Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: [Insert Pointless Quote Here]
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
View Poll Results: What do you identify yourself as? | |||
Atheist/Skeptic/Agnostic | 151 | 70.89% | |
Catholic | 21 | 9.86% | |
Protestant | 24 | 11.27% | |
Jewish | 5 | 2.35% | |
Muslim | 2 | 0.94% | |
Philisophy (Such as Buddhism) | 10 | 4.69% | |
Voters: 213. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
2012-06-25, 08:03 PM | [Ignore Me] #856 | |||
Corporal
|
I agree. Religion to faith is what politics is to governance. They're generally presented as if they go hand in hand, but they're mutually exclusive. |
|||
|
2012-06-25, 09:31 PM | [Ignore Me] #857 | ||||
Colonel
|
You're welcome to create a hypothesis and test it. That's the general scientific way.
__________________
[Thoughts and Ideas on the Direction of Planetside 2] Last edited by Sirisian; 2012-06-25 at 09:47 PM. |
||||
|
2012-06-25, 10:05 PM | [Ignore Me] #858 | |||
Corporal
|
|
|||
|
2012-06-26, 05:56 AM | [Ignore Me] #859 | ||
Lieutenant General
|
But if you're a "follower of proven fact", how can you be a deist?
That's a direct contradiction really, because deism is in the end based on assumptions and gut feelings rather than reason as it clinges to some sort of assumption or hypothesis that there's a higher power of sorts. Evidence for that isn't even more than very weak circumstantial evidence being interpreted in a biased manner based on the pre-existing assumption there's a higher power. Take the assumption that there is no higher power or could be one and then that same circumstantial evidence (such as physics or other natural patterns) can be interpreted in many other ways. (Note: not saying you can't or shouldn't be deist btw, but it's more fun to debate than the same old same old OLD religions). Last edited by Figment; 2012-06-26 at 06:08 AM. |
||
|
2012-06-26, 10:41 AM | [Ignore Me] #860 | ||
Brigadier General
|
The biggest problem I have with deism is that even while it rejects a lot of the crazier shit from religions, it still clings to the unsubstantiated claim of a creator or powerful entity who is behind the universe that we observe.
I think my biggest problem with that is the fact that through history and religion, we can observe and figure out some pretty good explanations for where spirituality and religion came up with the ideas that led to god(s) in the first place. Not through any inherent knowledge or through testing and observation, but as a way to explain the unexplainable and as a way for religious leaders to maintain power and status. If we somehow hadn't developed the idea of god up until today with our current scientific method and understanding, how widespread would acceptance of this idea be? Certainly it would be a novel and interesting idea, one which would be difficult or impossible to actually disprove just as it is in real life today, but there is also no real reason to believe it either. The idea of god doesn't really add much to the table. God is like a placeholder that we've grown beyond the need for. That doesn't prove that god doesn't exist, it just makes it pointless to bother with god until we find some harder evidence. I just think that deism is religion stripped of all of it's most absurd elements, but still clinging on to the same pointless concept. If there is a god who doesn't particularly care who I have sex with or what I eat, then what's gods importance to my life? If there is no afterlife then I'll just die and cease to be, just the same as if there was no god. If there is an afterlife, than I'm sure we'll all chill and hang out and discuss the nature of existence with the caveat of finally having proof of god. It just doesn't seem like there's any major difference between a universe with a realistic god and a universe with no god at all. At that point, god seems like just an interesting little factoid. For now, the idea of god just seems to be complicating the origin of the universe unnecessarily. Either god had to have it's own creator, etc etc infinite regression, or neither god nor a spontaneous universe had to have creator. The latter two are the only logical choices, so until we have proof that only god and not the rest of the universe could have spontaneously come into existence, it's safe to assume that the simpler explanation is the answer. As of now, quantum physics shows us that the universe absolutely could have come from "nothing." If you think that sounds weird, you obviously need to think about god a lot more, because the idea that there is something rather than nothing is a pretty bizarre concept regardless of if there is a god or not. |
||
|
2012-06-29, 02:28 AM | [Ignore Me] #861 | ||
Sergeant
|
Agnosticism and atheism are two very separate ideas,in fact atheism is different than all those belief systems, in the fact that it isnt really a belief system. Religion has never been just about god existing, its based on a group of other beliefs as well. Atheism is the same, except for it being based on science/logic. Atheism is a mix of physicalism/naturalism/ and rationalism. Its claim isnt really just about the lack of a god its also about a lack of everything outside the natural world. Finally, while I respect peoples religious belief (as long as they dont try and preach to me) I feel the only logical choice is Atheism.
|
||
|
2012-06-29, 02:50 PM | [Ignore Me] #862 | |||
Sergeant
|
An example of this is the virtual particles that pop into and out of reality in a vacuum. Considering a system comprised of a single particle that has just come into existence, clearly energy has been created. But this is not a problem for conservation of energy since if you expand your system you will find that, due to other particles being "destroyed" (exiting reality), the NET energy due to these particles in the overall system (the universe) is 0. The next thing to realise is that gravitational fields have negative energy. For an explanation of this watch the following video (explanation starts 28:30 and only last 3-4 minutes) Finally, it just so happens we live in a universe with a critical mass that means the negative gravitational energy EXACTLY counters that of the positive energy from mass and the like. So the universe we live in has a NET ENERGY of ZERO, and hence doesn't break any laws of physics by creating itself "from nothing". The next question an inquisitive mind asks is what caused this? Unfortunately there is currently no comprehensive scientific theory on the matter, but I would be upset if someone jumped to the conclusion God at this point instead of admitting; "We just don't know, so lets reserve judgement". But the conservation of energy isn't something you can use to infer a deity Last edited by MadPenguin; 2012-06-30 at 07:06 AM. |
|||
|
2012-06-29, 08:36 PM | [Ignore Me] #863 | |||
|
||||
|
2012-06-30, 04:59 AM | [Ignore Me] #864 | |||
Lieutenant General
|
|
|||
|
2012-06-30, 07:03 AM | [Ignore Me] #865 | |||
Sergeant
|
|
|||
|
2012-06-30, 08:24 AM | [Ignore Me] #866 | |||
Lieutenant General
|
If you dig a pit, you're not just creating a hole, you're also building a mountain. The same is true when you create energy: you're also creating a state that is the opposite of it. This is particularly easy to relate to in terms of gravity: when you raise an object you basically go against gravity and you create potential energy which is stored in the height of the object and you will have to counter this potential energy by supporting or holding it continuously (balancing the Normal force). When you release the object, the potential energy of gravity will turn into kinetic energy and make the object move. Meaning though you had to invest to get the gravitational energy to a certain level by for example burning matter for muscle energy (matter which was also storing energy), while the total energy in the universe was always balanced against one another. The efficiency may have been a bit lower though because some of the energy would have dissipatated entropically as heat - however, this heat was still energy and it's been passed on somewhere else. I therefore believe more in the dynamical balance of physics, that existence only exists as long as balance is met or moving to a state that's more balanced after it's moved to an inbalanced state. But there's no believe system attached to this, as this can be ratified with everything. Name me anything from wildlife habitats to resource availability to economics to physics to populations, to musical strings or pebbles tossed in the water, to materials, to energy (solar, combustion, metabolical or otherwise), to weather and so on and so on. It can be shown that everything is part of some cycle of energy balance, governed by action and reaction between different states of energy (including matter) and a natural entropic flow to distribute this energy such that the total energy difference between two states moves back towards 0. Being taught about entropic and isentropic conditions in engine calculation colleges is quite illuminating in that respect if you think about it. The beauty is that this is stimulated both passively and actively and simply down to the state of thing in a completely physical way. Wind has no intentions. It just is a consequence of two states in different spots in space. The only ones with intentions are we as living beings originating from passive actions and reactions. We lost our connection to other matter that simply is and hence we long for meaning behind life that may not be there at all. We give meaning to life, because we can. But that doesn't mean that the universe has meaning, is intelligent or has an intelligence behind it. The universe may therefore be a reaction between the conditions in this one point and the conditions that at the time surrounded the point: energy HAD to be distributed properly and this process automatically and chaotically created all sorts of energy along the way as it transfered its energy to the next position and states changed constantly. This changing of state is far too complex and fast and violent for humans to comprehend IMO (it's already hard enough for most to comprehend why a simple flame on a lucifer match has a specific shape and movement after all) and we don't really need to know in the end. But we're curious beings so we want and we "have" to know to satisfy our curiosity. And if we can't have that... we're prone to speculation and imagination. That's where religion and faith comes in. Last edited by Figment; 2012-06-30 at 08:31 AM. |
|||
|
2012-06-30, 09:04 AM | [Ignore Me] #868 | |||
Lieutenant General
|
What I'm saying is that the "zero" state we perceive as being there before the Big Bang may have not been as "zero" as people think and could have been a passive, reactive consequence of the energy state of that spot in time opposed to that of the void around it. Meaning the universe is like the wind, transporting energy from where there's more to where there's less, interacting with whatever it encounters until everything is "back to zero". Which leaves a lot of possibilities open for what was before the big bang, but not at all requires a creator or intelligence that creates the states of energy - it is however possible for us as humans to shift some energy around, but we don't "create it", we simply create energy states out of other energy states. Last edited by Figment; 2012-06-30 at 09:06 AM. |
|||
|
2012-06-30, 09:16 AM | [Ignore Me] #869 | ||
Sergeant
|
Haha, I thought you were agreeing with me but i didn't want to say that in case you weren't and I looked like a dick
Indeed there are many possibilities other than God, even some current ideas going round the cosmologists that can fit the facts. I often think science is too modest in areas like this where we give off the impression we have no idea simply because there is nothing comprehensive on the subject yet, but there are several ideas that can fit the facts we have, we just haven't found enough positive evidence to support these ideas yet. But often things are said that give the misguided the idea that there is no naturalistic explanation, this is of course incorrect Last edited by MadPenguin; 2012-06-30 at 09:18 AM. |
||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|