dopetalk does not endorse any advertised product nor does it accept any liability for it's use or misuse

This website has run out of funding so feel free to contribute if you can afford it (see footer)

Author Topic: Scinece closer to religion than to atheism?  (Read 3293 times)

Offline DiCaprio (OP)

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Apr 2016
  • Location:
  • Posts: 108
  • Reputation Power: 3
  • DiCaprio is new on the scene.
  • Last Login:August 17, 2016, 08:49:43 PM
  • Reduce Harm, Connect and Educate !
Scinece closer to religion than to atheism?
« on: August 11, 2016, 08:56:17 PM »
If it takes energy to create matter, and the first law of thermodynacis states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, would that not point to an everlasting energy that neither has an end nor a beginning?

When 10,000 of the brightest of our species got togather to create the Hadron Cllider, a particle accelerator, it took energy worth hundreds of billions of dollars to create matter representative of a grain of sand to the negative 19th power. To create the smallest of beaches, it would take energy that is truly unfamothable to the human mind. Now, can you imagine creating an earth? Creating a solar system? Creating an infinite universe? Although I dont believe that having no aswer is an answer , I cannot help but agree that after an inquiry into some of the more popular theories, it would not be so ludacris to think there is a form of God.

Offline Chip

  • Server Admin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2014
  • Location: Australia
  • Posts: 6493
  • Reputation Power: 0
  • Chip has hidden their reputation power
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 05:37:04 PM
  • Deeply Confused Learner
  • Profession: IT Engineer
Re: Scinece closer to religion than to atheism?
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2016, 09:56:34 PM »
As an atheist, I just assume it was always there, no God involved, just because the concept of nothingness doesn't sit right for me.

The obvious question about any possible God is the same argument - who made God ?

Energy was always there.

But what do I know ? It's only mere conjecture.
I do not condone or support any illegal activities. All information is for theoretical discussion and wonder.
All activities discussed are considered fictional and hypothetical. Information of all discussion has been derived from online research and in the spirit of personal Freedom.

Offline Esoteric Anhydride

  • I <3 Mods
  • Tech
  • Full Member
  • *
  • SA_Chat+
  • **
  • Join Date: May 2015
  • Location:
  • Posts: 486
  • Reputation Power: 0
  • Esoteric Anhydride has hidden their reputation power
  • Last Login:October 14, 2019, 06:26:54 AM
Re: Scinece closer to religion than to atheism?
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2016, 10:12:36 PM »
Energy was always there.

Word. Not created or destroyed, simply changed.

This is about the extent of my theological belief, that energy is recycled, that it merely changes with death of tissue -- moves on to become another form, and that we remain otherwise only as information passed on via genetics; which is no platitude coming from me, as I agree with Sasha Shulgin that *knowledge* itself is passed on through DNA.

Offline DeadCat

  • Deceased
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Jul 2015
  • Location:
  • Posts: 704
  • Reputation Power: 41
  • DeadCat is now getting very popular.DeadCat is now getting very popular.DeadCat is now getting very popular.DeadCat is now getting very popular.
  • Last Login:June 07, 2017, 04:01:37 PM
  • Welcome to our community forum ...
Re: Scinece closer to religion than to atheism?
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2016, 02:42:49 AM »
Word. Not created or destroyed, simply changed.

This is about the extent of my theological belief, that energy is recycled, that it merely changes with death of tissue -- moves on to become another form, and that we remain otherwise only as information passed on via genetics; which is no platitude coming from me, as I agree with Sasha Shulgin that *knowledge* itself is passed on through DNA.

I agree with this general point of view. And, althought I can't cite sources right now I have read that there is evidence to prove some sort of memory and learning is passed along in DNA.

As far as gods and afterlife things are concerned, I think that because as individuals we just can't conceive of not existing as more than part of the random energy of everything because we have only had existence as a point  of view just makes it extremely dificult to concieve of ourselves as something different.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what we think the truth is because it is whatever it is regardless of what we think it may be.

Offline Griffin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Aug 2015
  • Location:
  • Posts: 948
  • Reputation Power: 34
  • Griffin is working their way up.Griffin is working their way up.Griffin is working their way up.
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:February 29, 2020, 09:21:12 PM
  • Welcome to our community forum ...
Re: Scinece closer to religion than to atheism?
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2016, 09:18:55 AM »
I'm with the past few posts in that I believe that it was always there, and it's just as easy for me to assume that if there was always a god then there was always whatever was there that created the earth or big bang or what have you. I guess you could call it the who created god theory either way I try not to delve to deep because unanswerable questions usually give me a headache. I spent from 18-21 trying to figure out why people do the things they do, because society pissed me off and it took 3 years of thinking to figure it out and come to peace with it.

 I myself believe in something other worldly like a god that we can't comprehend but it has no bearings in any of the religious mumbo jumbo that I have learned about thus far in life. I do like the idea of religion but it seems to have been used for more bad then good and that makes me opposed to it, people are so good at using good things to commit evil that it makes religion annoying. However a lot of good has come from religion, it's almost surprising to me how many people won't do something because the big man upstairs is watching so that form of control works and can be useful in some instances.

I like the thread I am curious as to what others thoughts are on all of it, obviously not many answers arise from discussion and can be turned argumentative quickly but it's interesting none the less.

Offline adamn1t

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Nov 2015
  • Location: Kansas
  • Posts: 87
  • Reputation Power: 4
  • adamn1t is new on the scene.
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:October 02, 2019, 09:31:16 AM
  • Fuck it
Re: Scinece closer to religion than to atheism?
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2016, 05:03:11 PM »
Read a great quote the other day i think applies here. Took me forever to find it again.  “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you” - Werner Heisenberg

Offline Esoteric Anhydride

  • I <3 Mods
  • Tech
  • Full Member
  • *
  • SA_Chat+
  • **
  • Join Date: May 2015
  • Location:
  • Posts: 486
  • Reputation Power: 0
  • Esoteric Anhydride has hidden their reputation power
  • Last Login:October 14, 2019, 06:26:54 AM
Re: Scinece closer to religion than to atheism?
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2016, 05:06:26 PM »
Read a great quote the other day i think applies here. Took me forever to find it again.  “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you” - Werner Heisenberg

Remind me not to drink the science, but to simply study it (cos cranky old dead guy).
--chopstix

Offline nick

  • Founder
  • Founders
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2014
  • Location:
  • Posts: 732
  • Reputation Power: 0
  • nick has hidden their reputation power
  • Last Login:July 22, 2019, 05:49:59 AM
Re: Scinece closer to religion than to atheism?
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2016, 06:37:47 PM »
If there's a god........they better have a good explanation when I catch up with them.

Offline Lolleedee

  • La Dee Da Dee Da!
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • SA_Chat+
  • **
  • Join Date: May 2015
  • Location: New Joisey
  • Posts: 307
  • Reputation Power: 21
  • Lolleedee is now quite familiar.Lolleedee is now quite familiar.
  • Gender: Female
  • Last Login:May 04, 2021, 04:52:15 PM
Re: Scinece closer to religion than to atheism?
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2016, 09:11:35 PM »
I'm agree with most of what was said...energy has always been..forever changing but forever in existence.  I think we question "the beginning" because as humans we have a very limited way of thinking and measuring time.  Maybe there really is never a beginiing to begin with......ok...I'm with Griffin...getting a headache!
...Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons, For you are crunchy and good with ketchup...

Offline Jega

  • My height is 3.7m to the 10th power the average radius of a hydrogen atom
  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • SA_Chat+
  • **
  • Join Date: Aug 2015
  • Location: At the interface of my keyboard
  • Posts: 1195
  • Reputation Power: 30
  • Jega is working their way up.Jega is working their way up.Jega is working their way up.
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:June 21, 2018, 03:41:56 AM
  • Screwed if I ever wake up in Vegas
Re: Scinece closer to religion than to atheism?
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2016, 04:50:34 AM »
Since this post started with this sentence let's bring it back to that.

If it takes energy to create matter, and the first law of thermodynacis states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, would that not point to an everlasting energy that neither has an end nor a beginning?

This only accounts for what we call ordinary energy and excludes Negative Energy, the exact opposite of ordinary energy. We'll get to that in a seccond.

Using the Hadron Collider as your example was a poor example (honestly no offence.) CERN studies things on the quantum scale. It doesn't really measure matter in the way we commonly think of it. It measures mostly wave functions which we attribute to particles.

The fundamental difference that leads to different and interesting phenomenon in quantum statistics is that particles in quantum mechanical system are indistinguishable. Meaning if you swap two particles the Hamiltonian of the system doesn't change. Which yields the wave function describing the system that has to be either symmetric or antisymmetric under interchanging particles.

If the wave function is symmetric we call the system "Bose Gas" and if it's antisymmetric we call it's a "Fermi Gas". In Bose gas two or more particles can occupy same state, While in Fermi gas each state is either empty or occupied by one particle. This leads to so different behaviour between Bose gas and Fermi gas. For example electrons in solids can be thought of as Fermi gas and Photons as Bose gas.

The quantum mechanical are so different with what you expect from classical thermodynamics but in the high temperature limit one can show that both Fermi and Bose gases approach to classical statistics and you get the same classical thermodynamic. [Enough Quantum Mechanics]

I'll give you something in Cosmology to think about. Black holes intake matter and shoot out incredibly powerful streams of "information". We don't know what that quote information is yet other then it's a form of radiation. That's even more confusing because all forms of radiation that we have discovered have either been from high energy molecules (alpha particles), single particles (protons, neutrons, neutrinos) or photons. We're not sure what's coming out of the singularity honestly but somethings coming out and it has a heck of a lot of energy beneath it.

We've discovered something we have called White Holes since astronomers are so good at naming things. The data on them is extremely limited but if they are breaking the fabric of spacetime (it's not impossible, black holes do it) and pushing that negative energy into a new universe that would explain the cosmological constant that we can't explain that's responsible for the expansion rate of the universe. And remember a new universe doesn't have to obey our laws of physics. There could be universes were there is more antimatter.

Just food for thought.

So, referring to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, must entropy always increase? I'd say yes.

The more I study science the more I believe in God -Albert Einstein

Tags:
 


dopetalk does not endorse any advertised product nor does it accept any liability for it's use or misuse





TERMS AND CONDITIONS

In no event will d&u or any person involved in creating, producing, or distributing site information be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, punitive, special or consequential damages arising out of the use of or inability to use d&u. You agree to indemnify and hold harmless d&u, its domain founders, sponsors, maintainers, server administrators, volunteers and contributors from and against all liability, claims, damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from the use of any part of the d&u site.


TO USE THIS WEBSITE YOU MUST AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ABOVE


Founded December 2014
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal