- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: James webb tele proving big bang theory probably is inaccurate
Posted on 9/8/22 at 10:33 pm to hubertcumberdale
Posted on 9/8/22 at 10:33 pm to hubertcumberdale
quote:
Ok in your magical fairy tale land i guess the laws of physics dont apply to some supernatural entity
You believe in a description (not an explanation; it never has been) of events that is supernatural by definition. And the only reason you believe it is because other people told you it was true.
And can you guys get some original descriptions? Magic, fairyland, invisible sky daddy; have some pride. Get a thesaurus or something.
1
Posted on 9/8/22 at 10:35 pm to Tigers2010a
Sure, that is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that some hypothetical creator living outside of space time would not be able to create an observer effect, and thus the double slit experiment is a shite way to imply that a creator exists
Take the L Volcanic Tiger
quote:
In physics, the observer effect is the disturbance of an observed system by the act of observation.[1][2] This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A common example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. Similarly, seeing non-luminous objects requires light hitting the object, and causing it to reflect that light. While the effects of observation are often negligible, the object still experiences a change. This effect can be found in many domains of physics, but can usually be reduced to insignificance by using different instruments or observation techniques.
A notable example of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that observation of quantum phenomena can change the measured results of this experiment. Despite the "observer effect" in the double-slit experiment being caused by the presence of an electronic detector, the experiment's results have been misinterpreted by some to suggest that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[3] The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function and the quantum measurement process.[4][5][6]
Take the L Volcanic Tiger
This post was edited on 9/8/22 at 10:41 pm
Posted on 9/8/22 at 10:37 pm to Flats
quote:
You believe in a description (not an explanation; it never has been) of events that is supernatural by definition. And the only reason you believe it is because other people told you it was true.
And can you guys get some original descriptions? Magic, fairyland, invisible sky daddy; have some pride. Get a thesaurus or something.
We can actually observe nature and make these assumptions/predictions/calculations based on measurements. I will take that over some story people have been telling each other for thousands of years, but dont meant to denounce religion, i think it is overall a positive for society and causes less chaos among people
Posted on 9/8/22 at 10:42 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Unless you’re one of the literal/textualist creationists that thinks everything was created in six days
Perhaps THE biggest misunderstanding of the creation story as told in Genesis is that everything was created in six days.
The reason people believe this is because they misunderstand what happened on the 7th day.
Genesis tells us God rested. RESTED. He didn't stop. He rested. That means he paused.
After His rest He created some more and continues creating to this day and will continue forever.
He used a burning bush to get Moses' attention. Why would we think He wouldn't use a Big Bang or evolution in His creation?
Posted on 9/8/22 at 10:43 pm to prattalumni
quote:
yeah cuz without that precious big bang, we might have to give credit to a creator.
You don’t think God works through physical, chemical, and biological processes?
Posted on 9/8/22 at 10:44 pm to hubertcumberdale
With due respect for Science, hc, there can be no Philosophical-based 'Scientific Proof' that Energy is Conscious (though it reacts accordingly) because that would pollute the 'Spirituality' Paradigm as God/Whole vs Self/Evil. I hate to use the 'evil' word, but given the fact that any 'limitation' = imperfection = trouble...then it applies.
If indeed Energy is The Basis for Consciousness, then Science and Spirituality (Subjective Perception) become potential and divergent polar paradigms. I.e., of the which you discuss in your point re Quantum Physics and the affect that 'Observation' (Subjective Perception) has on Perceived/Empirical Reality.
It may well be that our own chosen Subjectivity ultimately determines our Reality. If that is so, I'm good with that. For those who choose to worship Self as THE supreme value, such moves them away from Love ("God IS Love"). And for those who choose to worship (value, cultivate and serve) Love and at the expense of Self, then they "reap therein".
I personally do not care which of the TWO Perceptive Paradigms individuals choose as their First Value. But I do like loving friends as fishing and football buds.
Good luck.
If indeed Energy is The Basis for Consciousness, then Science and Spirituality (Subjective Perception) become potential and divergent polar paradigms. I.e., of the which you discuss in your point re Quantum Physics and the affect that 'Observation' (Subjective Perception) has on Perceived/Empirical Reality.
It may well be that our own chosen Subjectivity ultimately determines our Reality. If that is so, I'm good with that. For those who choose to worship Self as THE supreme value, such moves them away from Love ("God IS Love"). And for those who choose to worship (value, cultivate and serve) Love and at the expense of Self, then they "reap therein".
I personally do not care which of the TWO Perceptive Paradigms individuals choose as their First Value. But I do like loving friends as fishing and football buds.
Good luck.
Posted on 9/8/22 at 10:48 pm to hubertcumberdale
quote:
Sure, that is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that some hypothetical creator living outside of space time would not be able to create an observer effect, and thus the double slit experiment is a shite way to imply that a creator exists
If you assume only the creator exists, he must create using the only material/energy available which is itself.
Thus everything created must have been created from itself, the creator/God.
Thus the creator would compose everything that exists and simultaneously the creator would also serve as an observer located everywhere within our universe.
Bear in mind our universe emerges from the universe of the creator. Consciousness is the fundamental basis of existence and the material emerges from the immaterial.
Who knows but certainly the logic is logical.
Posted on 9/8/22 at 10:49 pm to burke985
quote:
You tube link, 12 min watch funny the telescope they built to prove it is actually refuting it with it's discoveries.
Thriw an accent on a video and people will believe it.
Posted on 9/8/22 at 10:50 pm to hubertcumberdale
quote:
We can actually observe nature and make these assumptions/predictions/calculations based on measurements.
Nature follows logical, structured, organized laws because the creator is logical, structured and organized.
Posted on 9/8/22 at 10:50 pm to hubertcumberdale
You are so out of your depth here, it is hilarious. Quoting wiki?
"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory." - Werner Heisenberg
You still have not answered my question pertaining to your inane post; how can a hypothetical creator be bound by the laws of thermodynamics if he by definition MUST exist outside of space and time?
You have already taken the L, but are too obtuse to go away.
"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory." - Werner Heisenberg
You still have not answered my question pertaining to your inane post; how can a hypothetical creator be bound by the laws of thermodynamics if he by definition MUST exist outside of space and time?
You have already taken the L, but are too obtuse to go away.
Posted on 9/8/22 at 10:51 pm to NashvilleTider
quote:
Simulation theory is basically atheists saying there is a God (intelligent design) without saying it.
Simulation theory doesn't involve the idea of a metaphysical being...
Posted on 9/8/22 at 10:51 pm to hubertcumberdale
quote:
We can actually observe nature and make these assumptions/predictions/calculations based on measurements
Odds are that you haven’t done so; you believe it because other people told you it was true.
And a lot of people have seen and experienced things that lead them to their beliefs. The arrogance of telling someone that YOU know why they believe what they do is hankish.
Posted on 9/8/22 at 10:59 pm to hubertcumberdale
quote:
but dont meant to denounce religion
You've pretty much done so throughout this thread.
Posted on 9/8/22 at 10:59 pm to hubertcumberdale
quote:
Sure, that is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that some hypothetical creator living outside of space time would not be able to create an observer effect, and thus the double slit experiment is a shite way to imply that a creator exists
quote:
In physics, the observer effect is the disturbance of an observed system by the act of observation.[1][2] This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A common example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. Similarly, seeing non-luminous objects requires light hitting the object, and causing it to reflect that light. While the effects of observation are often negligible, the object still experiences a change. This effect can be found in many domains of physics, but can usually be reduced to insignificance by using different instruments or observation techniques.
A notable example of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that observation of quantum phenomena can change the measured results of this experiment. Despite the "observer effect" in the double-slit experiment being caused by the presence of an electronic detector, the experiment's results have been misinterpreted by some to suggest that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[3] The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function and the quantum measurement process.[4][5][6]
Take the L Volcanic Tiger
I wish you had the requisite intelligence to appreciate the magnitude of your stupidity.
First of all, that's a horribly bad opinion with zero knowledge of the experiment from Wiki, which can be edited by anyone. Second, the three cited opinions - 1. by Heisenberg, he doesn't refute anything I said. 2. Over 40 years ago, sounds more like a nerd's taunting (because it was) and skirts the relevant issues. 3. Is more talk from the nerd and a quote from a guy whose logic is "It doesn't happen because it doesn't happen."
Keep posting, I'll keep whooping that arse.
Posted on 9/8/22 at 11:01 pm to Powerman
quote:Who said God was metaphysical?
Simulation theory doesn't involve the idea of a metaphysical being...
Posted on 9/8/22 at 11:02 pm to prattalumni
quote:
yeah cuz without that precious big bang, we might have to give credit to a creator.
That is presuming the world of scientists all agree it's either God or the big bang, and that there could be no such thing as a third option.... (or an outrageous sum of other possibilities)
The age of religion being against science or vice versa is over. Science and those who study it don't care if there is a God or not. It's irrelevant. It's the study of observations thru the tools we have. Religion supposes a God created the universe. Science is included among the things he created.
They're not at odds.
This post was edited on 9/8/22 at 11:04 pm
Posted on 9/8/22 at 11:04 pm to prattalumni
reasons.org (Reasons to Believe)
this is an organization of highly credentialed & published PHDs Scientists physicists, etc. who tie the biblical record accounts to current science. I have read several of their books. The web site is an excellent resource on scientific creation & intelligent design.
this is an organization of highly credentialed & published PHDs Scientists physicists, etc. who tie the biblical record accounts to current science. I have read several of their books. The web site is an excellent resource on scientific creation & intelligent design.
This post was edited on 9/8/22 at 11:06 pm
Posted on 9/8/22 at 11:17 pm to prattalumni
If God created the Universe, and spoke it into existence...what would that look like to human eyes?
Probably a lot of nothing, followed by a big....BANG! suddenly there's stuff everywhere.
I don't see the perception of a Big Bang theory as incompatible with creation stories. If anything, they support the general idea of sudden incarnation where previously there existed nothingness.
Probably a lot of nothing, followed by a big....BANG! suddenly there's stuff everywhere.
I don't see the perception of a Big Bang theory as incompatible with creation stories. If anything, they support the general idea of sudden incarnation where previously there existed nothingness.
Posted on 9/8/22 at 11:19 pm to burke985
Nobody has a clue what actually happened. Any theory is just as good as the next. Its all just made up
Posted on 9/8/22 at 11:21 pm to Numberwang
Yeah I've long wondered why people act like you can't believe in the bible and the big bang. Whos to say God didn't create the world through the big bang
Page 7 of 9
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News