dont know if “belief” is required for science, it is knowledge itself), but you may want to look into certain claims of your religion if in fact you are a Christian (age of the earth, evolution denial)…
I’ll leave it at that unless you wish to discuss further in a PM so we can get the thread back on topic.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Short on content, but I will excuse it because she is freaking hot.
Although, calling herself “Girl Einstein” is a turnoff.
I thought a person throwing the name “Einstein” into their nickname would at least show a semblance of intelligence… That girl sounded a high school freshman reading cue cards.
I fully support the endeavor she is undertaking(Finding the grand unified theory), but judging from that small representation of her personality I wont be looking in the literature for any of her papers any time soon.
I usually find smart chicks super hot, but that girl started at an 8 and ended up a 6 by the time the video was over.[/quote]
I thought she was going to take her clothes off. You mean she had something intelligent to say?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I thought she was going to take her clothes off. You mean she had something intelligent to say?
[/quote]
Nope… The video was a total waste. She honestly sounded like a high school freshman reciting lines she was having a hard time memorizing.