Does God Exist?

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: Does God Exist?

Post by Blaggard »

Oh and incidentally deciding to quit a field because you don't like probabalistic stochastic mechanics is possibly the saddest reasoning I have ever heard, what were you expecting a nice classical venn diagram and a pancake? What sort of wave could you describe with a classical system aside from acoustic and water waves? Energy waves are obviously not the same as matter waves nor is it apt to model them with the same mechanics. Quantization calculus merely states that probability of an electron being found at position x at time t, it's hardly controversial but it does reliably produce the spectra of hydrogen so although it is inductive it works. What need is there for magic?

Image

;)

The integral of sin x,y,z at t is equal to the energy concerns of the system an equivalence given by Image

Image

a is a constant such as the speed of light=c not to be confused with the C in the equation below which simply denotes any constant, n is any number as is x.

Image

Maths gibberish representing the area of the line under the graph in terms of sin aka an antiderivative or integral

Image

Differential showing the rate of change of the line of a graph which is consequently a derivative is undoing what and an integral did. Hence you get things like s=ut+1/2at^2

Which is clearly the equation for speed, and if you you used the equation Image

Which you may recognise as quadratic from long boring maths equations at school, it really is not that complicated. :)

Hence this bastard:

Image

Newton merely used integrals to explain why speed=distance over time, acceleration is a rate of change proportional to speed at time t represented by a=x/m^-2 and so on. Which is why the metre is defined by the speed of light in a vacuum because it is a constant. Likewise time is defined by space by space-time.

You can't model a quantum system with gravitation using Newtonian mechanics and get a correspondence to reality like general relativity which is non euclidian classical system, at the small scale though matter can't be analogised like that..?

As I opined on another thread the Planck model of planets orbiting a sun you are taught in high school is meaningless, although simple enough to let the novice understand.

lambda is the periodicity and it works well to model water and air, but energy doesn't come in nice convenient classical packets, it comes in quanta, and quanta are definite propositions of absorption and emission which can be empirically verified as can the forces hence be modelled by analogy but with some serious maths caveats: we have to use an imaginary axis called i to represent x,y,z at t, aka as Minkowski metric, and we have to introduce a constant that agrees with the proportions of energy found in the test apparatus in spectroscopy experiments, we also have to renormalise the integral so there are realistic degrees of freedom and things can't magically appear on the other side of the universe we hence have the limits - and positive infinity which denotes the waves extent and energy which unlike Newtons classical calculus is never 0 because energy is never nothing, an assymptotic limit of energy hence cannot have no energy although constructive and destructive interference can produce zero points on the graph the energy of the system is still clearly not nothing when two phases destructively interfere.

Image

This more clearly shows the relation of sin to a circle if you moved the bottom phase under the top you can clearly c it forms a circle. And if you put one graph over the top of the other you would see a series of circles.

If we plug the energy concerns of say Deuterium an isotope of hydrogen into the Dirac equation what we get exactly pictures the resultant spectra of dueterium, which is not to say the maths is denoting reality, that is a philosophical concern, merely that when the experiment is done the results agree with the model.

Image

h bar is the reduced plancks constant which is needed to introduce the energy of a system in terms that whilst not classical are analogous to a wave with uncertainty equal to the measurements uncertainty at least.

Which lead to copenhagen and hence to anti matter experiments, and the standard model with Higgs.

Image



Image

http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/2/1/323/fulltext/

Experimental source.
Hydrogen atom densities and dissociation degrees were derived from the absolute intensities of three hydrogen Balmer lines. Due to the high fraction of molecules, direct atom excitation and dissociative excitation must both be taken into account in the interpretation. The hydrogen atom density nH is then related to the measured photon emission coefficient by

Image

with the effective emission coefficients Xem. The molecular density was derived from Dalton's law using the molecule partial pressure and the gas temperature. The molecular pressure was obtained from the known mixture, subtracting electron and ion pressures as well as the atom pressure--all small corrections--by iteration. Knowledge of Te is relatively important for evaluating equation (11). Contributions to the Balmer lines from dissociative recombination or mutual H - /H + recombination are negligible (below 5%) in the considered plasmas. Quenching processes by hydrogen molecules also influence the upper states of the Balmer lines only very little. Estimates on the basis of [19] show that the maximum correction is of the order of 5%, which has been taken into account in the results. Depending on the neutral hydrogen densities in these plasmas, both rate coefficients must be corrected for the optical thickness of the Lyman lines
I lost the plot around here, so if you even read the source and made it this far kudos. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyman_series

I had to look this up I must admit... :S

Image

Wow they does like their maths gibberish. Even I had to think twice before understanding this even remotely. :S

You can at least see where the electron volt values come from, well if your brain hasn't leaked out of your ears, which is a consequence of maths... :P

I am reminded of the difficulty of reunifying space kittens with buttered toast in the resultant imaginary plane of wtf.
User avatar
richardtod
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:51 pm

Re: Does God Exist?

Post by richardtod »

When I first saw the front page of PhilosophyNow 99 my heart sank. I knew the question would bring out the worst forms of discourse. When I read this article my fears were confirmed what a load of nonsense, fallacy built on fallacy. How on earth could the editors allow such crass illogical nonsense appear in this magazine? I decided not to renew my subscription. I could not even bring myself to comment in this Forum as I had lost all rational argument to my emotional state. Frustration turned to anger turned to despair.

However, I would miss my bi-monthly brain teaser so renewed my subscription. Then I read the absolute garbage that constitutes most of the posts above. The sick feeling of despair for the human condition returns.

I cannot remember which ancient philosopher first said most people are stupid I probably do not have the quote correct but reading and analysing all of the above I think it proven "scientifically" using probability he was spot on. Well in this sample anyway. My thanks and admiration to the few here that tried in vain to put some logic into the debate as you are obviously not part of the majority and give me hope.
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: Does God Exist?

Post by Blaggard »

You expect logic with religion?

My friend you are expecting far too much, more likely Thor will ride past on a magic cow.
User avatar
richardtod
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:51 pm

Re: Does God Exist?

Post by richardtod »

Blaggard wrote:You expect logic with religion?

My friend you are expecting far too much, more likely Thor will ride past on a magic cow.
No Sir I did not expect Logic and the debate matched my expectations very well.

As for Thor it is an established fact that he travelled by Hammer. A well proven fact established through "Comicology" study and analysis of decades of DC Comics.
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: Does God Exist?

Post by Blaggard »

richardtod wrote:
Blaggard wrote:You expect logic with religion?

My friend you are expecting far too much, more likely Thor will ride past on a magic cow.
No Sir I did not expect Logic and the debate matched my expectations very well.

As for Thor it is an established fact that he travelled by Hammer. A well proven fact established through "Comicology" study and analysis of decades of DC Comics.
Lol touché. :D
Greylorn Ell
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Does God Exist?

Post by Greylorn Ell »

richardtod wrote:
No Sir I did not expect Logic and the debate matched my expectations very well.

As for Thor it is an established fact that he travelled by Hammer. A well proven fact established through "Comicology" study and analysis of decades of DC Comics.
RT,
While reading your posts here I've marveled at how someone so young could have attained such a level of knowledge as to how the universe did not come into existence, when Sir Roger Penrose has yet to reach that level of certainty after 70+ years of physics and philosophy studies. At first I thought that your achievement might be the result of watching the speculative theories presented by halfwits on documentary TV.

How stupid of me to have overlooked your particular fount of knowledge and insight-- comic books.
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: Does God Exist?

Post by Blaggard »

It was a joke Grey, really you didn't get that?

Penrose is a hack who cares, the guy tries to pass off philosophy as science or at least I should say writes very imaginative prose that seemingly is like philosophy of science but can likely never be tested so as he would probably readily admit being well educated it is not science and it it remains to be seen if it is philosophy of science or just flat out conjecture. Still at least he is qualified to he is a philosopher of science professor, unlike some who I could name who try to pass off religion as philosophy of science...

I welcome Penrose's insights it's all good even if I don't agree with him, theory and philosophy it's all a wonderful maze, but I don't welcome people who don't give a damn for science or philosophy, call me odd but such people are place holders for more adroit minds.

You're an odd fish grey, you don't want to talk to people who don't agree with you. It's a very disheartening thing to see in any rational mind, and I hence feel sorry for your perspective. It is a philosophy forum though not your own special soap box to wax lyrical to the masses on without ever actually listening to the masses.

And while your at it get a bloody sense of humour, and for God's sake for once in your Jesus life stop chiding people that don't have your world view. Because one thing I have learnt in life is diversity is strength, conformity to any absolute is but another fall of man.
Felasco
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:38 pm

Re: Does God Exist?

Post by Felasco »

Blaggard wrote:You expect logic with religion.
If religion was not logical, it would not be pervasive in every time and place in human history. Evolution is handy at getting rid of things that aren't useful, and religion is and has long been the largest cultural event in human history.

Inexperienced commentators confuse religious ideological assertions with religion at large. If we visit any local church, we can see most members are pretty darn bored with the sermons, and would rather talk about potato salad and such. Religion is much more than the assertions.

All of us live in a realm of fairy tale stories that we tell ourselves. It's the human condition, as we are not strong enough to face reality without them.

As example, almost every poster on this forum thinks he is some kind of sage intellectual, when in truth we are all just a bunch of silly little net nerds wasting a bunch of time jerking off our egos.

But, the illusion is grand, is it not? The illusion helps us get through the day, doesn't it? Here we all are, grabbing this nourishing illusion with both hands. Just like the religious folks.
Greylorn Ell
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Does God Exist?

Post by Greylorn Ell »

Felasco wrote:
If religion was not logical, it would not be pervasive in every time and place in human history. Evolution is handy at getting rid of things that aren't useful, and religion is and has long been the largest cultural event in human history.

Inexperienced commentators confuse religious ideological assertions with religion at large. If we visit any local church, we can see most members are pretty darn bored with the sermons, and would rather talk about potato salad and such. Religion is much more than the assertions.

All of us live in a realm of fairy tale stories that we tell ourselves. It's the human condition, as we are not strong enough to face reality without them.

As example, almost every poster on this forum thinks he is some kind of sage intellectual, when in truth we are all just a bunch of silly little net nerds wasting a bunch of time jerking off our egos.

But, the illusion is grand, is it not? The illusion helps us get through the day, doesn't it? Here we all are, grabbing this nourishing illusion with both hands. Just like the religious folks.
Felasco,

Writing of religion and logic in the same sentence seems a bit confusing. Are you trying to play poker with two decks?

The term "event" in the context of history is reserved by honest scholars to occurrences of a singular nature, such as a major war, a great flood, a meteor strike or polar shift. A gradually developing change in religious theory over the course of thousands of years would be labeled an "event" only by a religionist who thinks of his religious history in terms of biblical moments like burning bushes and the alleged exodus of Jews from Egypt.

Geological changes that occur over millions of years are also referred to as "events" by geologists. However, they use "event" in the context of very long term changes. Unless you establish such a context, your use of "event" in the context of only a few millennia is bullshit.

Religions have developed over several millennia, in various civilizations, all of which would be regarded as primitive by modern standards. Calling religion an "event" seems an exaggeration that is intended to make a point that cannot be made honestly.

You are correct that religionists fall asleep during sermons and gather in the entryway or elsewhere to exchange recipes, at least for the female religionists. The males simply put up with their women's desires in hopes of maybe getting a Sunday night roll in the sack. Whatever, all of them are as irrelevant as your second paragraph suggests.

Religion is not logical, because religionists are not logical. Most religionists have an IQ less than 100, and are not qualified to (or interested in) commenting on a forum like this. (So, why are you here?) Religions are designed to appeal to human emotions, because most humans are ruled not by logic, but by their emotions. Logic is irrelevant to religious beliefs. Religionists are those who desire to be taken care of my someone else, rather than take responsibility for their own programmed, emotion-based choices.

Hollywood has gotten wealthy by exploiting the inherent human wish that some one else will show up and bring them happiness, then ride off into the sunset like the Lone Ranger and his Indian pal, Tonto, so that they do not have to take any more responsibility for their lives than they did before the LR & T showed up. And they sure as hell do not want to feel obligated to give a shit about the LR & T while they go about doing nothing to secure their own futures.

Human nature desires irresponsibility. Our little brains are programmed with the desire to be taken care of. Very few can toss off that desire and choose self-responsibility.

Religion, Hollywood, and Government are offspring sucking off the tits of human stupidity and need, figuring that the milk will be there forever. You are merely trying to insure their indefinite supply.

Religions are pervasive not because they are logical, but because 80% (+ 10%) of human beings are illogical. That is the only side of humans to which religions appeal.
Leeto
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:15 am

Re: Does God Exist?

Post by Leeto »

I woud surmise that the mathamatical Language in our own dna would sugest that a higher consiousness had a hand in our creation . or we could just stick our heads in the sand & ignore it.
Greylorn Ell
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Does God Exist?

Post by Greylorn Ell »

Leeto wrote:I woud surmise that the mathamatical Language in our own dna would sugest that a higher consiousness had a hand in our creation . or we could just stick our heads in the sand & ignore it.
Leeto,
You might find it interesting to explore beyond DNA, and delve into the cellular mechanisms that translate specific genes into protein molecules. There you will find an even deeper marvel-- the existence of arbitrary symbolic codes, pretty much like you'll find in the machine language instruction set of a digital computer. (This is true for eukaryotic cells; don't know about prokaryotics.) Excellent evidence for genetic engineering. Let me know if interested.
Greylorn
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: Does God Exist?

Post by Blaggard »

I have to say for a change he's right which is a first, look at Eukaryotic DNA exchange it's fascinating.

Prokaryotic exchange is an older form of transcription, it does the same thing but is not as efficient because it doesn't have all the means to multiply in a uniform space. Most prokaryotes have progressed to Eukaryote forms, although in some very simple life forms such as Archaea or bacteria it is not necessary they do just as well without having to have energy efficient systems, after all why do you need to if you only have one cell?

I presume he's talking about the tmrna transcription of amino acids that are coded by the enzymes by using very simple codes that produce proteins that can be very complicated given just a few amino acid building blocks that transpose to the codons.
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: Does God Exist?

Post by Blaggard »

Leeto wrote:I woud surmise that the mathamatical Language in our own dna would sugest that a higher consiousness had a hand in our creation . or we could just stick our heads in the sand & ignore it.
No that's not a good reason to believe that somehow dna has a higher consciousness. It's a reason to suppose that better energy concerns in systems leads to more efficient systems, and that the universe seems set up to favour the more efficient energy system over the system that promotes energy loss. But having a system that tends towards less energy is only a matter of function that is arbitrarily going to produce a form, not a form by magic deciding with some inate skill to have some form. The universes laws are arbitrary seeing a pattern in such systems is akin to seeing a pattern on your ceiling if you lie in bed for long enough. Not that you aren't welcome to do so, but if you do so, you must see that energy concerns are the result only of laws, they do not denote a reason or intelligence per se, to say they do is an a priori assumption. Magical thinking is fine, but chemistry and physics are equally capable of showing you why atoms do what they do, and chemicals hence do what they do without invoking some mysticism. I am not against religion but it has no place in science, and if you learn enough about science you can see more than if you just ignore it for the sake of argument.

The problem with intelligent designers such as grey is that they look at complexity and see it as irreducible, but then life has existed for at least 3 billion years, a time frame that most humans including me could not even comprehend, to say it could not of done what it did given the initial conditions is at best sophistry and at worst downright lies, top down methodology such as irreducible complexity is a lie a trillion trillion stages that built life is more apt.

I don't know if there was an intelligent designer, what I do know though is that it is superfluous in explaining life.

There is no language in DNA anyway, this whole code thing leads people to believe that somehow then it must be a sort of language, this is not the way it works, in biology a code is how something is, and how it might more uniformly transcribe to something else, it is not a language it is a rule set that has only one way of progressing that it has built up over time without any sort of rule except that which tends to hence continue to work. Language is complex it has infinite types of ways of expressing itself, so the misnomer of calling it a language is completely wrong. DNA does what it does because of the elements it has and how they interact. It doesn't do what it does because there is some inherent language. I mean it might but it is not a code at all, nor is it a language, it is what molecules do when they act on others given enough time. The term code has lead a lot of people to believe it is like computer code a language, but this is not the case it is as different from any language as a zebra is from the moon.

Now don't get me wrong nothing I have said precludes God done it, but everything I said precludes it has to be directed by an intelligence.
Felasco
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:38 pm

Re: Does God Exist?

Post by Felasco »

Now don't get me wrong nothing I have said precludes God done it, but everything I said precludes it has to be directed by an intelligence.
Conversations about God are not directed by intelligence, as they typically presume we would be in a position to come to answers, when it's more likely we are not in a position to even ask useful questions.

We have a limited understanding of intelligence even in the creatures most closely related to us here on Earth.

What are killer whales or elephants thinking? Do they think in a manner similar to us? How do they experience emotions? Is that experience close enough to ours that the word "emotions" still applies?

If we're still puzzled about what intelligence means in the context of our fellow mammals, by what logic would we be able to form a useful image of an entity which is said to be able to create galaxies and such, should such an entity exist?

If we can't create a useful image of intelligence on such a huge scale, on what basis would we agree or disagree that such a thing exists?

How well does a squirrel understand human intelligence? Much much much better than we would understand the nature of intelligence in such an entity. Our ignorance is so vast that the word "intelligence" becomes utterly useless.

Is there a God that is intelligent? This is the wrong question.

The right question is, are there humans who are intelligent? And the answer is, no, not really. The epic God debate that's been going on for endless centuries is adequate evidence of that. Intelligent creatures would not endlessly debate concepts they are not qualified to even begin to define.
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: Does God Exist?

Post by Blaggard »

Well I think I can agree to all of that.

People are asking the wrong questions, making the same false questions appear time after time. No that was pretty tight post IMHO.
The right question is, are there humans who are intelligent? And the answer is, no, not really. The epic God debate that's been going on for endless centuries is adequate evidence of that. Intelligent creatures would not endlessly debate concepts they are not qualified to even begin to define.
Particularly on point was this.

But then you are preaching to the converted.
Post Reply