do you believe in god?

[liveforphysics]

I mentioned nothing of purpose, religion, or evolution. They are mute points until the occurrence of life is accounted.

Not really since the study of genetics has allowed us to track and observe the genetic mutations by which life develops to ever more complex states. What you ought to explain is why the initial phase of increasing molecular complexity and self replication should have a fundamentally different dynamic to the mutations which drive the rest of biological evolution. Unless of course you're with TPA on this and reject the overwhelming evidence for biological evolution. Why would some conscious entity go to the effort of creating single cell organisms and not go the whole hog.

You are thinking inside an extremely limited human perspective. It's not your fault.

Why not create the whole hog? Did the hog not come into existence? The hog is inside me, I had a bacon cheese burger for lunch. What is time? We freely move in 3d, but like a 2d being unable to contemplate the 3d we live inside, the Creator is not bound by only seeing an infinitely small slice of time as we humans know, only passing through 4d, never experienceing 4d. Creating life, life reaching the point today, and the point of future extinction are all one in the same for something not bound by 3d.

For folks who wish to rant about religion, be my guest. Anything humans are involved with becomes unavoidably and instantly fouled, and then soon muddied enough to loose clarity of function.

It wasn't until late in college that I realized I had been lead down the rose path of pseudo-science leading me to believe that life had started by random chance. If you open your eyes just a bit, it's blinding, but it's equally obvious that life did not start itself. That realization forces the acknowledgement of a creator. Where you want to go from there is personal choice.

 

[Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh]

i hope people realize that the creator is not the same as our creator who is definitely not a god or in heaven.
even 'the' creator might not be a god, simply a sufficiently advanced being whose technology is indistinguishable from magic as per A.C. Clarke.
there can be no doubt that some higher intelligence built the clockwork & acted as the prime mover to set the whole thing in motion.
while impressive, for me that doesn't rise to the level of being a god, it's more like a Q.

 

[liveforphysics]

i hope people realize that the creator is not the same as our creator who is definitely not a god or in heaven.
even 'the' creator might not be a god, simply a sufficiently advanced being whose technology is indistinguishable from magic as per A.C. Clarke.
there can be no doubt that some higher intelligence built the clockwork & acted as the prime mover to set the whole thing in motion.
while impressive, for me that doesn't rise to the level of being a god, it's more like a Q.

Do Q's create themselves then? If the work of God creates something, was not that something still created by the work of God?

 

[bigmoose]

Way back... when I was in college, we were exploring relativity with the particle accelerator. We would "discover" things, and I would marvel at them and say: "So that is how God did it!" My Indian colleague Sudir would say: "Well we now have the equation so we know how it works, the mystery is gone."

I would then ask Sudir, "What sir is gravity? What IS the nuclear force? What IS the electrostatic force?... Sudir would reply, "I do not know." But God knows. As He put all these forces in place to work in perfect harmony to sustain life...

I am also one of those that when discovering a lost digital timex watch on the beach, know it is a created object at the hand of man; and not an accidental evolution from the silica and a lightning bolt... so too when I look at man, I know he is not an accidental evolution; but is the work of The Creator...

 

[rguy56]

Why is there anything? The word, "God", as a symbol, has deep meaning to me.

 

[gogo]

Existence exists. I'm not going to pretend I know more than that.

 

[Takemehome]

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
..........John Lennon

I wish all people who believe in god
would also believe in this song.

 

[biohazardman]

What?! Some of you don't believe in me?



Fetcher you look so mean not anything like I would have expected given your much help here.

 

[317537]

For the above picture.

Someone zap that thing with emp.

I voted yes.

I was raised a catholic and this confused me so much I became an atheists.

After years of learning about this vast universe I came up with my own theories about a higher being. Pantheism is about as close as I could get to explaining my feelings on this subject.

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

Except I believe that collective thought of all existing life has a cause and variable control over this reality that we most seek to learn and or explain. Not one man can change nature, but all of nature can change the nature of all things.

 

[Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh]

i hope people realize that the creator is not the same as our creator who is definitely not a god or in heaven.
even 'the' creator might not be a god, simply a sufficiently advanced being whose technology is indistinguishable from magic as per A.C. Clarke.
there can be no doubt that some higher intelligence built the clockwork & acted as the prime mover to set the whole thing in motion.
while impressive, for me that doesn't rise to the level of being a god, it's more like a Q.

Do Q's create themselves then? If the work of God creates something, was not that something still created by the work of God?

the second question is easy, definitely not unless u water down the definition to call human beings god as well.


as for the first question, the Q are merely a type 3 civilization that have figured out how to manipulate natural forces & energy at a more fundamental level.
they're just a bit (ok, a lot) further up the road of evolution than we are & eventually we will achieve the same capability provided we don't annihilate ourselves b4 then.
so Q=homo sapien+time which means the Q were like us once & is why the ultimate creator has to be something entirely different.

 

[flip_normal]

If you open your eyes just a bit, it's blinding, but it's equally obvious that life did not start itself. That realization forces the acknowledgement of a creator.

there can be no doubt that some higher intelligence built the clockwork & acted as the prime mover to set the whole thing in motion.

If there is no doubt then why not explain how it happens. Without an explanation there can only be doubt.

 

[EMF]

When people do not have answers, then they seem to turn to the supernatural as an "explanation".

I find the notion that some "being" of higher intelligence threw this all together laughable. ( And of course he looks like us! ) But, this is all we know, we can't think except in certain ways. We need "someone" to be responsible, to be in control or in charge, someone to look to for answers. We need some sort of presence, some one to turn to.

All we know for sure is that we all get born and we all die.

 

[Takemehome]

Man can't accept that is entity will end with his death.
SO
Man created god and he created himself a soul, his ticket to immortality.
SO
Man's entity will live forever, he's not in fear of death anymore.

 

[Anonymous]

.

 

[Link]

I believe in kilowatt capacity batteries the size of my thumb nail.

Going off intuition and baseless speculation, I'd say the intrinsic universal limit for energy density is that of the mass/energy equivalence applied to matter that's dense on the threshold of becoming a singularity. I.E. the amount of energy stored in the gravitational well of a black hole.

Obviously, there'd be problems trying to lug around a battery the size of a grape that literally weighed as much as the moon, but I'd think you'd hit 1kWh/thumbnail quite a bit before then. :wink:

 

[317537]

But I haven't voted. I don't believe in voting about belief. You can believe anything you want and that's alright with me.

Then you should have faith! Faith in the poll dear brother. Belief is pussy. Faith is getting some .

 

[swbluto]

I believe in kilowatt capacity batteries the size of my thumb nail.

Going off intuition and baseless speculation, I'd say the intrinsic universal limit for energy density is that of the mass/energy equivalence applied to matter that's dense on the threshold of becoming a singularity. I.E. the amount of energy stored in the gravitational well of a black hole.

Obviously, there'd be problems trying to lug around a battery the size of a grape that literally weighed as much as the moon, but I'd think you'd hit 1kWh/thumbnail quite a bit before then. :wink:

And to exploit that energy density, you only need a blackhole and antiblackhole! Only if patents lasted for more than 20 years...

btw, THEY are getting better at containing anti-matter so you know it's only a matter of time. Or a timely matter?

 

[317537]

Electron stars man whoah.

Messing with electron fields in such a way is starting to desire power we have no use for yet. When we start needing to power ships the size of small planets and we have already mastered conventional energy theories maybe then explore fusing our membranous bodies with battery boxes. .And I thought this could be a light conversation.

 

[dak664]

I for one don't find the "there must have been a creator because we are so exquisitely designed" argument convincing. Out of the incomprehensibly large number of states a small chunk of matter can take some of them will be self-aware, and the a priori improbability of their existence is not relevant since only these states will ever consider the question.

I think it more likely that intelligent beings will destroy themselves in short order in the quest for power over nature. For example swallowing their planet in a black hole started by a large uncharged nucleus. That is one solution to Fermi's paradox, which I am sure he was aware of and probably caused him many sleepless nights.

 

[Link]

And to exploit that energy density, you only need a blackhole and antiblackhole! Only if patents lasted for more than 20 years...

btw, THEY are getting better at containing anti-matter so you know it's only a matter of time. Or a timely matter?

IIRC, there's no such thing as an "antiblackhole" made out of antimatter, because black holes aren't made out of matter. They have mass, but aren't actually filled with anything but a kind of timelike space or something. So, you could mix a black hole that used to be matter with one that used to be antimatter and all you'd get was a bigger black hole.

I think. Been a while since I read though any astrophysics books.

Also there's probs with making antimatter. (Stealing from Wiki now) Using todays average energy costs as a lower-limit, a gram of antimatter would cost a minimum of $2,500,000 (granted, that's for about 50,000,000,000 Wh) at 100% energy/antiparticle conversion efficiency.

Current estimated actual cost is $62,500,000,000,000. At today's actual production ability, it would take 2 billion years to make that much, and it's unclear if the efficiency of converting energy to antimatter can be improved by a significant amount. A certain someone around here might be onto something with those nuclear batteries...

Re. the actual topic:

 

[swbluto]

And to exploit that energy density, you only need a blackhole and antiblackhole! Only if patents lasted for more than 20 years...

btw, THEY are getting better at containing anti-matter so you know it's only a matter of time. Or a timely matter?

IIRC, there's no such thing as an "antiblackhole" made out of antimatter, because black holes aren't made out of matter. They have mass, but aren't actually filled with anything but a kind of timelike space or something. So, you could mix a black hole that used to be matter with one that used to be antimatter and all you'd get was a bigger black hole.

I can't say we humans know a whole lot of blackholes experimentally, but if "conventional blackholes" are generated from matter where the gravitational force exceeds the strong nuclear force, then it seems antimatter with the same forces should be able to generate an "anti-blackhole". I'll say, though, that "singularities" are mind warping - infinite density implies a lack of distinguishable quarks needed to construct matter and anti-matter, so maybe an anti-matter generated blackhole would be indistinguishable from a conventional blackhole in terms of its composition.

Also there's probs with making antimatter. (Stealing from Wiki now) Using todays average energy costs as a lower-limit, a gram of antimatter would cost a minimum of $2,500,000 (granted, that's for about 50,000,000,000 Wh) at 100% energy/antiparticle conversion efficiency.

Too short-term. I'm thinking hundreds of millions if not billions of years. If you construct something that converts solar energy into electrical energy and it costs a finite amount of energy to produce and it lasts forever, then the energy production cost approaches nothing (energy production cost = energy in / energy out - energy in remains finite, energy out approaches orders of magnitudes larger as time progresses). Even if there's a recurring energy cost for maintenance, I'm willing to bet that the longterm energy cost is far lower than our relatively primitive and implicatively inefficient energy conversion methods, even with the bonus of easily tappable solar-energy-storing liquid oil that's been collecting over a few hundred millions of years.

 

[Link]

Too short-term. I'm thinking hundreds of millions if not billions of years.

I dunno...after that amount of time, I'd be disappointed if we didn't have something that could simply convert whatever matter was put into it into energy on demand.

Vice-versa would be just as good, too. Literally download a porterhouse and fries? Oh, I am so down. 8)

 

[317537]

I, I, I, ment proton stars in electron collapse.

I believe in have fun, don’t hurt anyone, don’t accept defeat, and strive to be happy, but sometimes you need to concede to defeat in order to have fun and be happy, being wrong can be a revelation in learning..

Nice png BTW.

 

[317537]

Nuclear powered bike

http://trendsupdates.com/bully-2000-nuclear-powered-bike/

Do we need a freaking supernova to do this with. :lol:

 

[Link]

I believe in have fun, don’t hurt anyone, don’t accept defeat, and strive to be happy, but sometimes you need to concede to defeat in order to have fun and be happy, being wrong can be a revelation in learning.

Yeah, the defeat thing is kinda inevitable once and a while and the last one is basically the same as the first, so you could really just cut off the second two and the remaining would be my entire belief system in a nutshell. I can't think of anybody I personally dislike and don't know of anyone who personally dislikes me, so it seems to work pretty well.