We're Made Up of A Lot of Empty Space

[shan2752]

Truth be told, it's funny how we as the human race think we have such a broad understanding of our universe's inner workings yet we can barely escape our own atmosphere.

The latest theory is that gravitational force is so weak relative to other forces because it is an active force in simultaneous dimensions. Yeah, have you seen Fringe?

All I'm saying is that we can grab at straws and perceive a break through every now and then, but we will never have the ability to completely understand this universe, it transcends our level of understanding and perspective.

I love how people are so eager in this day and age to completely neglect the possibility of divine creation with such little understanding of the universe that we do have. I mean isn't it possible? If you would accept that life could form from inanimate matter? Really? Isn't that about as amazing a concept as a Creator?

 

[Guest]

@shan: Better to keep our options open through science than accepting blindly thousands year old fairy-tales. Divinity is a human concept, invented by the "flawed" us.

 

[ceejer]

In response to shan and Andrei, I'd like to put forth that whether or not you believe in some sort of creator, science should most certainly still be done. In shan's case, it becomes almost a form of worship; it's an attempt to appreciate the aesthetic beauty of the creator's creation, to understand it (and by extension him) as best we can. Personally, I'm convinced a creator is not necessary. Throughout the history of humanity gods have been tasked with the responsibility of making possible things that we don't understand. As science has progressed, the role of the gods in our understanding of the universe has correspondingly diminished. No one believes that lightning is actually hurled from Olympus by Zeus, or that Apollo is up there pulling the sun around in his chariot any more. Now, we're at the point where shan claims that science can't describe how life could arise from inanimate matter, and so tasks the creation of life to a 'creator.' I'm of the opinion that science has already gone an incredibly long ways in answering this question, and that the details that are left are certainly understandable scientifically, we just don't understand them yet. But this is a smaller piece of what I truly believe. This argument has been going on for thousands of years, and at any point in time religious people say that science will never answer a particular question. But it keeps answering more questions! Yes, there are things we can't yet understand from a scientific basis right now, but over and over we find out that it's not a failing of science, or metaphysical naturalism, it's just that we haven't gotten there yet. There's no reason to believe that *this* time, science really will be stumped; that's been said forever and it's just as wrong now as it was when it was claimed that science couldn't understand how the earth came to be. Either way, whatever you want to believe, science should be done, by both the religious and the naturalists. The only people who think doing science or extending our understanding of the world (within reasonable ethical bounds, of course) is a bad thing are those clinging to ancient beliefs that science has already shot down. Believing in a creator is still a tenable position (but only because science doesn't *yet* have a complete understanding of the origin of the universe), but believing that the earth was created in 6 days some thousands of years ago is emphatically not. It's no more defensible than the belief that Zeus is hurling thunderbolts from Olympus. Sure, you can make them both purely allegorical and try to extract some perspective from each (as mainstream Christianity has done with the genesis myth), but that doesn't make either true, it just further accentuates the fact that they are human constructions made by ancient minds with less of an understanding of the world than we currently have. That said, as far as I'm concerned, believe what you want, up until the point where that belief requires enforced ignorance. At that point it becomes destructive both to individuals and society.

And all of that ignores the pragmatic motivations for science. Yes, some of the weirder results of quantum mechanics make it seem like quantum happens in a different world, from which we're all detached, but it doesn't. In fact everyone reading this right now is relying on it many times over in the operation of their computer, for instance in the hard drive read head, which uses giant magnetoresistance, a manifestly quantum phenomenon. If we hadn't pushed forward scientifically, tried to understand the world on increasingly fundamental levels, we'd be a long ways behind where we are now. There, see, I tied it back to computers so it's a legit post...

 

[methal]

^ I would agree with most of what he said. Obviously has done some study.

Graduating from BYU with a BS in biology, specifically molecular bio, I have learned that 170 years of evolution still hasn't answered how we all got here. Not only that, but the organic evolutionary theory that Darwin proposed has been scientifically disproved hundreds of times over. Evolution as we understand it now, is nothing like (not even close) to what Darwin-and many other early evolutionists claimed was absolute truth.

I don't believe that all religion has all truth. On the other hand I certainly don't believe that all science has it either.

 

[ceejer]

Methal, don't forget that science isn't any particular fact or model or theory, but rather the process by which that understanding was arrived at. The fact that we now know more, and that portions of Darwin's evolution have been revised and extended (although I'd disagree that modern evolution is "not even close" to Darwin's version, it's merely extended by a long way) isn't a failing of science, it's a triumph.

 

[Trueno07]

Science (Engineering 😀) FTW

 

[silentx]

expertester: thats actually not a hard question, its a law of nature(according to science) that everything will keep moving if nothing interrupts it, when we drive a bike, what stops us, when we stop pedaling is friction both in form of air resisitance and the resistance from wheels and so on, but at the scale of a single proton, there isnt any airfriction as theres completely empty, just as our solar system. or any solar system

 

[mayne92]

[citation][nom]idisarmu[/nom]They didn't actually get a picture of a proton though.... impossible![/citation]
Thanks...lol.

Just playing...

 

[heavylikemetal]

[citation][nom]expertester[/nom]1 question...if electron keep orbiting proton at constant pace, infinitely, where did it get its energy to do so? Have been wondering this one since school[/citation]

Does the gravitational pull of the GIANT proton vs the tiny electron have something to do with that?!

 

[Honis]

[citation][nom]heavylikemetal[/nom]Does the gravitational pull of the GIANT proton vs the tiny electron have something to do with that?![/citation]
It's a combination of sources. Light is an energy that is capable of moving it, the magnetic field of a passing atom is another, heat radiation, etc. Just about any type of energy has the strength to move an electron in its orbit. You also need to stop thinking about it as an "orbit" it's more along the lines of "exists in some area that isn't the nucleus." In high school it's easier to say "orbit" because it's mostly correct. ceejer seems to go into more detail.

 

[moody89]

Very interesting! Physics has always managed to capture my imagination in particular the wave-particle duality and its implications it could have on what we perceive as reality.

 

[shan2752]

@ceejer: I appreciate your insight and I truly understand where your opinions is coming from. Scientifically speaking, I share your opinion wholeheartedly. But, in terms of fairy tales and religion, please remember that religion is man made. I can understand how the bible was written, but you have to use some logic based on the level of understanding of the people at the time. A good comparison is studying calculus or let's even say differential equations. If you immediately turn towards the end of the textbook, those concepts seem so unattainable, but if you start with the most basic concepts once you get towards the end you can now fully understand it. The people at the time could never understand science in the way that we do, so things were revealed to them at a primitive level.

To me the Bing Bang is the epitome of creation for it's when the universe was created and thus all things came into being. In my opinion, there is a strong possibility of a divine creator that made the universe. I believe that this creator set up the system and all if its laws, yes, even evolution. I suggest you read the book "A Case for a Creator" to see all the scientific evidence that points toward a creator. Even Einstein believe in a creator.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

Who would have thought that at the centre of each atom is a mini ice giant planet.

In the other direction, this video illustrates just how small we are: http/www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1w8hKTJ2Co

 

[ceejer]

Shan, Genesis isn't just primitive, it's utterly wrong. Surely there's a difference, even in a primitive mind, between billions of years and 6 days. Or even in colloquial terms "much longer than the lives of men" and a week. But I'm afraid in any discussion about the bible we'll just be talking past each other; You take as the basis for your understanding of the bible that it was at least divinely inspired. I do not. Since we don't agree on that, there's little progress we can make to coming to a similar understanding.

The 'scientific evidence' for a creator amounts to very little, and none of it definitive. I've looked at it with all due diligence given that the fate of my soul could have depended on it, and with a fair bit of training (PhD in physics). To my eye, and, depending on who you ask, to Einstein's as well, the only place left for a creator with a modern understanding is one who initiated the big bang and has left the universe to unfold by itself since. In some ways, your creator is my universe. Of course people have been twisting Einstein's words about such things since he said them; for everyone claiming he was devoutly religious there's another claiming his 'god' was just the order and laws of the universe and that he wasn't religious by any working definition at all. And the bible is much more understandable when it's viewed as a cobbling together of bits of ancient folk religions and stories that's been handed down and reinterpreted and retranslated, subject to selective pressures, politics, philosophers, tyrants, and fanatics for many thousands of years rather than the word of god. You could claim that the big bang required a creator, but there's no evidence to support that. I'll admit that there isn't yet evidence to disprove it like there is for the genesis myth. Instead, I use that favorite tool of physicists, symmetry, and assume that this time in history is no more special than any other, and that science has been answering unanswerable questions since there have been records kept and will continue to do so long into the future. I just don't need religion in my life in any way. That's not to say there aren't those that do. It is comforting to think there's a higher power out there looking out for you, and that death is somehow different than what it was like before we were born. And some people lack the ability to come to an understanding of morality without a little guidance (although in many instances even religious 'guidance' is suspect). I'm not one of those atheists that's out to destroy religion, I just wish that people would use their brains, think critically and analytically, and appreciate that we've all gotta live on this one tiny little earth together.

 

[JohnnyLucky]

Despite Scientific explanations it still boggles my mind.

 

[methal]

[citation][nom]ceejer[/nom]Methal, don't forget that science isn't any particular fact or model or theory, but rather the process by which that understanding was arrived at. The fact that we now know more, and that portions of Darwin's evolution have been revised and extended (although I'd disagree that modern evolution is "not even close" to Darwin's version, it's merely extended by a long way) isn't a failing of science, it's a triumph.[/citation]

A triumph... From a purely, strictly, and in a very non-branching way, yes It could be seen as a triumph.

However, i can not fully accept something, even after making it my focus of study in college, despite what the high school, and general ed college teachers say that is so flawed. In my religion the Science of creation is so simple, clear, and concise, yet so hard for some to understand, a theory so simply silly that its laughable can not be true in the large picture of things.No its not Scientology, or some radical screwy cult.

A man made triumph it is, but keep in mind, something that is now illegal to teach in schools is that Organic Evolution is responsible for more deaths, murders, tortures, genocide, et cetera, than all other sources combined.

I'm sure that most of you who have read this have no idea what im talking about. A fact likely due to a failure in our public education system. There are truths that can not be taught to willing, and mature learners, simply because someone somewhere wants to control someone somewhere.

Here is a basis on what got me expelled 3 times from school.
http/oilismastery.blogspot.com/2009/12/nazi-darwinism.html

(I have no affiliation with that web page, I just googled the topic and found it to have the most sources.)

 

[methal]

As for all the people claiming religion is man made, You are right in that there are many religions that are made up of a lot of man made, for lack of better wording, garbage.

However until you understand just what a religion is, that statement hardly justifies a reliance on science alone. Science, IS a religion, in fact everything that promotes, or promulgates a certain set of creational, and/or purpose of life directional beliefs IS a religion, even though they throw a fit when you say it, atheism is a religion. The very deepest nature of mankind is determined to have religion, it, like breathing is to life, is unavoidable.

i'd write more, but I think the horse is dead...besides that I have a lot of lortab in me.

 

[shan2752]

ceejer: I agree with you that the bible was most likely written by man. But I still do not understand how you could be so convinced that the universe had no creator, especially when there isn't scientific evidence to completely disprove this.

I feel some comfort hoping that there is something greater than us. Comfort knowing that I may someday see all those I loved and lost again. Maybe in the end we are all just an evolutionary anomaly, but hope is something that makes this life more enduring.

 

[ceejer]

Shan, the lack of scientific evidence to *disprove* it doesn't say anything. There's also a total lack of scientific evidence to disprove the existence of a teacup in the asteroid belt (Excuse the borrowing of analogies... but of course there isn't a teacup in the asteroid belt, that's ridiculous). But it's worse than just a lack of evidence... It's impossible to prove that there isn't such a teacup, just like it is (at this point) impossible to prove that there isn't a creator. The fact that we can't prove that there *isn't* a creator is absolutely not evidence for the existence of one, just like the absence of a proof that there are no teacups in the asteroid belt isn't evidence that there is one. In fact, the onus of proof is on you. There is no way to prove the non-existence of a creator, all that can be done is either prove that there *is* one, or not have a proof of any kind. I wouldn't be surprised if we never do come across a disproof of the existence of all 'creator' concepts. These non-existance proofs are exceedingly tricky, as anyone who's ever tried to develop, or indeed just follow such a mathematical proof can attest, and most are unresolved. And the whole creator concept is carefully constructed to avoid disproof at every turn, because of the set of all possible 'creator' concepts, those that *do* admit a disproof already have been (a hint of memetic Darwinism). So 'especially when there isn't scientific evidence' has no content. In fact, there is plenty of scientific and a priori evidence for the non-existence of the classical 3-O (omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent) God. I speak above of the most abstract of 'creators', and by extension the one whose disproof is trickiest.

Furthermore, there are plenty of difficulties that the existence of a creator presents. Take for example a favorite dilemma in intro philosophy classes; Can God create a rock that he can't lift? Either way, he's not omnipotent. And if you're positing a creator to make the existence of the universe easier to understand, then you've got it backwards... This naturally begs the question 'where did the creator come from'? and since he's ostensibly more complex than the universe as he transcends it, the question has just gotten more difficult instead of simpler. There are a slew of these types of arguments, but I'll admit none of them seem very satisfying. My favorite is still symmetry... I suppose that's the physicist in me speaking.

Of course there are just as many 'proofs of the existence of God', but all are just as hollow and unsatisfying as the above disproofs. All of these supposed proofs, in either direction, admit holes that destroy their logic; It just takes a little abstract and philosophical thought to find them. The long and the short of it is, there doesn't exist a satisfying proof or disproof for the existence of the most abstract conception of a creator.

And I don't like homing in on this point, but just because you want it to be true doesn't make it true. Truth exists independently from what is good and bad (a point Methal would be wise to recognize). I promise, as one who's finally made the switch after years of careful analysis, critical thought and study, you can give up those hopes and nothing changes. If anything, it makes life more precious, the universe more awe-inspiring, and the memories of loved ones more meaningful. But I don't mean to proselytize, I know how obnoxious I find it when people do it to me.

 

[shan2752]

Thanks for your insight, I have struggled with my faith and most likely struggle throughout my life. I have often taken issue when people base their beliefs on faith alone. I believe that faith is meaningless unless it is a faith in truth. But I still believe that it is entirely possible that there is a creator, but like you said we will never be able to disprove that there wasn't. Your tea cup analogy was a good way to present that.