bascule Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 http://richarddawkins.net/article,985,God-Exists-A-Formula-Proves-it,KCTV5-News According to the magic forumla: Quantum Mecλanics + General Relativity => GOD EXISTS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MolotovCocktail Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 Well then, I suppose I can now throw out the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GutZ Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 lol I think I see the an equation for gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 now, i'm no expert on GR and QM but aren't these theories mutually exclusive? and i can't make sense of anything on that board. it seems to be random scribbles and equations followed by an arrow and 'God exists' there is no working. i want to see the paper the guy published/es. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnF Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 Well then, I suppose I can now throw out the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster . Who else on here is a Pastafarian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GutZ Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 It says Einsteins Eqaution (General relativity) + Quantum Mechanics = God R(something)= 1/2(something) R=8(pi)Tmv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abskebabs Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 It is amazing from watching the video that a so called professor can so convincingly convey is his seeming lack of knowledge of the criteria that would make something a "proof". Even more shocking, amusing and alarming is the conduct of the news media who do not question anything he says, and instead of trying to verify his claims, ask for the opinions of nonscientists on this matter... It reminds me of the conversations I had with some Jehovah's witnesses recently when I told them I was studying theoretical physics and they try telling me supposed things about how the bible has science incorporated and blablabla. Nevertheless it was enjoyable for me to politely show them how the connections they were making were not logical and dependent on extreme subjectivity ignorant of context(though I admit I wasnt anywhere near this eloquent in ordinary conversation) On wikipedia it says that Frank Tipler's line of argument is based on technological progression on an exponential scale, with the propogation nanomachines throughout the universe and the amalgamation of a "super intelligence" called Omega point which is akin to "God". This is followed by a ressurection whereby this AI recreates or simulates everyhting that came before it. I think this coincides somehow with a singularity that is basically the Big crunch of the Universe tha he relies on as an assumption in his socalled theory. Interesting how wishful conjecture equates to proof:rolleyes: . Not sure even if it is possible, what an all encompassing AI would share with the christian vision of God anyway. Also Bascule, I remember you speaking of something similiar a little while back about an intelligent AI gaining the capacity to simulate the Universe, to "become God" in some sense. Do note that I am not accusing you of making the same claims as the person in the video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/biography.htm thought you guys would find this interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted May 7, 2007 Author Share Posted May 7, 2007 His CV certainly doesn't look like that of a crackpot. If anything he's making the Thomas Aquinas mistake: a non sequitur in terms of how he goes from singularity => God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 Oh dear Lord. err, wait a minute... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avooc Posted January 18, 2010 Share Posted January 18, 2010 If he didnt exist then what would have caused the big bang? Or what would have caused what caused the big bang? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 18, 2010 Share Posted January 18, 2010 Who caused God? Same question. However, let's please not get into a religious discussion here. They never end well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liarliarpof Posted January 18, 2010 Share Posted January 18, 2010 A bit of pretzel logic: Consider the so-called 'God Particle'. This re-dubbing of the Higgs is usually attributed to Leon Lederman. The fact is, by the words of Peter Higgs himself, Lederman actually referred to Higgs' elusive construct as, "That Goddamned Particle!". If the Higgs is damned, at least Lederman believes that God did it and, by implication, must therefore exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nec209 Posted January 19, 2010 Share Posted January 19, 2010 A forumla means nothing. One can make a forumla for anti-gravity space ship or plasma gun but if you cannot test it and built it for the mass and have a working prototype that means nothing. There is enough goof balls on the national graphics channel and discovery who claim they can make anti-gravity and when science team comes it does not work. Now what to I make of the UFO's and ghost on national graphics channel and discovery that claim it is true or the mass of people that are not scientist that believe it, I watched a program on the national graphics channel of a bridge being built and had some problems and the construction workers would not work has they thought there was some evile do to the bad luck .Or the life in the ER on TLC and person came in with a medical problem do to voodo and going crazy in the ER. What about Ripleys believe it or not !!! Or Guinness world records :eek: Ya claims of one being under-water for a long time or days and days with out food or water Or walking on stones or hot fire or pushing a big tuck so on. There is 2 things one is called science and the other called unexplained mysteries . boy Meditating without drinking and eating for morethan 10 month (4/5) Part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X0gums7Vz4 Note there is different parts to the video ( so I'm not going to post the URL for every part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crownedconquern Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=47944 Maybe now science and religion can understand eachother instead of fighting with eachother.:doh:Like God and satan fighting for ones soul.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkpassenger Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 I am a Pastafarian too. "Quantum Mecλanics + General Relativity =>" Flying Spaghetti Monster see it works for many higher beings sorry i used your quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 I sure hope someone didn't actually take the "God particle" as seriously having anything to do with God? That's the only place where you get QM, gravity, and "God" in the same place. Or, maybe the guy is making a big joke and no one got it? Who caused God? That doesn't make sense. Looks to me like you're doing a case of special pleading there, claiming that God needs a cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 That doesn't make sense. Looks to me like you're doing a case of special pleading there, claiming that God needs a cause. If God doesn't need a cause, why should the Universe in general? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 If God doesn't need a cause, why should the Universe in general? It, doesn't, in general. But some theories do say it needs a cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted January 24, 2010 Author Share Posted January 24, 2010 But some theories do say it needs a cause. Which ones? Why can't the universe originate from an infinite regression? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerxd45 Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 i like this part the best "i think science and Christianity have always been intertwined" does he mean the execution of scientists and astronomers(or anyone else for that matter) for disagreeing with the church as "intertwined"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 Which ones? Why can't the universe originate from an infinite regression? The static universe of olden times did not need a cause, as it was supposed to have been that way forever. The Big Bang theory, for example, does need a cause, since it describes an event, a start, a universe that was not before and is now. But it does not give a cause for it. Cyclic models of the universe, eg one that cycles between a Big Bang and a Big Crunch, don't need a cause since despite not being static they also always existed. You can also look at it as an infinite regression of different universes where each universe causes the next if you like. Another thing that does not need a cause is numbers, because they also have always existed. So, the people who claim that God needs a cause are doing special pleading, since they make an exception to the rule that things that have been forever do not need a cause (eg numbers). Or perhaps a mistake where they take the rule "every event must have a cuase" to mean "everything must have a cause" but then apply it to God but not to numbers. Obviously, some gods had a start, but this always had a cause, usually being born from other gods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted January 25, 2010 Author Share Posted January 25, 2010 The static universe of olden times did not need a cause, as it was supposed to have been that way forever. The Big Bang theory, for example, does need a cause, since it describes an event, a start, a universe that was not before and is now. But it does not give a cause for it. One explanation is the Big Bang was caused by events before the Big Bang. Those events were caused by earlier events. This process can go on ad infinitum as an infinite causal regression. While this is not intuitive, it is a possibility. There is no need for a first cause any more than a line in geometry needs a "beginning". A line can go on forever. Cyclic models of the universe, eg one that cycles between a Big Bang and a Big Crunch, don't need a cause since despite not being static they also always existed. You can also look at it as an infinite regression of different universes where each universe causes the next if you like. I'm not sure how you can have an infinitely large cycle. Perhaps that's a question for the Mathematics forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 In any case the big bang theory does not cover how the universe was created but rather explains what happened when the universe was particularly dense and hot. As far as I know, there's no reason the same Big Bang theory couldn't apply to a universe that existed infinitely before the Bang, and somehow ended up in an infinitely dense state. (Obesity epidemic, probably.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) One explanation is the Big Bang was caused by events before the Big Bang. Those events were caused by earlier events. This process can go on ad infinitum as an infinite causal regression. While this is not intuitive, it is a possibility. There is no need for a first cause any more than a line in geometry needs a "beginning". A line can go on forever. Nonetheless, this means the question "what caused the Big Bang" is indeed valid, since it must have a cause and the cause is not known. While saying that it was caused by unknown earlier events does satisfy the law of cause and effect, it really is hardly different than saying "god did it". I don't believe in a First Cause, and prefer an infinite regression. I'm not convinced a First Cause is even possible. I'm not sure how you can have an infinitely large cycle. Perhaps that's a question for the Mathematics forum. Infinitely many cycles, not one infinitely large one. Like a frictionless harmonic oscillator. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIn any case the big bang theory does not cover how the universe was created but rather explains what happened when the universe was particularly dense and hot. As far as I know, there's no reason the same Big Bang theory couldn't apply to a universe that existed infinitely before the Bang, and somehow ended up in an infinitely dense state. (Obesity epidemic, probably.) Even so, one would need something to trigger the "obesity epidemic", or explain how it could occur after infinitely long period of time. Both fall into the category of "what caused the Big Bang". Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI think I shall start a thread for this topic. Edited January 25, 2010 by Mr Skeptic Consecutive posts merged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts