Would you accept the idea?
I think something like this will be for the better
40.7% (11)
40.7% (11)
It's a good idea ... but I prefer the talking snakes and the fire people
3.7% (1)
3.7% (1)
is a constant quest for god any different from what they're trying to do now?
48.1% (13)
48.1% (13)
no, our holy books are the word of god full stop.
7.4% (2)
7.4% (2)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Religious Evolution

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

ShipofFools:
So many things we do not know, and may never know. Do not assume that you know creation, for both atheists and theists are as much in the dark as everybody else.

Er, when you say that atheists claim to know, do you mean by virtue of being atheists, or that there are some people that claim to know and also are atheists? Because all that is required to be an atheist is to claim you know that god doesn't exist, that's one small truth (from that PoV).

Theists, OTOH, generally tend to claim all sorts of truth about their deities.

thaluikhain:

ShipofFools:
So many things we do not know, and may never know. Do not assume that you know creation, for both atheists and theists are as much in the dark as everybody else.

Er, when you say that atheists claim to know, do you mean by virtue of being atheists, or that there are some people that claim to know and also are atheists? Because all that is required to be an atheist is to claim you know that god doesn't exist, that's one small truth (from that PoV).

Theists, OTOH, generally tend to claim all sorts of truth about their deities.

What I meant was that, and this is just my opinion obviously, that claiming there are no gods, spirits or whatever is just as ignorant as claiming there are.

Rowan93:

Third-eye:

Religion doesn't need a deity or the supernatural, only faith that the universe's natural laws have a moral aspect and can give guidance on issues of good and evil.

That strikes me as even more obviously false than the existence of souls.

I'm sure it does, as it likely does to many people, but, as I said, for a long time the proposition that man could fly or walk on the moon seemed equally obviously false to many people. Perhaps we don't know enough about the universe's natural laws to say, but I believe we do and an argument can be made that they do contain a moral aspect, at least on a macro scale, and can give some guidance on issues of good and evil.

@Third-eye
Nah, I certainly don't think that and I can't understand how anyone could. Nature and its laws are amoral. Not immoral, but amoral. Laws are descriptions of what happens. They aren't laws like we use them in interhuman relations. And I fail to see any morality in galaxies colliding, stars detonating and destroying entire solar systems and things generally going about their way without regard for consequences. It's what happens. That doesn't make it good or bad. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but to me you sound awfully close to the is-ought-fallacy when you imply that there's morality in merely how things are and behave.

Third-eye:

Rowan93:

Third-eye:

Religion doesn't need a deity or the supernatural, only faith that the universe's natural laws have a moral aspect and can give guidance on issues of good and evil.

That strikes me as even more obviously false than the existence of souls.

I'm sure it does, as it likely does to many people, but, as I said, for a long time the proposition that man could fly or walk on the moon seemed equally obviously false to many people. Perhaps we don't know enough about the universe's natural laws to say, but I believe we do and an argument can be made that they do contain a moral aspect, at least on a macro scale, and can give some guidance on issues of good and evil.

Well, that's kind of beside the original point, I was just reporting in as a guy who does actually want religion to die because someone said he didn't think anyone actually wanted that.

But, I suppose I'll bite anyway: Assuming that it was coherent for the laws of the universe to have a moral aspect to them (I don't think it makes any sense for something that doesn't have a mind to have anything to do with morality), and assuming further that the laws of the universe actually did have a moral aspect to them (how? Why? I'd say it totally doesn't look like that's the case, but I'm not sure I have enough of a mental picture to say that for sure because it doesn't even make enough sense to me that I could imagine a world where it was the case), and assuming further that we can detect this moral aspect... why should we care?

Why should a moral position encoded into the laws of the universe have any privileged position over my opinion? Surely, sapient minds, which are actually capable of thinking about morality, matter more than a rule that's just magically there for no reason.

ShipofFools:
What I meant was that, and this is just my opinion obviously, that claiming there are no gods, spirits or whatever is just as ignorant as claiming there are.

Should we also believe in fairies, mermaids, and little blue men who live on Neptune, just because no one has 100% proven that they don't exist? The only difference between mermaids and gods is popularity. Tell someone that they're blatantly wrong when they believe in fairies, and you're fine. Tell someone they're wrong when they believe in an old man who lives in the clouds and created all of everything, and you're "ignorant"? There's the same level of actual evidence for both: none. So, sure, we don't 100% know there is no god. We also don't 100% for sure know that there aren't mermaids living in the sunken city of Atlantis. In both cases, though, until there is actual evidence, why bother considering it?

Skeleon:

Nature and its laws are amoral. Not immoral, but amoral. Laws are descriptions of what happens.

I agree. But I don't believe what's happening in the universe is all pure random or chance, not in the most macro sense anyway.

Skeleon:

They aren't laws like we use them in interhuman relations.

Again I'm talking in the largest macro sense. The more micro you get the more variables and the more complex things get. I'm not suggesting we can do away with societal norms and laws, and there will always be a need for counselors and courts.

Skeleon:

And I fail to see any morality in galaxies colliding, stars detonating and destroying entire solar systems and things generally going about their way without regard for consequences. It's what happens. That doesn't make it good or bad.

What if its not just "what happens"? What if its not all random chaos, a bunch of disconnected events? What if there is a purpose at work, a goal to be achieved? That's what I'm suggesting, that the universe has a purpose and is working to achieve a goal. That's what all that stuff I keep talking about, gravity, dark matter, the arrow of time, etc., all the mega phenomena, all the clues --- that's what they are ---, all part of the universe working to achieve a goal, working for a purpose. And I'm also saying that if we understood that purpose and that goal, that we might draw moral guidance and lessens from that knowledge and understanding.

That's not to say I think there's an intelligence at work, certainly not as we might understand it, certainly not consciousness. But a force none-the-less, like magnetism or electricity. In fact I believe magnetism and electricity are part of... um, it.

Skeleon:

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but to me you sound awfully close to the is-ought-fallacy when you imply that there's morality in merely how things are and behave.

I'm saying that if the universe is acting to achieve a purpose and a goal --- and again Im talking in the broadest sense here, not the destruction of a mere galaxy here or there, that being only a small part of what's going on --- and we understood that purpose and goal, that then we might be able to draw moral lessons from that knowledge and understanding.

And again Im talking only in the broadest macro sense.

Rowan93:

Shadowstar38:
Not every religion has a supernatural component.

I have other problems with religion, but for edge cases like the ones without supernatural components (can you name three?) the definition of "religion" gets vague so could you clarify what you mean by the word?

I think of it as any set of formal morals and rituals. Off hand I can name scientology, Buddhism, and certain sects of Christianity.

Either way, I think that's as silly as wishing no one on Earth had opposing political stances.

Well, no, I think it's more analogous to wishing everyone on Earth agreed on a specific political issue so that we could move on and deal with more important things. Which isn't that difficult: For instance, almost everyone agrees that hereditary absolute monarchies are a bad idea, and it's not at all implausible that at some point in the future that'll be something everyone on Earth agrees on.

I could logically point out the reasons why a hereditary monarchy couldn't work out. You can't as easily do the same with belief systems.

Aris Khandr:

ShipofFools:
What I meant was that, and this is just my opinion obviously, that claiming there are no gods, spirits or whatever is just as ignorant as claiming there are.

Should we also believe in fairies, mermaids, and little blue men who live on Neptune, just because no one has 100% proven that they don't exist? The only difference between mermaids and gods is popularity. Tell someone that they're blatantly wrong when they believe in fairies, and you're fine. Tell someone they're wrong when they believe in an old man who lives in the clouds and created all of everything, and you're "ignorant"? There's the same level of actual evidence for both: none. So, sure, we don't 100% know there is no god. We also don't 100% for sure know that there aren't mermaids living in the sunken city of Atlantis. In both cases, though, until there is actual evidence, why bother considering it?

Yes, we can say for sure that there's no wizened old man in the sky dictating everything that happens. We can say "absolutely not" to any specific conception of god. But a creature out there, so powerful that it would approach what we might construe as godhood? I don't see a reason to assume such a thing could not possibly be.

Kaulen Fuhs:

Aris Khandr:

ShipofFools:
What I meant was that, and this is just my opinion obviously, that claiming there are no gods, spirits or whatever is just as ignorant as claiming there are.

Should we also believe in fairies, mermaids, and little blue men who live on Neptune, just because no one has 100% proven that they don't exist? The only difference between mermaids and gods is popularity. Tell someone that they're blatantly wrong when they believe in fairies, and you're fine. Tell someone they're wrong when they believe in an old man who lives in the clouds and created all of everything, and you're "ignorant"? There's the same level of actual evidence for both: none. So, sure, we don't 100% know there is no god. We also don't 100% for sure know that there aren't mermaids living in the sunken city of Atlantis. In both cases, though, until there is actual evidence, why bother considering it?

Yes, we can say for sure that there's no wizened old man in the sky dictating everything that happens. We can say "absolutely not" to any specific conception of god. But a creature out there, so powerful that it would approach what we might construe as godhood? I don't see a reason to assume such a thing could not possibly be.

What difference does it make? Is there any more evidence for powerful being than there is for the wizened old man? In either case is there actually a good reason to think there is one?

Shadowstar38:

Rowan93:

Shadowstar38:
Not every religion has a supernatural component.

I have other problems with religion, but for edge cases like the ones without supernatural components (can you name three?) the definition of "religion" gets vague so could you clarify what you mean by the word?

I think of it as any set of formal morals and rituals. Off hand I can name scientology, Buddhism, and certain sects of Christianity.

Scientology has thetans, which are basically souls or something, which is supernatural.

Buddhism is all about a cycle of reincarnation that humans have to reach enlightenment to break out of, which would be nonsense without some kind of eternal soul.

I know there are,like, atheist Quakers, but generally I don't think a group that doesn't believe in god or souls or the resurrection really counts as Christian.

Either way, I think that's as silly as wishing no one on Earth had opposing political stances.

Well, no, I think it's more analogous to wishing everyone on Earth agreed on a specific political issue so that we could move on and deal with more important things. Which isn't that difficult: For instance, almost everyone agrees that hereditary absolute monarchies are a bad idea, and it's not at all implausible that at some point in the future that'll be something everyone on Earth agrees on.

I could logically point out the reasons why a hereditary monarchy couldn't work out. You can't as easily do the same with belief systems.

Well, that's just an issue of difficulty, which has nothing to do with whether it would be desirable to see the difficult thing solved.

Master of the Skies:

Kaulen Fuhs:

Aris Khandr:

Should we also believe in fairies, mermaids, and little blue men who live on Neptune, just because no one has 100% proven that they don't exist? The only difference between mermaids and gods is popularity. Tell someone that they're blatantly wrong when they believe in fairies, and you're fine. Tell someone they're wrong when they believe in an old man who lives in the clouds and created all of everything, and you're "ignorant"? There's the same level of actual evidence for both: none. So, sure, we don't 100% know there is no god. We also don't 100% for sure know that there aren't mermaids living in the sunken city of Atlantis. In both cases, though, until there is actual evidence, why bother considering it?

Yes, we can say for sure that there's no wizened old man in the sky dictating everything that happens. We can say "absolutely not" to any specific conception of god. But a creature out there, so powerful that it would approach what we might construe as godhood? I don't see a reason to assume such a thing could not possibly be.

What difference does it make? Is there any more evidence for a powerful being than there is for the wizened old man? In either case is there actually a good reason to think there is one?

Of course not! But we don't postulate the possibility of something by evidence of it's existence; if we did, we would not be postulating, we would be recognizing.

We know that the wizened old man is the creation of mankind for whatever reason. Furthermore, we know the conception of the Christian god to be logically incoherent. There's good reason to think he is fictitious for those reasons. While there's no real good reason to assume the existence of any kind of deity, I think it's overstepping one's bounds to preclude that such a being, however vague, could not exist.

ShipofFools:

thaluikhain:

ShipofFools:
So many things we do not know, and may never know. Do not assume that you know creation, for both atheists and theists are as much in the dark as everybody else.

Er, when you say that atheists claim to know, do you mean by virtue of being atheists, or that there are some people that claim to know and also are atheists? Because all that is required to be an atheist is to claim you know that god doesn't exist, that's one small truth (from that PoV).

Theists, OTOH, generally tend to claim all sorts of truth about their deities.

What I meant was that, and this is just my opinion obviously, that claiming there are no gods, spirits or whatever is just as ignorant as claiming there are.

Depends on the specificity of the claim, methinks. Notions of the soul are typically nonsensical, for example, and such instances can be known to be untrue.

Aris Khandr:

ShipofFools:
What I meant was that, and this is just my opinion obviously, that claiming there are no gods, spirits or whatever is just as ignorant as claiming there are.

Should we also believe in fairies, mermaids, and little blue men who live on Neptune, just because no one has 100% proven that they don't exist? The only difference between mermaids and gods is popularity. Tell someone that they're blatantly wrong when they believe in fairies, and you're fine. Tell someone they're wrong when they believe in an old man who lives in the clouds and created all of everything, and you're "ignorant"? There's the same level of actual evidence for both: none. So, sure, we don't 100% know there is no god. We also don't 100% for sure know that there aren't mermaids living in the sunken city of Atlantis. In both cases, though, until there is actual evidence, why bother considering it?

Gee, never heard that rant before...

All I'm saying is keep an open mind. We don't know what dwells beyond the walls of reality, if anything.

EDIT: and I did see gnomes once, but I was on... something. They were like little insect machine men.

:D

Third-eye:
I agree. But I don't believe what's happening in the universe is all pure random or chance, not in the most macro sense anyway.

Well, no, not random. That's why there are laws to describe occurrences, after all. But you're taking it several strides further.

Again I'm talking in the largest macro sense.

I'm not sure what that means. On the most macro level I'm aware, this universe is presumably doomed to heat death. So it doesn't seem all that... planned or moral, either. All we get are temporarily focused energy which allows complexity to crop up for a limited period of time. Eventually, that'll be gone. Uniform lifelessness and lack of complexity is what'll come in the end. But maybe that's too macro?

What if its not just "what happens"? What if its not all random chaos, a bunch of disconnected events? What if there is a purpose at work, a goal to be achieved? That's what I'm suggesting, that the universe has a purpose and is working to achieve a goal. That's what all that stuff I keep talking about, gravity, dark matter, the arrow of time, etc., all the mega phenomena, all the clues --- that's what they are ---, all part of the universe working to achieve a goal, working for a purpose. And I'm also saying that if we understood that purpose and that goal, that we might draw moral guidance and lessens from that knowledge and understanding.

Okay, let's grant you all that for the sake of argument for now. Even then... how would that ever be applicable to us? For all we know the purpose of the universe by whatever entity is supposedly in charge is to create the largest, densest black hole possible. That's not conducive to human existence. So it wouldn't be conducive to human morality, either. If we're to truly talk on such a macro scale, any and all things you could bring up would simply not be applicable to us since we don't exist on that macro scale.

That's not to say I think there's an intelligence at work, certainly not as we might understand it, certainly not consciousness. But a force none-the-less, like magnetism or electricity. In fact I believe magnetism and electricity are part of... um, it.

Right, I can see that. A Deistic sort of notion, a non-conscious force. But I still don't understand the leap from that to anything that would be relevant for human morality. Because, frankly, there's nothing moral about magnetism and electricity or any of the other natural forces from what I can see. In fact, morality in my mind requires... well... minds. It's intersubjective, after all, and as such non-conscious entities couldn't really... have it.

I'm saying that if the universe is acting to achieve a purpose and a goal --- and again Im talking in the broadest sense here, not the destruction of a mere galaxy here or there, that being only a small part of what's going on --- and we understood that purpose and goal, that then we might be able to draw moral lessons from that knowledge and understanding.

But what could that moral lesson be? Other than "we're irrelevant, so don't act pompous towards other humans" or something like that? I still fail to see it applying to us precisely because we are so tiny on that very macro scale.

It's funny because "religious evolution" is quite the oxymoron.

Skeleon:

Third-eye:
I agree. But I don't believe what's happening in the universe is all pure random or chance, not in the most macro sense anyway.

Well, no, not random. That's why there are laws to describe occurrences, after all. But you're taking it several strides further.

OK, here my thumb-nail sketch of what I believe is going on. Understand this is very much a works in progress and there are holes that need filled in and pieces of the puzzle that need fitted on. But anyways....

It starts with the notion that matter/energy is an anomaly; it should not exist, at least not as we understand it. Sure, we understand it gets created frequently on the quantum level, where subatomic particles spontaneously pop into a multidimensional plain of existence we call space-time. But they exit only for an instant as they immediately collided with their negative counterparts (generally referred to as antimatter) and annihilate out of space-time, out of existence. Larger eruptions, even massive eruptions like the Big Bang which created massive amounts of particles, might be relatively common too, but again particles typically exist in space-time for only an instant before they annihilate out of existence.

What we call the Big Bang (BB), that massive eruption some 14 billion years ago, was different. For some unknown reason after that eruption one in every billion or so particle somehow survived.

Ok, here's the important part: The universe, or a significant part thereof, reacted to this strange turn of events by immediately attempting to eliminate the surviving particles, to erase them out of existence. It did this by creating a process that started with what we call today Dark Matter. Dark Matter is a net or web of sorts which formed to capture the wildly dispersed particles and bring them together.

Dark Matter captures matter by warping space-time creating channels or canals into which particles collected. This process enhances matters own natural ability to warp space-time, what we call Mass. As mass builds up the process of eliminating matter begins. The end result is a black hole, the place were matter/energy is eliminated, but the mechanism is arcane, slow, and sloppy. It releases the energy stored in the matter and creates more complex matter and other phenomena along the way: dust clouds, stars, planets, solar system, galaxies, galaxy clusters, and life.

Ok, here's the other important part: The process of eliminating matter/energy involves the dilation of space-time: space stretching and time slowing --- relative to other space-time --- as matter/energy is pushed to elimination. The thought then is that space-time dilation, or the transcendence of dimensional limits of space and time, is... um, highly significant, and reflected in life, evolution, the history of human civilization, and morality.

In practical terms space-time dilation manifests itself in mechanisms of locomotion and communication. Nature has created many amazing mechanism of locomotion but the most amazing is its mechanism of communication, in particular and most importantly the knowledge of survival. We call it DNA, the DNA molecule. The pattern of successful species found in its DNA is mostly fixed but there can be subtle mutations. And if these mutations prove advantageous to survival the chances of the enhanced DNA passing to the next generation increases. We call this process of enhanced DNA transmission Evolution. Its really simply natures way of transcending time by transferring knowledge of survival from one generation to the next.

Life is a unique form of matter in that the process of space-time dilation is not being forced on it so much as it is acting from within it, or being channeled through it. In lower organisms we call it the "survival instinct". In higher organisms we call it the "Will", the sprit, the soul. Basically it's the innate desire of all living things to transcend space and time, to grow, endure, procreate, and multiply.

Man is unique in that his innate instinct to transcend space and time is enhanced by his skill of language and his ability to create tools and artifacts. Early inventions such as the wheel and writing became the basis of our most important civilizations. Roads, ship design, and the harnessing of wind power further the growth, and turned civilizations into empires. History has shown that the culture with the most advance technology of transportation and communication became the dominant social, political, and military power of its time.

Today, space-time dilation is represented best by our modern mechanisms of transportations and communication. It might seem strange to many but the fact is planes, trains, and ever the humble automobile, are all endowed by us, their creators, with a certain "divine" essence, far greater than any religious icon, the ability to transcend space and time. And above it all stands the interplanetary vehicle, our chariot to the stars. It is in such a vessel that we will most fully forged the cosmic will to dilate space-time.  

But what about morality you say? Well, I've babbled on for long enough. I'll save that bit for another post, if you're interested.
 

Johnny Novgorod:
It's funny because "religious evolution" is quite the oxymoron.

Not really, considering only a very small amount of religious fundamentalists with a political agenda actually dispute the validity of evolution. Even the Vatican has officially recognized its validity since 1950.

Zeconte:
Even the Vatican has officially recognized its validity since 1950.

As far as I can tell, this isn't true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humani_Generis#Evolution

The earliest true recognition of Evolution as fact by a papal authority (JP2), that I could find on short notice, was in 1996;

http://tinyurl.com/qcvz5fd

Silvanus:

Zeconte:
Even the Vatican has officially recognized its validity since 1950.

As far as I can tell, this isn't true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humani_Generis#Evolution

The earliest true recognition of Evolution as fact by a papal authority (JP2), that I could find on short notice, was in 1996;

http://tinyurl.com/qcvz5fd

Except it is. Pope Pius XII may not have endorsed it as the proven fact of the matter at the time, but he did, in fact, state it as a valid argument worthy of consideration and further study, and that it was wrong for Catholics to simply reject it outright. Or do you really not recognize a difference between a valid argument and one that has been proven true, as you previously argued you did?

Zeconte:

Except it is. Pope Pius XII may not have endorsed it as the proven fact of the matter at the time, but he did, in fact, state it as a valid argument worthy of consideration and further study, and that it was wrong for Catholics to simply reject it outright. Or do you really not recognize a difference between a valid argument and one that has been proven true, as you previously argued you did?

Ah, so you meant "recognised its validity as a possibility" (which they did), rather than, "recognised its validity as the truth" (which they didn't).

You should have specified. As for your final sentence, you're merely trying to goad me.

Silvanus:

Zeconte:

Except it is. Pope Pius XII may not have endorsed it as the proven fact of the matter at the time, but he did, in fact, state it as a valid argument worthy of consideration and further study, and that it was wrong for Catholics to simply reject it outright. Or do you really not recognize a difference between a valid argument and one that has been proven true, as you previously argued you did?

Ah, so you meant "recognised its validity as a possibility" (which they did), rather than, "recognised its validity as the truth" (which they didn't).

You should have specified. As for your final sentence, you're merely trying to goad me.

No, I meant "recognized its validity" as in "recognized it as valid" not to be confused with "recognized its truth" as in "recognized it as true". The only reason I would need to specify further is if you erroneously believed "valid" and "true" were synonymous.

Zeconte:

No, I meant "recognized its validity" as in "recognized it as valid" not to be confused with "recognized its truth" as in "recognized it as true". The only reason I would need to specify further is if you erroneously believed "valid" and "true" were synonymous.

I mistook what you meant; sorry for that.

The thing is, taking until 1950 to admit that evolution was possible is pretty laughable. I assumed you were trying to make them seem reasonable on the subject, in your response to Johnny.

Silvanus:

Zeconte:

No, I meant "recognized its validity" as in "recognized it as valid" not to be confused with "recognized its truth" as in "recognized it as true". The only reason I would need to specify further is if you erroneously believed "valid" and "true" were synonymous.

I mistook what you meant; sorry for that.

The thing is, taking until 1950 to admit that evolution was possible is pretty laughable. I assumed you were trying to make them seem reasonable on the subject, in your response to Johnny.

But it would only be pretty laughable if the previous stance was to claim it was not possible, whereas in reality, there was no official stance on the matter, period. As in, the Vatican never weighed in on whether or not it thought it was possible until 1950, and likely did so simply to clarify that they did not agree with the idea that evolution was blasphemy against the Bible as Creationists try to argue in order to justify their desire for evolution not to be taught in schools, not to suggest that before then, they agreed with such a stance.

As for what I was trying to do, it was simply to point out that claiming "religious evolution" was an oxymoron is to suggest that religion rejects evolution as possible, that the two ideas are contradictory to each other as to believe in one is to disbelieve in the other, when the truth is, only a small portion of the religious community actually argues that it is not possible, and therefore, should not be taught in schools.

Third-eye:

Skeleon:

Third-eye:
I agree. But I don't believe what's happening in the universe is all pure random or chance, not in the most macro sense anyway.

Well, no, not random. That's why there are laws to describe occurrences, after all. But you're taking it several strides further.

OK, here my thumb-nail sketch of what I believe is going on. Understand this is very much a works in progress and there are holes that need filled in and pieces of the puzzle that need fitted on. But anyways....

It starts with the notion that matter/energy is an anomaly; it should not exist, at least not as we understand it. Sure, we understand it gets created frequently on the quantum level, where subatomic particles spontaneously pop into a multidimensional plain of existence we call space-time. But they exit only for an instant as they immediately collided with their negative counterparts (generally referred to as antimatter) and annihilate out of space-time, out of existence. Larger eruptions, even massive eruptions like the Big Bang which created massive amounts of particles, might be relatively common too, but again particles typically exist in space-time for only an instant before they annihilate out of existence.

That's not how it works, if matter was annihilated with antimatter whenever it appeared, that wouldn't destroy the mass/energy, it would convert the mass into energy.

The particles and antiparticles that appear at the quantum level disappear are temporary changes in the energy at a region of space-time due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

What we call the Big Bang (BB), that massive eruption some 14 billion years ago, was different. For some unknown reason after that eruption one in every billion or so particle somehow survived.

I don't think we have any particular reason to think the matter/energy came into existence at the moment of the big bang, as opposed to it having always existed and the big bang was just a thing about space-time.

Whether it did or not, however, it's obviously not the same thing as quantum fluctuations. It's not a quantum fluctuation that ended differently somehow, it's a completely different thing.

Ok, here's the important part: The universe, or a significant part thereof, reacted to this strange turn of events by immediately attempting to eliminate the surviving particles, to erase them out of existence. It did this by creating a process that started with what we call today Dark Matter. Dark Matter is a net or web of sorts which formed to capture the wildly dispersed particles and bring them together.

Dark Matter captures matter by warping space-time creating channels or canals into which particles collected. This process enhances matters own natural ability to warp space-time, what we call Mass. As mass builds up the process of eliminating matter begins. The end result is a black hole, the place were matter/energy is eliminated, but the mechanism is arcane, slow, and sloppy. It releases the energy stored in the matter and creates more complex matter and other phenomena along the way: dust clouds, stars, planets, solar system, galaxies, galaxy clusters, and life.

Black holes don't work that way, they release energy via hawking radiation. Energy is conserved.

Also, how do you account for Dark Energy, which is more abundant than Dark Matter and pushes the universe outwards?

Ok, here's the other important part: The process of eliminating matter/energy involves the dilation of space-time: space stretching and time slowing --- relative to other space-time --- as matter/energy is pushed to elimination. The thought then is that space-time dilation, or the transcendence of dimensional limits of space and time, is... um, highly significant, and reflected in life, evolution, the history of human civilization, and morality.

This is just gibberish. There's not much that makes enough sense to debunk but here's one point: the conditions that cause time dilation contract, rather than expand, space.

In practical terms space-time dilation manifests itself in mechanisms of locomotion and communication. Nature has created many amazing mechanism of locomotion but the most amazing is its mechanism of communication, in particular and most importantly the knowledge of survival. We call it DNA, the DNA molecule. The pattern of successful species found in its DNA is mostly fixed but there can be subtle mutations. And if these mutations prove advantageous to survival the chances of the enhanced DNA passing to the next generation increases. We call this process of enhanced DNA transmission Evolution. Its really simply natures way of transcending time by transferring knowledge of survival from one generation to the next.

Life is a unique form of matter in that the process of space-time dilation is not being forced on it so much as it is acting from within it, or being channeled through it. In lower organisms we call it the "survival instinct". In higher organisms we call it the "Will", the sprit, the soul. Basically it's the innate desire of all living things to transcend space and time, to grow, endure, procreate, and multiply.

Man is unique in that his innate instinct to transcend space and time is enhanced by his skill of language and his ability to create tools and artifacts. Early inventions such as the wheel and writing became the basis of our most important civilizations. Roads, ship design, and the harnessing of wind power further the growth, and turned civilizations into empires. History has shown that the culture with the most advance technology of transportation and communication became the dominant social, political, and military power of its time.

Today, space-time dilation is represented best by our modern mechanisms of transportations and communication. It might seem strange to many but the fact is planes, trains, and ever the humble automobile, are all endowed by us, their creators, with a certain "divine" essence, far greater than any religious icon, the ability to transcend space and time. And above it all stands the interplanetary vehicle, our chariot to the stars. It is in such a vessel that we will most fully forged the cosmic will to dilate space-time.

Time dilation is not about "transcending" anything, it's just a consequence of the speed of light being constant from all reference frames.

Nothing about biology has anything to do with time dilation, and that doesn't really matter because time dilation isn't magic.

Seriously, this is pure nonsense.

Johnny Novgorod:
It's funny because "religious evolution" is quite the oxymoron.

That's quite a loaded statement, considering yesterday I saw some Mennonites, the women and girls wearing dresses and bonnets and the men and boys wearing overalls and those round straw hats in the department store I work at. They were in the shoe department, and the lady wearing the baby blue dress and white bonnet was talking on a cell phone, I think trying to locate her other children in the mall.

Rowan93:

That's not how it works, if matter was annihilated with antimatter whenever it appeared, that wouldn't destroy the mass/energy, it would convert the mass into energy.

The particles and antiparticles that appear at the quantum level disappear are temporary changes in the energy at a region of space-time due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

Yeah, that's how I originally had it. And Dark Matter is converting matter back to energy. Then I was thinking something more was going on. I was clearly over thinking it. I will edit the earlier post.

Rowan93:

I don't think we have any particular reason to think the matter/energy came into existence at the moment of the big bang, as opposed to it having always existed and the big bang was just a thing about space-time.

Whether it did or not, however, it's obviously not the same thing as quantum fluctuations. It's not a quantum fluctuation that ended differently somehow, it's a completely different thing.

Sorry but that's not how I understand it. Certainly we don't have any particular reason to think the matter/energy existed before BB. Perhaps I'm wrong and you enlighten us more, perhaps provide some links?

Rowan93:
Black holes don't work that way, they release energy via hawking radiation. Energy is conserved.

Sure, matter to energy. But the important part is what's happening to time-space. I say it's eliminated inside a black hole, or at least at singularity.

Rowan93:
Also, how do you account for Dark Energy, which is more abundant than Dark Matter and pushes the universe outwards?

Well, notice I said only part of the universe is acting on matter (converting it back into energy, yes, thank you). And also notice I said Dark Matter came after BB. Dark Energy existed before BB. It's the force behind the quantum fluctuations, and it's still there (here?), working against Dark Matter. The fate of the universe is in fact all about this duality.

Rowan93:

This is just gibberish. There's not much that makes enough sense to debunk but here's one point: the conditions that cause time dilation contract, rather than expand, space.

Yeah, space contracts. Again that's how I originally had it. Lately however I was thinking perhaps its really the opposite that going on. Again I was over thinking it. I will edit the earlier post.

As to the gibberish comment, well of course you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but understand, this part is not science, nor is it meant to be.

Take another look at the topic of this thread. What I'm on about is religion not science. Sure, I talk a lot about science but that's only because I feel that religion in the Information Age must be consistent with science. But of course religion goes beyond science. Science gives knowledge and a certain understanding but it can't be the basis of faith, only nihilism. Two thousand years of organized religious devotion suggests that we, as a species, need more than that.

Rowan93:

Time dilation is not about "transcending" anything, it's just a consequence of the speed of light being constant from all reference frames.

Sure, in a narrow scientific context you are correct. I'm looking at the broader conceptual concept.

Rowan93:
Nothing about biology has anything to do with time dilation, and that doesn't really matter because time dilation isn't magic.

Evolution, DNA, it about communication, communicating lessons in survival. Its a transfer of knowledge, so that a generation can survive with a knowledge beyond what it can gain in the short span of its own lifetime. In man that same process is accelerated through language, writing, publishing, etc.

As to the magic comment, there is no magic here, just a way of looking at the universe. It also seems that this comment is be a bit of an emotional outburst, which is uncalled for.

Rowan93:

Seriously, this is pure nonsense.

No, seriously, thank you for your comments. That's why I post my stuff after all, to solicit comments. Sure, I understand that most are going to be negative, even cruel. I have no delusions about the nature of anonymous posting, but you rose above it for the more part. I got turned back around on some important points and that's always a good thing. So, again, thanks.

Third-eye:
Science gives knowledge and a certain understanding but it can't be the basis of faith, only nihilism.

Science doesn't have any relationship with nihilism. You'll notice that the vast majority of atheists/ agnostics are not nihilists.

Third-eye:

Rowan93:

I don't think we have any particular reason to think the matter/energy came into existence at the moment of the big bang, as opposed to it having always existed and the big bang was just a thing about space-time.

Whether it did or not, however, it's obviously not the same thing as quantum fluctuations. It's not a quantum fluctuation that ended differently somehow, it's a completely different thing.

Sorry but that's not how I understand it. Certainly we don't have any particular reason to think the matter/energy existed before BB. Perhaps I'm wrong and you enlighten us more, perhaps provide some links?

Well, we don't have any particular reason to believe either hypothesis over the other, at least as far as evidence goes, but personally I think that, in absence of evidence, that the matter-energy was always there seems more likely than that it simply appeared, because of the law of conservation of energy.

Although that said, many physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, say that "before the big bang" isn't even a thing that makes any sense, because that was the beginning of time i.e. there was no time before the big bang for a "before" to exist in. I'm not sure if I agree with that, or if it leads to useful conclusions, but it's good to keep in mind I guess.

Rowan93:
Black holes don't work that way, they release energy via hawking radiation. Energy is conserved.

Sure, matter to energy. But the important part is what's happening to time-space. I say it's eliminated inside a black hole, or at least at singularity.

It's not eliminated, it just takes a particular, unusual... I'll say "shape", at a black hole.

Rowan93:
Also, how do you account for Dark Energy, which is more abundant than Dark Matter and pushes the universe outwards?

Well, notice I said only part of the universe is acting on matter (converting it back into energy, yes, thank you). And also notice I said Dark Matter came after BB. Dark Energy existed before BB. It's the force behind the quantum fluctuations, and it's still there (here?), working against Dark Matter. The fate of the universe is in fact all about this duality.

Nothing is driving the universe to generate particles, quantum fluctuations are decreases in local energy as often as they are increases (particles are temporarily disappearing as often as they're appearing). It's not something driven by a force, it's just a consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

Rowan93:

This is just gibberish. There's not much that makes enough sense to debunk but here's one point: the conditions that cause time dilation contract, rather than expand, space.

Yeah, space contracts. Again that's how I originally had it. Lately however I was thinking perhaps its really the opposite that going on. Again I was over thinking it. I will edit the earlier post.

As to the gibberish comment, well of course you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but understand, this part is not science, nor is it meant to be.

Take another look at the topic of this thread. What I'm on about is religion not science. Sure, I talk a lot about science but that's only because I feel that religion in the Information Age must be consistent with science. But of course religion goes beyond science. Science gives knowledge and a certain understanding but it can't be the basis of faith, only nihilism. Two thousand years of organized religious devotion suggests that we, as a species, need more than that.

On a second reading, and given clarification by your further comments here, I'll retract the "gibberish". I'm still quite convinced that it's wrong, but it's understandable; it's the same misunderstanding of how black holes work as earlier on, followed up with some woo.

Rowan93:

Time dilation is not about "transcending" anything, it's just a consequence of the speed of light being constant from all reference frames.

Sure, in a narrow scientific context you are correct. I'm looking at the broader conceptual concept.

I think the point I'm working towards is that there is no broader conceptual concept, it's a specific piece of physics jargon that refers to a specific physical phenomenon. I mean, you might use it more broadly as a metaphor, but if you mean the word literally then the "narrow scientific context" is the only one you should use it in.

Rowan93:
Nothing about biology has anything to do with time dilation, and that doesn't really matter because time dilation isn't magic.

Evolution, DNA, it about communication, communicating lessons in survival. Its a transfer of knowledge, so that a generation can survive with a knowledge beyond what it can gain in the short span of its own lifetime. In man that same process is accelerated through language, writing, publishing, etc.

As to the magic comment, there is no magic here, just a way of looking at the universe. It also seems that this comment is be a bit of an emotional outburst, which is uncalled for.

Evolution doesn't really work to promote the survival of individuals, it promotes the abundance of genes that increase their own abundance in the next generation. For an extreme example; a gene that makes you have twice as many kids then kills you at age 30 will win at evolution, and completely take over the species.

Also, of course, genes are not knowledge, they're physical modifications, Lamarckism is long-dead.

Rowan93:

Seriously, this is pure nonsense.

No, seriously, thank you for your comments. That's why I post my stuff after all, to solicit comments. Sure, I understand that most are going to be negative, even cruel. I have no delusions about the nature of anonymous posting, but you rose above it for the more part. I got turned back around on some important points and that's always a good thing. So, again, thanks.

Yeah, sorry, my bad, I know the right way to argue with people is to try to reach mutual understanding and progress, but that was kind of bypassed by the thought "this guy's saying concrete things about physics, which I know a thing or two about! It's time to go to town!"

EDIT: Quotes fail

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked