Faith and Reason.

[Shinryusan]

The whole thing. The universe you just described there is according to classical physics, the stuff Newton came up with in the late 1600s (I think). With the advent of quantum mechanics we've found that, under the exact same conditions, two things will not neccessarily do the same things twice. At the quantum level, which is essentially anything below the radius of an atom, literally nothing can be predicted with any certainty, ever.

Discalimer: My background is biology, in physics I'm only an interested layperson so one of the accredited physicists will undoubtedly correct some of the finer points.

[Seraph]

The whole thing. The universe you just described there is according to classical physics, the stuff Newton came up with in the late 1600s (I think). With the advent of quantum mechanics we've found that, under the exact same conditions, two things will not neccessarily do the same things twice. At the quantum level, which is essentially anything below the radius of an atom, literally nothing can be predicted with any certainty, ever.

Discalimer: My background is biology, in physics I'm only an interested layperson so one of the accredited physicists will undoubtedly correct some of the finer points.

The problem with your example is there is never an instance where the exact same thing happens twice, even in the most controlled scientific experiments. By the very virtue that the universe is not static, the exact same thing can never happen twice unless the entire universe is some sort of cosmic resetting loop.

Don't let the dialog of quantum physics fool you. Humanity didn't discover magic forces, it just discovered that it had less of a grasp on modeling the matter/energy relationship than it thought. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

Edit: If you are truly suggesting that two identical events can occur with different outcomes, you have essentially proven the existence of god. Unfortunately, this is an impossible test to try to actually implement.

[Shinryusan]

Listen, Seraph, from your posts I can see you're a nice guy. You have good intentions, bring up some nice ideas, and generally try not to be a douche, which I can respect. But you're sorely misinformed when it comes to basic physics. I clearly stated that, under the same circumstances, the same thing will not neccessarily occur. Sure, it can, but it's not dependent upon the prior state of affairs. This really isn't up for debate, this theorem is grounded very solidly in decades of repeated and stringent studies.

Edit: Sorry, I can see that came off a bit harsh. I apologize, long day, etc., I shouldn't take it out on you. But I really suggest you look this stuff up on your own time, or ask one of the more informed posters.

[Seraph]

Listen, Seraph, from your posts I can see you're a nice guy. You have good intentions, bring up some nice ideas, and generally try not to be a douche, which I can respect. But you're sorely misinformed when it comes to basic physics. I clearly stated that, under the same circumstances, the same thing will not neccessarily occur. Sure, it can, but it's not dependent upon the prior state of affairs. This really isn't up for debate, this theorem is grounded very solidly in decades of repeated and stringent studies.

I already addressed this. You can never recreate the same circumstances twice. The easiest example is that the universe is constantly expanding and moving. The universal gravitational forces on your experiment will be different each time you perform it.

I'm suggesting your theorem, for what you are trying to prove, is very flawed.

[Shinryusan]

Well, I tried. Sorry you know better than every other educated person alive today.

[Kaylia]

Yes, actually it can. Personally working on it for 40 hours a week, I would say you are full of shit. Dont misrepresent the same tired math theorems that you posted last time.

No, you're the one who is full of shit. You will need a certain amount of postulates to make your model works. A postulate is something you assume to be true. It's by no mean an absolute truth in our universe.


What you are working on is a model that predict accurately every phenomenon "we" can observe, not a "theory of everything". Pretty sad I've to explain this to you....you must be a terrible theoretical physicist if you don't know this much.

[Kaylia]

The irony is delicious when you say religious people are close minded, yet, you're willing to swear your model explain everything. Your statement pretty much goes against sciences itself.

Well, won't be the first time I detect hypocrisis in your posts.

[Neosutra]

Get the fuck out of here with the same tired played out postulates crap you tried in the last thread. You got your ass handed to you there, you will get your ass handed to you here. No one is buying your pathetic misrepresentation of some basic postulates as a far reaching statement that the Grand Unified Theorem is impossible. You have NO idea what you are talking about.

The grand unified theorem doesnt attempt to explain -everything-, it simply links our current models and corrects the gaps we have in our current equations of motion. Thus it has NOTHING to do with anything you just said. Surely you arent so dense as to believe we are talking about an all emcompassing equation that dictates every factor of reality. Stop going off on unrelated tangents to try and confuse the people not educated enough to realize how completely bullshit everything you just said was.

[Demosthenes11]

small question I'm not asking badgeringly:

if what you are saying is true, neo, that god has been disproven, why is the first time the majority of us have heard this remarkable breakthrough on bg?

[Alarial]

Because you havent been listening?

[Alleya]

small question I'm not asking badgeringly:

if what you are saying is true, neo, that god has been disproven, why is the first time the majority of us have heard this remarkable breakthrough on bg?

You can't ever disprove anything. The point is that the probability God exists is so tiny that it doesn't even matter.

[Demosthenes11]

You can't ever disprove anything. The point is that the probability God exists is so tiny that it doesn't even matter.

that is the foundation of faith. I don't know why that's hard to understand. There is a chance and they believe in this chance. Arguing probability either way is just stupid

[Jones]

You don't have to believe that everything God does is good to believe in God. Not everything bad is a test, in my opinion, sometimes that is just the consequence of sin in the fallen world.

A statement that one can't find ultimate truth in life is in fact a statement of ultimate truth. No matter what you believe, you are taking a leap of faith. A risk. Your leap and my leap end in different places and so be it.

This thread is pointless to me as if you already have your mind made up, why bother? Unless you are becoming the door knocking Atheist trying to spread your gospel...over the internet.

[Alarial]

You assess probability in everything you do Demo, you just dont think of it that way. You assess that you will probably attain nutrients from the food you eat because you have the knowledge of what is in that food and what your body needs. You assess that your chair will "probably" hold you up because you understand the laws of newtonian physics and understand that the upward force will provide you support. Dismissing things that are very low in probability (i.e. zero) is just like saying that it is "probably wrong".

Until some peer reviewed, reproducible evidence comes around, the theory of "god" is "probably" wrong.

edit: Jones -> You are still preaching the "everything from god is good, unless its a test... and if it isnt a test, its someone our own fault and from sin". And just because your argument is extremely weak, doesnt mean you have to play the "you guys just wont change your mind" card. Atheists would be happy to convert to theism if there was one shred of evidence provided in support of the cause. You however, wouldnt change from your beliefs no matter what information you recieved. Which of us is closed minded?

[Demosthenes11]

You assess probability in everything you do Demo, you just dont think of it that way. You assess that you will probably attain nutrients from the food you eat because you have the knowledge of what is in that food and what your body needs. You assess that your chair will "probably" hold you up because you understand the laws of newtonian physics and understand that the upward force will provide you support. Dismissing things that are very low in probability (i.e. zero) is just like saying that it is "probably wrong".

Until some peer reviewed, reproducible evidence comes around, the theory of "god" is "probably" wrong.

and it very well could be completely wrong. But because it is not factually wrong, anything you say is irrelevant. There are a million close-to-no chances that happen every day; that is, extremely low probability events that occur constantly. People that have faith in that extremely low probability are allowed to have their faith. You can call them retarded all you want but you will never be able to say 100% that they are wrong. Faith is believing

[Kaylia]

You can't ever disprove anything. The point is that the probability God exists is so tiny that it doesn't even matter.

Probability is undetermined. That's all you can say.

Get the fuck out of here with the same tired played out postulates crap you tried in the last thread. You got your ass handed to you there, you will get your ass handed to you here. No one is buying your pathetic misrepresentation of some basic postulates as a far reaching statement that the Grand Unified Theorem is impossible. You have NO idea what you are talking about.

The grand unified theorem doesnt attempt to explain -everything-, it simply links our current models and corrects the gaps we have in our current equations of motion. Thus it has NOTHING to do with anything you just said. Surely you arent so dense as to believe we are talking about an all emcompassing equation that dictates every factor of reality. Stop going off on unrelated tangents to try and confuse the people not educated enough to realize how completely bullshit everything you just said was.

Loladhominem.

Every time I bring this topic up, you dodge the question. I would like you to hold that speech in front of physicist or other people who have contributed to sciences. I'm certain most would side with me on this. Saying you don't need postulate is retarded. About as retarded as saying your model is complete and explain everything, when you haven't seen everything.

[Khalil]

Ohh god, this shitfest again. Believe if you want in God, Jesus, or whatever and don't believe in a higher power if you don't want to. I don't see the need to create this thread and somewhat argue about this. You're just setting traps for people to argue. I'm a muslim and happy. You're an atheist and happy, Neo, so stfu about it and go on with your life.

[Neosutra]

and it very well could be completely wrong. But because it is not factually wrong, anything you say is irrelevant. There are a million close-to-no chances that happen every day; that is, extremely low probability events that occur constantly. People that have faith in that extremely low probability are allowed to have their faith. You can call them retarded all you want but you will never be able to say 100% that they are wrong. Faith is believing

Nothing is 100%, Nothing. That doesnt mean we cant dismiss things which hold such low probability. We wouldnt get anything done if we held every possible theorem ever put forth as if they were all reasonable. We have to use what has facts/evidence, and dismiss the rest until some form of evidence comes around.

And @ Kaylia: Your postulate only deals with theorems that would suggest a complete answer for all questions. The GUT does no such thing, and thus is irrelevant to whatever you were trying to put forth. I can only sumise that you either have no idea about any of the work done on the grand unified theory, or just have a very bad comprehension of the degree you are working on. May I suggest you swap to social science, or something not so difficult, and save us all the time of your misinterpretations.

@ Kahlil: Dont post in topics you dont care to read. Some people enjoy debating religion, hearing other points of view, and working to see what people really have to say. If you dont, hit the back button.

[Demosthenes11]

Nothing is 100%, Nothing. That doesnt mean we cant dismiss things which hold such low probability. We wouldnt get anything done if we held every possible theorem ever put forth as if they were all reasonable. We have to use what has facts/evidence, and dismiss the rest until some form of evidence comes around.

in what ways are the low probabilities measured? They obviously can't be quantified, so why are some ignored and others not? It is not your place to say their belief is stupid if the probability exists in a manner where it cannot be measured. What is an ignorable quantity to one is a huge quantity to another. Your believe is the quantity should be ignored.

[Kaylia]

The grand unified theorem doesnt attempt to explain -everything-, it simply links our current models and corrects the gaps we have in our current equations of motion. Thus it has NOTHING to do with anything you just said. Surely you arent so dense as to believe we are talking about an all emcompassing equation that dictates every factor of reality. Stop going off on unrelated tangents to try and confuse the people not educated enough to realize how completely bullshit everything you just said was.

And I know what the Grand unified theory is, thank you very much. I'm talking about the statement that you're working on a theory that can possibly solve everything. Hence why the "theory of everything". No, I'm not refering to this, I'm just reusing the name because I love the pretentious tone to it.

And @ Kaylia: Your postulate only deals with theorems that would suggest a complete answer for all questions. The GUT does no such thing, and thus is irrelevant to whatever you were trying to put forth. I can only sumise that you either have no idea about any of the work done on the grand unified theory, or just have a very bad comprehension of the degree you are working on. May I suggest you swap to social science, or something not so difficult, and save us all the time of your misinterpretations.

Kaylia: "Theory of everything can't happen."

Neosutra: "Yes, actually it can. Personally working on it for 40 hours a week, I would say you are full of shit"

Neosutra: "The grand unified theorem doesnt attempt to explain -everything-, it simply links our current models and corrects the gaps we have in our current equations of motion. Thus it has NOTHING to do with anything you just said."


Wut? No, but seriously, explain your point. I'm saying not everything about the universe can be known. You tell me it's not true, but follow with a contradicting statement.