God?

[Kizyr]

Article IX of the Tennessee State Constitution forbids members of the clergy, people who don't "believe in a future state of rewards and punishments", and (my personal favourite) duelists from serving in a public office.

The last part is amusing since the most famous government official to come out of Tennessee was Andrew Jackson, who was known for his dueling skills. The only time Article IX was ever invoked it was shot down in courts, so the thing is archaic anyhow. KF

[Coley Lou]

That's very funny, but people do get arrested here for "worrying" black squirels @_o;;

[Pisces]

Hello, everyone.

Actually, I have been reading all of this, but I haven't gotten a chance to reply yet because I've been busy most of this week.

I'll try and find time here soon.

[Jenner]

Hello, everyone.

Actually, I have been reading all of this, but I haven't gotten a chance to reply yet because I've been busy most of this week.

I'll try and find time here soon.

Cop out! COP OUT!

You're a LIAR!

This is gonna be just like the Chrono Cross thread you abandoned.

[Ramza]

Well, Jenner's thrown down gloves, or gauntlet, or whatever. Something has been thrown.

You better make a real post now Eric.

Ramza

[Ruby]

But can I ask homosexuals to respect the overwhelming majority of religious belief that says that marriage is, by definition, one that is designed for procreation (i.e. one man plus one woman)? I don't see how that's unreasonable. They're asking for a redefinition of marriage, and it would seem to me that that is stepping outside of all sorts of boundaries, including legal ones.

The vast majority of religions claiming what marriage should be is irrelivant as religious significance has no place in legal definitions. Gay couples aren't exactly protesting to the Vatican, they're protesting to Washington DC, which is a governmental body completely independant of any religious body. Legally, marrage is just a few documents signed for administrative purposes which are accomapnied with a few special privledges. Also I'm quite sure I stated earlier that I don't think civil unions would work as having them be seperately defined would create a situation ripe for one to be treated less fairly than the other.

For those interested in the cosmology debate (it should be discussed MUCH more than it is), most astronomy/physics folk believe that God (or something LIKE what we consider God) must have created the entire universe. Phrases such as "intelligent design" and "fine-tuned universe" are common in this debate. The only way to imagine the universe without a creator, they say, is to imagine that there are an infinite number of universes, out of which we are only one, and we have no way of accessing these other universes. As a result, some physicists (and metaphysicists) have jumped ship and claimed wholeheartedly this "multiverse" theory so that they can continue to adamantly deny the existence (or previous existence) of a Creator/God. It's all very interesting.

That statement's a load of bunk. You have no basis to claim that most astronmy and physics people prosribe to the belief that an intelligent being must have created the universe. (And if you do, I would like to see the results of that survey.) If you're getting this idea from one of those groups like the "Intelligent Design" philosphy group then I'm afraid you've been misled, as seems obvious by your opinion of a "multiverse theory". Ideas of "A Theory of Everything" and "A Finely Tuned Universe" don't neccesarily point to an intelligent creator being.

What most groups that wish to make you believe this viewpoint do is point to areas of thin understanding in a theory and then say, "Well if this isn't exactly right, then we must be right!" without offering any kind of proof of that their theory is correct. Disproving one theory does not make another theory correct. Interestingly enough, groups that promote things like ID usually aren't lead by scientific inquiry but are instead lead by publicists seeking to influence public bodies rather than actually trying to research anything.

That "multiverse theory" you are refering to is called String Theory. It is of course, still just a theory and is a mathmatic idea that has yet to turn up any physical proof as of yet. String Theory did not even originally deal with other universes but instead is a product of asumptions if you take the original theory to be true, in the same way that Special Relativity was created by the conjecture things that must be true if the speed of light remains the same for all observers regardless of their movement. Painting String Theory as an excuse to escape what you would like to believe is an obvious truth is both a short sighted and ignorant viewpoint. You might not agree with it, lots of people don't, but that is of course why it requires research which will undoubtedly provide useful results to add to our understanding, regardless if String Theory proves to be accurate or not.

GhaleonOne

Well perhaps those who are against homosexual marriage aren't afraid of homosexual people per se, but more so that they would be afraid of the consequences of what would happen if homosexual couples could be legally recognized as being married. If one has no fear over what will happen because of this, one has no need to control this action. And usually if one has a fear of this happening, they have a much more deep-seated fear of homosexuals and their lifestyle. Does this make sense to you?

[drumlord]

True, Ramza was making assumptions but the point he was trying to make there has validity. I'm too lazy too Google for it, but I've seen surveys of physicists/astronomers/whatever that showed that pretty much have the same makeup of religious/non-religious people as everybody else. The religious ones tend to say things like "Personally, I believe God created the universe. But professionally I have to act under the assumption that that isn't true, just like everything else."

My beef with science's take on universe creation is that it is usually FAR more ridiculous than any religious text. The Big Bang theory, for instance, is valid only so far back as you get to the signularity of all matter in the universe. The next logical question is "but what about before then?" And String Theory isn't a theory about the creation of the universe, but rather the laws that make up it. It deals with quantum physics (anybody who's studied Schrodinger's Cat knows how brain-hurting quantum physics is) and the behavior of quarks and such. The reason you may have thought that's what Ramza was referring to is because assuming String Theory to be true, one can predict the number of dimensions (NOT universes) in existence. With regular String Theory, you get 26 and with Superstring Theory you get 10 or 11. These don't jive with our current conception of dimensions, so many physicists think we are just able to comprehend (or perhaps only exist within) 3+1 of those dimensions: space and time.

But Ramza wasn't describing String Theory, per se. He wasn't talking about extra dimensions but rather extra universes, in particular an infinite amount. I've seen the theory proposed before, can't remember by who. It's mostly just conjecture though. I think the last time I heard it was Stephen Hawking saying that if you ride a black hole right you might be able to go to a different universe...or die.

[Ramza]

Thank you drumlord.

Yes, Ruby, I am fairly certain that nearly everyone I've met that believes in Intelligent Design *also* accepts String Theory as a valid one. I do not know who taught you to immediately associate multiverse theory with String Theory, but that's simply incorrect.

As for most physicists believing in some sort of Creator/God, the definition also refers to a non-intelligent force that still could not be described. The statistics for physicists/astronomers believing in an INTELLIGENT BEING creating the universe, I've read, is slightly less than half. Many are deists, few are "religious" in the sense you are thinking.

Honestly, I cannot recall where I found my statistics. Statistics can be fudged anyway, of course. Perhaps I can't even argue what the "general trend" is among scientists, so let's just scrap that.

Regardless, while it is true that science can operate perfectly well without the premise of God, it should be noted that it operates just as well with the premise of God, and that some scientists (moreso physicists than biologists, all statistics I've come up against agree to this) hold the premise of God, even if not the Judeo-Christian understanding of God.

Ramza

EDIT:

Legally, marrage is just a few documents signed for administrative purposes which are accomapnied with a few special privledges. Also I'm quite sure I stated earlier that I don't think civil unions would work as having them be seperately defined would create a situation ripe for one to be treated less fairly than the other.

You win. If that's all "marriage" is legally, then you win. I'd like to believe it's more, even from the government's standpoint, but whatever, I fold.

Ramza

[Kizyr]

My beef with science's take on universe creation is that it is usually FAR more ridiculous than any religious text. The Big Bang theory, for instance, is valid only so far back as you get to the signularity of all matter in the universe. The next logical question is "but what about before then?"

I'll make a longer post sometime later when I have the time, but I just wanted to mention something along these lines.

I buy the Big Bang Theory, I think it's quite plausible, Moreover, I find it very much supported by religion...

Sur'a 21 (The Prophets) in the Qur'an, has:
30. Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
31. And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them, and We have made therein broad highways (between mountains) for them to pass through: that they may receive Guidance.
32. And We have made the heavens as a canopy well guarded: yet do they turn away from the Signs which these things (point to)!
33. It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course.

So... heavens joined as one (remember "heavens" refers to everything in the sky, including the stars and other matter in the universe) and then torn asunder... Life coming from water... the sun, moon, and other bodies set in orbit... So far, it sounds like the Big Bang theory and evolution. Later on in the same sur'a it mentions the heavens being rolled up "like a scroll" far in the future... similar to the prediction of the "Big Crunch" theory.

Now, granted, scientific discoveries may tweak or change the views we have on things. The Qur'an gives certain guidelines that sound largely in tune with what "scientific" theories on the universe. But, the guidelines aren't specific: that's what science is for. Humans were meant to discover more about the universe, not be afraid of discovery, of acquiring knowledge. And it's in that search for knowledge that we express our humanity.

As for what happened before (this is assuming that the Big Bang Theory is reasonably accurate)... Well, I figure one of two things. A) the last "Big Bang" occurred after another "Big Crunch", before which was any number of "Big Bangs", or B) Time didn't exist (or didn't "start"), meaning there was no before and after until the Big Bang.

Only problem here is that we're crossing the Rio Grande between the physical and metaphysical. These questions were only meant to address internal consistency, though, not prove the theory itself. KF

[drumlord]

Maybe I should have been more specific. It isn't that I view the big bang theory as incorrect. It's that it doesn't explain the beginning of everything. It merely says that's where we came from and doesn't explain what was going on before the big bang. Especially with the "big crunch" coming for us, it's plausible the universe simply goes in cycles.

To also point to religion as supporting this kind of theory, Hinduism (disclaimer: I took a world religion survey course, not a specific Hindu course, nor am I Hindu) carries the belief that we are in a certain cycle of death and rebirth of the universe. They have a colorful explanation of what goes on involving gods and a dragon and such, but it's still reminiscent of the big bang/big crunch theories. Also, Hinduism believes that everything in the universe is made up of the same overall "stuff" (forgive my lack of terminology).

As science learns more about matter, we first found out that everything is made up of little things called atoms. Given, there are lots of different types, but we then found out these are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons, bringing known matter essentially down to 3 different things. We ended up adding more with neutrinos and proton decay and whatnot, but then we found out about quarks and even smaller particles. I'm DEFINITELY no expert on this stuff, but I wouldn't be surprised if when it came down to it, everything in the universe is really just the same; it's all in how it is built that determines its properties.

But yeah...this post of mine was rather off kilter, eh?

[Ramza]

it is off kilter drumlord, but it's good discussion nonetheless.

Of course, like any good RPG, our universe has 3 possible endings, and scientists are to this day lookin' for good data to help support which ending is the real one.

Ending one, which you already mentioned, is "the big crunch" -- the universe will contract just as surely as it had once expanded, because the rate of expansion (acceleration) isn't beating out the force of gravity from all the mass within the universe (after a certain point). From a metaphysical standpoint, any religion that believes in universal cycles (Hinduism being the most prominent) ought to consider this one a real possibility. This is called a "closed universe."

Ending two is that the universe contines to expand forever, to the point that all mass is spread apart so much that no level of heat can be sustained, and everything just sort of dissipates, and that's the end. From a metaphysical standpoint, any religion that believes the universe had a beginning and will have an end (Judaism Christianity Islam) ought to consider this one a possibility that would fit into the framework of their religion. This is called an "open universe."

Ending three, (which I admit I will probably explain wrong, but I think I understand it), says that the rate of expansion/acceleration and the force of gravity caused by the mass of the universe is perfectly equal, so that after an infinite amount of time, the acceleration of the universe would become zero...in other words, the acceleration of the universe is already MUCH slower than it once was, and it will continue to slow down forever and ever, but never turn around and contract. While this sounds like a mathematical anomaly, it is again the speculation of those who subscribe to Intelligent Design that say "look, if our universe is already THAT fine-tuned, maybe this will be the case as well!" Some data researched says that perhaps this will be the case, though something about red-shift means that the data may be completely irrelevant. This is called a "marginally bound universe."

So big crunch is only one of three possibilities, and no one really knows for sure which possibility is the real deal. Of course, all of it works under the assumption of the big bang theory, and that the universe is really expanding. Some people, on the fringe of astronomical physics, believe all the data showing that the universe is expanding is actually just misinterpreted for this or that reason, and the universe is *actually* quite static. I don't buy it, because it means discounting a TON of evidence to the contrary, but there are intelligent people who do buy it.

I like how the God discussion turned into a cosmology discussion. Good times.

Ramza

PS - I myself think the "Big Bang" fits nicely with most religions and their "Creation/Origin" accounts, so as for Kiz and me, looks like we have no beef with it. I knew you weren't saying we should have beef with it drumlord. You're a smart fella.

[Ruby]

The reason you may have thought that's what Ramza was referring to is because assuming String Theory to be true, one can predict the number of dimensions (NOT universes) in existence. With regular String Theory, you get 26 and with Superstring Theory you get 10 or 11. These don't jive with our current conception of dimensions, so many physicists think we are just able to comprehend (or perhaps only exist within) 3+1 of those dimensions: space and time.

But Ramza wasn't describing String Theory, per se. He wasn't talking about extra dimensions but rather extra universes, in particular an infinite amount. I've seen the theory proposed before, can't remember by who. It's mostly just conjecture though. I think the last time I heard it was Stephen Hawking saying that if you ride a black hole right you might be able to go to a different universe...or die.

No I'm not getting confused. String Theory states that everything in the universe is made up of vibrating "strings" that exsist in about 11 or 13 dimensions (I forget the exact number.) or so, which is the number of actual dimensions our universe comprises. The strings in different combinations are what make up quarks, which make up protons, neutrons, etc. What this does is take the insane randomness of Quantum Theory and calms down the chaos enough so that it has some definable patterns, matching the vibrations of the strings involved, so that it agrees with Einstein's theorys, allowing the same set of equations to be used on objects both big and small instead of using Einstein's equations on large masses and quantum theory on small masses. Originally it was thought that strings were small free-floating entities, but now it's thought that both ends of "strings" connect to a "world shell" which would comprise our universe, and that there could be other world shells where fundamental values, such as the gravitational constant G, could be different. Also coupled into the theory is the Graviton. The graviton is a theoretical particle which is thought to convey the force of gravity. The idea in this theory is that gravitons pass freely between the different world shells which would explain why gravity is such a weak fundamental force (Remember, the electro-magnetic bonds of atoms stops an object from falling through the ground, making those electro-magnetic bonds stronger than the gravity pulling said object.) and finding gravitons, especially those escaping our world-shell, is the main focus in research to prove String Theory.

You know I really wish I copied that two hour long documentary about it onto my computer right about now. I found it /very/ interesting to watch. I had to copy, record, and watch this documentary and report on it for extra credit in my college Physics class.

[drumlord]

I knew you weren't saying we should have beef with it drumlord. You're a smart fella.

But I'm a drummer. There's a conundrum for you

[Ramza]

Ruby,

Though I myself am hopelessly inept when it comes to understanding about half of what you said, I don't doubt that you are reporting adequately what you saw.

All I'm saying is that what you saw is not the essence of String Theory in itself. Some people are taking String Theory in that direction, and it lends itself to the idea of "multiverse" quite nicely. But again, we have to accept that theories of the universe, or universes, are still primarily metaphysical, because wherever those "gravitons" go to keep gravity a weak force, it may or may not be a part of what one conventionally considers a universe.

So, I still think it's fair to say that String Theory can go hand in hand with either option: one universe, or an infinite number of universes. Our friends over in the physics departments of universities and research centers around the world continue to gather data, and the data seems to be more inconclusive, and we create more questions and less answers. Good times right?

Also, did you get my second PM? I'm confused about the difference between "outbox" and "sentbox" and how that all works.

Ramza

[Ruby]

Some people are taking String Theory in that direction, and it lends itself to the idea of "multiverse" quite nicely. But again, we have to accept that theories of the universe, or universes, are still primarily metaphysical, because wherever those "gravitons" go to keep gravity a weak force, it may or may not be a part of what one conventionally considers a universe.

Well you're right and wrong about that. String Theroy in essence is nothing more than a little mathmatical formula. The entire multiverse part comes about from the statement "For this to be true, these things must be true." in the same way that as I said above, Special Relativity's properties of time dialation and length contraction are all a product of saying, "If light travels at the same speed for all observes regardless of their movement relative to it then this must be true."

And yes, I did get your PM, I simply have no desire to send a reply.

[drumlord]

I still think you're getting multiple dimensions confused with multiple universes. Dimensions are just like different parts of our own universe, like 2D, 3D, etc. Multiple universes is comletely different. From what I've read, String Theory makes the assumption that there are a number of other dimensions for it to be true. However, I have yet to see anything mentioning multiple universes as being an assumption of String Theory.

[Ruby]

I still think you're getting multiple dimensions confused with multiple universes. Dimensions are just like different parts of our own universe, like 2D, 3D, etc. Multiple universes is comletely different. From what I've read, String Theory makes the assumption that there are a number of other dimensions for it to be true. However, I have yet to see anything mentioning multiple universes as being an assumption of String Theory.

Please drummy, I know the difference between dimensions and alternate universes. If you read my entire post you would understand that as I talk about both in relation to the theory.

[Ozone]

OI!

*ahem* So, I believe that there is a THING, some power, call it Lady Luck, call it God, call it whatever you want to call it. However, I refuse to give it a name. Why? Because in the Bible Adam gained dominion over the animals of Eden and got to name them, asserting his power over them. If this thing is the ultimate power in the universe and we are naming it, we are certainly most full of ourselves by saying that we have control over it by giving it a name, but that's the way humans are, we can never accept the intangible, we always have to give something a name to make it familiar. It's just like we can't accept that we are just little dust specks in the cogs of the universe. NOOOO humans must be important I'm going to shut up before I seriously insult someone here.