Atheist Ideology?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Isambard
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 137
  • Views Views 15K
But we know that the universe does exist.

In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.

Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.

University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.

To understand why Bohm makes this startling assertion, one must first understand a little about holograms. A hologram is a three- dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser. To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film. When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears.
The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose. Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.

The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts. A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.

This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something.

To enable people to better visualize what he means, Bohm offers the following illustration. Imagine an aquarium containing a fish. Imagine also that you are unable to see the aquarium directly and your knowledge about it and what it contains comes from two television cameras, one directed at the aquarium's front and the other directed at its side. As you stare at the two television monitors, you might assume that the fish on each of the screens are separate entities. After all, because the cameras are set at different angles, each of the images will be slightly different. But as you continue to watch the two fish, you will eventually become aware that there is a certain relationship between them. When one turns, the other also makes a slightly different but corresponding turn; when one faces the front, the other always faces toward the side. If you remain unaware of the full scope of the situation, you might even conclude that the fish must be instantaneously communicating with one another, but this is clearly not the case.

This, says Bohm, is precisely what is going on between the subatomic particles in Aspect's experiment. According to Bohm, the apparent faster-than-light connection between subatomic particles is really telling us that there is a deeper level of reality we are not privy to, a more complex dimension beyond our own that is analogous to the aquarium. And, he adds, we view objects such as subatomic particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality. Such particles are not separate "parts", but facets of a deeper and more underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the previously mentioned rose. And since everything in physical reality is comprised of these "eidolons", the universe is itself a projection, a hologram.

In addition to its phantomlike nature, such a universe would possess other rather startling features. If the apparent separateness of subatomic particles is illusory, it means that at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected.The electrons in a carbon atom in the human brain are connected to the subatomic particles that comprise every salmon that swims, every heart that beats, and every star that shimmers in the sky. Everything interpenetrates everything, and although human nature may seek to categorize and pigeonhole and subdivide, the various phenomena of the universe, all apportionments are of necessity artificial and all of nature is ultimately a seamless web.

In a holographic universe, even time and space could no longer be viewed as fundamentals. Because concepts such as location break down in a universe in which nothing is truly separate from anything else, time and three-dimensional space, like the images of the fish on the TV monitors, would also have to be viewed as projections of this deeper order. At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. This suggests that given the proper tools it might even be possible to someday reach into the superholographic level of reality and pluck out scenes from the long-forgotten past.

What else the superhologram contains is an open-ended question. Allowing, for the sake of argument, that the superhologram is the matrix that has given birth to everything in our universe, at the very least it contains every subatomic particle that has been or will be -- every configuration of matter and energy that is possible, from snowflakes to quasars, from blue whales to gamma rays. It must be seen as a sort of cosmic storehouse of "All That Is."

Although Bohm concedes that we have no way of knowing what else might lie hidden in the superhologram, he does venture to say that we have no reason to assume it does not contain more. Or as he puts it, perhaps the superholographic level of reality is a "mere stage" beyond which lies "an infinity of further development".

Bohm is not the only researcher who has found evidence that the universe is a hologram. Working independently in the field of brain research, Standford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram has also become persuaded of the holographic nature of reality. Pribram was drawn to the holographic model by the puzzle of how and where memories are stored in the brain. For decades numerous studies have shown that rather than being confined to a specific location, memories are dispersed throughout the brain.

In a series of landmark experiments in the 1920s, brain scientist Karl Lashley found that no matter what portion of a rat's brain he removed he was unable to eradicate its memory of how to perform complex tasks it had learned prior to surgery. The only problem was that no one was able to come up with a mechanism that might explain this curious "whole in every part" nature of memory storage.

Then in the 1960s Pribram encountered the concept of holography and realized he had found the explanation brain scientists had been looking for. Pribram believes memories are encoded not in neurons, or small groupings of neurons, but in patterns of nerve impulses that crisscross the entire brain in the same way that patterns of laser light interference crisscross the entire area of a piece of film containing a holographic image. In other words, Pribram believes the brain is itself a hologram.

Pribram's theory also explains how the human brain can store so many memories in so little space. It has been estimated that the human brain has the capacity to memorize something on the order of 10 billion bits of information during the average human lifetime (or roughly the same amount of information contained in five sets of the Encyclopaedia Britannica).

Similarly, it has been discovered that in addition to their other capabilities, holograms possess an astounding capacity for information storage--simply by changing the angle at which the two lasers strike a piece of photographic film, it is possible to record many different images on the same surface. It has been demonstrated that one cubic centimeter of film can hold as many as 10 billion bits of information.

Our uncanny ability to quickly retrieve whatever information we need from the enormous store of our memories becomes more understandable if the brain functions according to holographic principles. If a friend asks you to tell him what comes to mind when he says the word "zebra", you do not have to clumsily sort back through some gigantic and cerebral alphabetic file to arrive at an answer. Instead, associations like "striped", "horselike", and "animal native to Africa" all pop into your head instantly. Indeed, one of the most amazing things about the human thinking process is that every piece of information seems instantly cross- correlated with every other piece of information--another feature intrinsic to the hologram. Because every portion of a hologram is infinitely interconnected with every other portion, it is perhaps nature's supreme example of a cross-correlated system.

The storage of memory is not the only neurophysiological puzzle that becomes more tractable in light of Pribram's holographic model of the brain. Another is how the brain is able to translate the avalanche of frequencies it receives via the senses (light frequencies, sound frequencies, and so on) into the concrete world of our perceptions.

Encoding and decoding frequencies is precisely what a hologram does best. Just as a hologram functions as a sort of lens, a translating device able to convert an apparently meaningless blur of frequencies into a coherent image, Pribram believes the brain also comprises a lens and uses holographic principles to mathematically convert the frequencies it receives through the senses into the inner world of our perceptions.

An impressive body of evidence suggests that the brain uses holographic principles to perform its operations. Pribram's theory, in fact, has gained increasing support among neurophysiologists.

Argentinian-Italian researcher Hugo Zucarelli recently extended the holographic model into the world of acoustic phenomena. Puzzled by the fact that humans can locate the source of sounds without moving their heads, even if they only possess hearing in one ear, Zucarelli discovered that holographic principles can explain this ability. Zucarelli has also developed the technology of holophonic sound, a recording technique able to reproduce acoustic situations with an almost uncanny realism.

Pribram's belief that our brains mathematically construct "hard" reality by relying on input from a frequency domain has also received a good deal of experimental support. It has been found that each of our senses is sensitive to a much broader range of frequencies than was previously suspected. Researchers have discovered, for instance, that our visual systems are sensitive to sound frequencies, that our sense of smellisin part dependent on what are now called "osmic frequencies", and that even the cells in our bodies are sensitive to a broad range of frequencies. Such findings suggest that it is only in the holographic domain of consciousness that such frequencies are sorted out and divided up into conventional perceptions.

But the most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram's holographic model of the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm's theory. For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality? Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion.

We are really "receivers" floating through a kaleidoscopic sea of frequency, and what we extract from this sea and transmogrify into physical reality is but one channel from many extracted out of the superhologram.


This striking new picture of reality, the synthesis of Bohm and Pribram's views, has come to be called the-holographic paradigm, and although many scientists have greeted it with skepticism, it has galvanized others. A small but growing group of researchers believe it may be the most accurate model of reality science has arrived at thus far. More than that, some believe it may solve some mysteries that have never before been explainable by science and even establish the paranormal as a part of nature. Numerous researchers, including Bohm and Pribram, have noted that many para-psychological phenomena become much more understandable in terms of the holographic paradigm.

In a universe in which individual brains are actually indivisible portions of the greater hologram and everything is infinitely interconnected, telepathy may merely be the accessing of the holographic level.

It is obviously much easier to understand how information can travel from the mind of individual 'A' to that of individual 'B' at a far distance point and helps to understand a number of unsolvedpuzzles in psychology.

In particular, Stanislav Grof feels the holographic paradigm offers a model for understanding many of the baffling phenomena experienced by individuals during altered states of consciousness. In the 1950s, while conducting research into the beliefs of LSD as a psychotherapeutic tool, Grof had one female patient who suddenly became convinced she had assumed the identity of a female of a species of prehistoric reptile. During the course of her hallucination, she not only gave a richly detailed description of what it felt like to be encapsuled in such a form, but noted that the portion of the male of the species's anatomy was a patch of colored scales on the side of its head. What was startling to Grof was that although the woman had no prior knowledge about such things, a conversation with a zoologist later confirmed that in certain species of reptiles colored areas on the head do indeed play an important role as triggers of sexual arousal. The woman's experience was not unique. During the course of his research, Grof encountered examples of patients regressing and identifying with virtually every species on the evolutionary tree (research findings which helped influence the man-into-ape scene in the movie Altered States). Moreover, he found that such experiences frequently contained obscure zoological details which turned out to be accurate.

Regressions into the animal kingdom were not the only puzzling psychological phenomena Grof encountered. He also had patients who appeared to tap into some sort of collective or racial unconscious. Individuals with little or no education suddenly gave detailed descriptions of Zoroastrian funerary practices and scenes from Hindu mythology. In other categories of experience, individuals gave persuasive accounts of out-of-body journeys, of precognitive glimpses of the future, of regressions into apparent past-life incarnations.

In later research, Grof found the same range of phenomena manifested in therapy sessions which did not involve the use of drugs. Because the common element in such experiences appeared to be the transcending of an individual's consciousness beyond the usual boundaries of ego and/or limitations of space and time, Grof called such manifestations "transpersonal experiences", and in the late '60s he helped found a branch of psychology called "transpersonal psychology" devoted entirely to their study.
Although Grof's newly founded Association of Transpersonal Psychology garnered a rapidly growing group of like-minded professionals and has become a respected branch of psychology, for years neither Grof or any of his colleagues were able to offer a mechanism for explaining the bizarre psychological phenomena they were witnessing. But that has changed with the advent of the holographic paradigm.

As Grof recently noted, if the mind is actually part of a continuum, a labyrinth that is connected not only to every other mind that exists or has existed, but to every atom, organism, and region in the vastness of space and time itself, the fact that it is able to occasionally make forays into the labyrinth and have transpersonal experiences no longer seems so strange.


The holographic paradigm also has implications for so-called hard sciences like biology. Keith Floyd, a psychologist at Virginia Intermont College, has pointed out that if the concreteness of reality is but a holographic illusion, it would no longer be true to say the brain produces consciousness. Rather, it is consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain -- as well as the body and everything else around us we interpret as physical.

Such a turnabout in the way we view biological structures has caused researchers to point out that medicine and our understanding of the healing process could also be transformed by the holographic paradigm. If the apparent physical structure of the body is but a holographic projection of consciousness, it becomes clear that each of us is much more responsible for our health than current medical wisdom allows. What we now view as miraculous remissions of disease may actually be due to changes in consciousness which in turn effect changes in the hologram of the body.

Similarly, controversial new healing techniques such as visualization may work so well because, in the holographic domain of thought, images are ultimately as real as "reality".

Even visions and experiences involving "non-ordinary" reality become explainable under the holographic paradigm. In his book "Gifts of Unknown Things," biologist Lyall Watson describes his encounter with an Indonesian shaman woman who, by performing a ritual dance, was able to make an entire grove of trees instantly vanish into thin air. Watson relates that as he and another astonished onlooker continued to watch the woman, she caused the trees to reappear, then "click" off again and on again several times in succession.

Although current scientific understanding is incapable of explaining such events, experiences like this become more tenable if "hard" reality is only a holographic projection. Perhaps we agree on what is "there" or "not there" because what we call consensus reality is formulated and ratified at the level of the human unconscious at which all minds are infinitely interconnected. If this is true, it is the most profound implication of the holographic paradigm of all, for it means that experiences such as Watson's are not commonplace only because we have not programmed our minds with the beliefs that would make them so. In a holographic universe there are no limits to the extent to which we can alter the fabric of reality.

What we perceive as reality is only a canvas waiting for us to draw upon it any picture we want. Anything is possible, from bending spoons with the power of the mind to the phantasmagoric events experienced by Castaneda during his encounters with the Yaqui brujo don Juan, for magic is our birthright, no more or less miraculous than our ability to compute the reality we want when we are in our dreams.

Indeed, even our most fundamental notions about reality become suspect, for in a holographic universe, as Pribram has pointed out, even random events would have to be seen as based on holographic principles and therefore determined. Synchronicities or meaningful coincidences suddenly makes sense, and everything in reality would have to be seen as a metaphor, for even the most haphazard events would express some underlying symmetry.

Whether Bohm and Pribram's holographic paradigm becomes accepted in science or dies an ignoble death remains to be seen, but it is safe to say that it has already had an influence on the thinking of many scientists. And even if it is found that the holographic model does not provide the best explanation for the instantaneous communications that seem to be passing back and forth between subatomic particles, at the very least, as noted by Basil Hiley, a physicist at Birbeck College in London, Aspect's findings "indicate that we must be prepared to consider radically new views of reality".

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/hologram.html
 
It means that every cause must have its own cause.

If we break this and assert an uncaused cause then the premise becomes void and if we do not break it then it must become infinite.
Every event that provides a generative force that is the origin of something will have to stop at some point. The point where your mind can't conceive a beyond it.. it isn't a circular event. it has a beginning and an end except for what caused all the causes to take affect!
Death is the reality and finality of all life functions in any organism or part of an organism certainly true of everything in nature and the universe... none which apply to God, since God beyond distinctness or definition is non-finite such as time! To have a God of our nature wouldn't provoke a need to worship in any of us.. why would we want to seek something that like us and like nature and like the universe has a beginning and an end. Further, it is very innate to want to worship.. some just chanel that need to some other project to avoid the vacuum!


Existence itself.

existence ceases to exit upon the death of the individual, things in nature and even in celestial bodies. Everything will die, up to and including our sun which many already contend is middle aged and dying out. .. if things die in our life, our immediate cosmos. I have no reason to believe that they will go on existing else where.. just like the universe is expanding at some point it will implode.. this is a simple law of thermodynamics and can be observed on every level.. Even brilliant diamonds go back to graphite under inert conditions. I have absolutely no physical evidence to believe that existence will exist forever, since all things will die simply at different cycles!

If an infinite regression of causes exists then it follows that existence must be infinite from it. If you break it and assume an uncaused cause (or a beginning of existence) of some description then the idea of every cause must have a cause becomes void.

the idea of a void only follows physical laws of what is observable to you. And perhaps to some other group of Atheists who chose to accept 'conventional' physics, that is indeed the end result. with every death a void up and including that of our planet.. until nothing! But no one has come back from the dead and told us what has become of their memories or consciousness...

No.

But we know that the universe does exist.

simple existence stripped of all the other possibilities makes for a very sterile argument!


Possibly, possibly not.
Only possibly not is of value here. And I believe I have demonstrated that with an every day example!



I'm not seeing the relevance.

the relevance is to say, there is more to this world than what is physical and palpable!
This is incoherent. I really don't follow and I suspect it might be a language barrier.

It denotes that you've built an argument on what you yourself would deem an 'infinite regression'. Which anyone can easily poke a hole by a different abstract and draw a very dissimilar conclusion!

You forget that this is meaningless if the conclusion of my idea is correct.

I believe If here is the operative word! and I am happy to disagree to an extraordinary extent!
This appears to be an Argument From Design
I assure you not all theists sit all day on the web looking for something to foster their track of thoughts. I believe any normal abstractionist will want an answer for the things they find in their world!


Except that is only evidence of God to you. Not to me.
That is evidence of God to any wo/man who will reflect!

I notice that your actual comments on the strain of logic are not referring to the actual point of the argument, which was to demonstrate that infinite existence is necessary. You simply refer me to what I can only see as being the Design Argument throughout the ending stages. You did not actually challenge the logic behind the argument.

Is it your argument?
I believe I have answered it this time around
a design argument is very much an essential player in such a debate.

peace!
 
Dying Star May Presage Our Solar System's Demise
New evidence suggests that white dwarf stars have planets orbiting them
by Nikhil Swaminathan



Image: PICTURE BY MARK A. GARLICK
METALLIC RING: An unusual disk of gaseous, metallic debris around a white dwarf star 463 light years away provides a model for what could become of our solar system
Researchers using data collected by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey--a comprehensive effort to map a quarter of the sky with a dedicated telescope at Apache Point, N.M.--have identified a cooling ember of a star ringed by a rare gaseous, metal-rich disk. This discovery, according to team leader Boris G¿nsicke of the University of Warwick in England, suggests that there is a planet orbiting this once massive star. It also may provide, he says, "a glimpse into the future of our solar system," specifically how it may end.
The star in question is a white dwarf known as SDSS1228+1040. It is located 463 light-years away from Earth and is in the constellation Virgo. In its prime, the star weighed in at four to five solar masses. (Progenitor stars of white dwarfs can be up to eight times the mass of our sun). SDSS1228+1040's progenitor likely thrived as a main sequence star for about 70 million years, which is a relatively short life span compared with that of our sun--its current age is around 4.6 billion years old.

G¿nsicke points out that there has been much debate within the realm of astrophysics about whether these short stellar life spans provide the "time that is necessary to form planets from the debris of the disk that made the star in the first place." (Stars are believed to form from matter that coalesces from a disk of debris and then ignites in a nuclear fusion reaction.) The new findings suggest they are. And if these short-lived stars are able to support planetary systems of their own, they can certainly serve as models for what could happen billions of years in the future to our own solar system.
Based on the group's estimates, SDSS1228+1040 has been in the white dwarf stage for 100 million years, and its current surface temperature is thought to be a steamy 22,000 degrees Celsius. (In contrast, our sun's surface temperature is around 5,500 degrees C.) When running spectral analyses on the material surrounding the star, the team found the double-peaked emission lines of magnesium, iron and calcium. This allowed them to determine that the circumstellar material was distributed in roughly a half-a-million-mile radius around the star.

G¿nsicke and his colleagues believe that the debris ring is the remains of a 50-kilometer-wide asteroid, which once orbited the star closely along with other entities. This finding "strongly suggests that there is still a planet orbiting around SDSS1228+1040 today," G¿nsicke says. "[Asteroids need] the gravitation of an object much bigger than the asteroids themselves to dislodge one of them from their stable circular orbits." Once dislodged, the asteroid likely moved too close to the gravitational field of the star, where it was broken up in a process called tidal shredding. The pieces then likely evaporated into the disk seen now via radiation from the hot star.

The timeline for the star now known as SDSS1228+1040 likely went as follows, according to the Warwick team, which speculates that a similar chain of events will likely befall our sun: After the star burned all the hydrogen in its core, it likely swelled into its red-giant phase, eviscerating all material--planets included--in orbits up to 500 million miles away. Any asteroids or planets stationed beyond that radius would then be kicked into orbits farther away from the newly swelled star. (G¿nsicke estimates that our sun will enter its red-giant phase in five billion to eight billion years.) Once the outer regions of the red giant are shed, the star shrinks into its white dwarf phase that is superdense--the diameter of SDSS1228+1040 is 1 percent of our sun's, but it's mass is 75 percent that of the sun--and initially very hot. From this point it gradually cools down and eventually will burn out.

Michael A. Jura, an astronomer at the University of California, Los Angeles, says the discovery could lead to new information about the makeup of "extrasolar minor planets." He is skeptical, however, that the members of our solar system will meet the same fate as the objects that surrounded SDSS1228+1040's progenitor
Conceivably, though not really, because they said this was a four to five solar mass star and we're a one solar mass star," he says. "Something vaguely like this may be occurring in our future, but I don't know for certain. It really depends on how much mass the sun loses, whether it loses it asymmetrically or what."
scientific American
 
Freeze, Fry or Dry: How Long Has the Earth Got?
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior ScienceWriter
posted: 09:45 am ET
25 February 2000



When a bunch of leading scientists got together last week to discuss the latest in big thinking, there was no shortage of doomsday predictions. In particular, Earth's fate was painted in three shades of grim.

Sometime in the next few billion years, according to new studies presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the third rock from the sun will either freeze or fry. Unless things simply dry up much sooner.

The expanding furnace

While Earth's fate is not entirely sealed, predictions of the death of the sun are widely accepted.



The life-giving, aging star we orbit is using up its fuel supply and will collapse within 7 billion years. Before that, though, there will be an agonizing period of repeated swelling, as the sun grows into a red giant. How giant?

"Earth will end up in the sun, vaporizing and blending its material with that of the sun," said Iowa State University's Lee Anne Willson. "That part of the sun then blows away into space, so one might say Earth is cremated and the ashes are scattered into interstellar space."

Willson and her colleague George Bowen studied other red giants, medium-sized stars like our sun that are near death, and used their findings to calculate the fate of Earth.

As the sun burns its core of hydrogen, gravity will force a collapse. When compacted, the sun will heat up and burn the small amount of hydrogen that remains in a shell wrapped around the star's core. This will force the sun to expand into a red giant. Eventually, the core will heat up enough to burn stored helium and the sun will fluctuate in size before collapsing into a white dwarf.

"Earth will get scorched as part of the process the sun will go through as it transforms from being a red giant into a white dwarf," Willson said.

Out from the frying pan and into the frost

There are two possible paths to salvation, though both involve a frigid end.

"If the sun loses mass before it gets too big, then Earth moves into a larger orbit and escapes," Willson told SPACE.com. "The sun would need to lose 20 percent of its mass earlier in its evolution, and this is not what we expect to happen."

Fred Adams, a University of Michigan physicist, has for a few years been modeling the fate of the entire universe. He said his work agrees with Willson's.

"If Earth stays in its present orbit, its fate is to be fried," Adams said in a telephone interview. "That is the most likely fate."

Meanwhile, Adams has modeled a second possible method of escape.

A less bad scenario

Other scientists have learned that planets around other stars often follow odd-shaped orbits, indicating their paths might have been disrupted by the gravity of a passing star. Adams and a colleague got to wondering whether some future passing star or star system might, in similar fashion, kick Earth into the cosmic hinterlands.

So he and Gregory Laughlin, of NASA's Ames Research Laboratory, simulated many possible encounters with passing stars over the next 3.5 billion years -- assuming Earth would support life at least that long. The odds of the planet being ejected from the solar system, they determined, are one-in-100,000.



"Life on Earth would actually continue longer if Earth is sent out of the solar system than if it stays."




"These aren't real good odds," Adams points out, "but they're greater than the odds of winning the lottery, so they're worth considering."

A report on the work will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Icarus.

Adams figures if Earth is sent off into some cold cosmic corner, the oceans would freeze solid after about a million years. But some forms of life, supported by hydrothermal vents or other internal energy sources, might continue for up to 30 billion years, he estimates.

"Life on Earth would actually continue longer if Earth is sent out of the solar system than if it stays," he said.

Or, we might just dry up and die

Before Earth's oceans ever have a chance to freeze or fry, they might have already dried up and evaporated into space, said James Kasting, a Penn State professor of meteorology and geosciences. Kasting estimates his version of the end is a mere 1 billion years away.

"The sun is getting brighter with time and that affects the Earth's climate," Kasting said. "Eventually temperatures will become high enough so that the oceans evaporate."

And, Kasting said, a cataclysmic finale may come even sooner. As Earth becomes a global desert, carbon dioxide levels are expected to drop. At a certain level, which he and his colleagues say might be achieved in half a billion years, there would not be enough carbon dioxide to support photosynthesis, and most plants would die.

Remaining plants would not be sufficient to support a biosphere, Kasting contends. So while the entire planet might incinerated in a few billion years, or cast off into a deep freeze, it's possible that life on Earth is already in the sunset years.

"If we calculated correctly, Earth has been habitable for 4.5 billion years and only has a half-billion years left," Kasting said.
source
 
PurestAmbrosia said:
Death is the reality and finality of all life functions in any organism or part of an organism certainly true of everything in nature and the universe... none which apply to God, since God beyond distinctness or definition is non-finite such as time!
This is assuming that God even exists in the first place.

And there is no reason that time cannot be infinite.

PurestAmbrosia said:
To have a God of our nature wouldn't provoke a need to worship in any of us.. why would we want to seek something that like us and like nature and like the universe has a beginning and an end.
What has worship got to do with my argument?

PurestAmbrosia said:
Further, it is very innate to want to worship.. some just chanel that need to some other project to avoid the vacuum!
It is not innate to want to worship for me or anyone I have met.

If worshiping and following something or someone was natural, then we would not desire freedom over oppression.

PurestAmbrosia said:
existence ceases to exit upon the death of the individual,
No it doesn't. The individual's ability to be aware of existence dies.

PurestAmbrosia said:
things in nature and even in celestial bodies. Everything will die, up to and including our sun which many already contend is middle aged and dying out. ..
And also, things will replace it.

PurestAmbrosia said:
if things die in our life, our immediate cosmos. I have no reason to believe that they will go on existing else where..
They won't.

However they will be replaced.

PurestAmbrosia said:
just like the universe is expanding at some point it will implode.. this is a simple law of thermodynamics and can be observed on every level.. Even brilliant diamonds go back to graphite under inert conditions.
This however has nothing to do with the fact that Something cannot come from nothing (ex nihilo, nihilo fit). Do you disagree on this point?

PurestAmbrosia said:
I have absolutely no physical evidence to believe that existence will exist forever, since all things will die simply at different cycles!
Do you believe Allah is eternal?

PurestAmbrosia said:
simple existence stripped of all the other possibilities makes for a very sterile argument!
There is an infinity of possibilities as to what could be eternal. The universe is however the most logical one to believe in because it is verifiable.

PurestAmbrosia said:
the relevance is to say, there is more to this world than what is physical and palpable!
This is irrelevant to the argument be it true or not.

PurestAmbrosia said:
It denotes that you've built an argument on what you yourself would deem an 'infinite regression'. Which anyone can easily poke a hole by a different abstract and draw a very dissimilar conclusion!
But you haven't. From what I have seen you agree entirely that eternality is necessary.

You just say that Allah is eternal.

I say that it is the universe.

PurestAmbrosia said:
I believe If here is the operative word! and I am happy to disagree to an extraordinary extent!
But your disagreement with the idea is smeared in begging the question. You really ought to look at what my argument proposes and then find issues with it rather than entertain the assertion that God exists and the evidence of God is in nature.

PurestAmbrosia said:
Is it your argument?
It is not my invented argument, but it is my conception of it. I thought about it and constructed the ten points.

PurestAmbrosia said:
I believe I have answered it this time around
I don't. I think the problem is that you don't disagree with it in its entirety.

You only disagree with what is eternal rather than something being eternal.

PurestAmbrosia said:
a design argument is very much an essential player in such a debate.
No it is not. The very argument if true has no bearing on the assertion of the design argument.
 
This is assuming that God even exists in the first place.

If he doesn't, then you need to account for where everything came from!
And there is no reason that time cannot be infinite.
I think universally people will agree that time has no limits or boundaries!

What has worship got to do with my argument?
It means that God is very much unremitting, the mere fact that you post here of his non-existence show an indefinitely long continuing preoccupation, which holds your mind and attention, even if you chanel that to an argument of quantum physics!

It is not innate to want to worship for me or anyone I have met.
It is as innate as your need to pee and sleep. I have already stated the mere fact that you are here discussing this is a testament to it!

If worshiping and following something or someone was natural, then we would not desire freedom over oppression.
That conclusion has no relevance to what preceded it.. worship has nothing to do with opression anymore than your need to sleep tonight is a desire to be free from living!


No it doesn't. The individual's ability to be aware of existence dies.

you don't know that.. anymore than you knew what awaited you outside the womb, anymore than you know what will await you once you fall asleep!


And also, things will replace it.
Who has replaced your dead grandma? You thought I was devaluing atheists when comparing them to animals earlier.. in fact it is an atheist who does that to himself! You are here for a reason, there is no other like you, in that there is great value .. impossible to replace!





This however has nothing to do with the fact that Something cannot come from nothing (ex nihilo, nihilo fit). Do you disagree on this point?
that conclusion YOU'VE just drawn, is the strongest profession of belief!


Do you believe Allah is eternal?
absolutely!


There is an infinity of possibilities as to what could be eternal. The universe is however the most logical one to believe in because it is verifiable.
But it isn't verifiable, I'll reference you back to the above two articles.. and there are hundreds that attest to the same.. we are but fugacious blossoms!


But you haven't. From what I have seen you agree entirely that eternality is necessary.

necessary for something outside your definition and outlines. The one who engineered it in whole!
You just say that Allah is eternal.
He is!

I say that it is the universe.
it is not-- it will meet with a certain end.. I gurantee it, like I gurantee 150yrs from now none of us on this forum will exist!

But your disagreement with the idea is smeared in begging the question. You really ought to look at what my argument proposes and then find issues with it rather than entertain the assertion that God exists and the evidence of God is in nature.

I believe my disagreement is conventional wisdom.. it is physics 101.. that is what I learned back in undergrad... my asserting of finding God in all the exhaustible details has nothing to do with my disagreement!

It is not my invented argument, but it is my conception of it. I thought about it and constructed the ten points.
Well, I found flaws in it... which I'll have to assume is ok by you since you forfeit established sapience for your own conception. I believe that is what we ought to collectively do anyhow.. you know spend sometime thinking of why we do the things we do. If you are comfortable there where you are it is fine.. but by no means is it an indication that there is conformity to reality or actuality in those conclusions!


I don't. I think the problem is that you don't disagree with it in its entirety. You only disagree with what is eternal rather than something being eternal

I believe this is a simple case of malposition on your part.. you'd rather attribute eternal to Quantum physics rather than God, because it would mean you'd have to conform in part and that just seems without civilizing influences, you know so démodé, so 10 o'clock news.. and there just can't be truth in those uncultivated folks.


No it is not. The very argument if true has no bearing on the assertion of the design argument.
These are the variables to the formula, you just want to make it less complicated so you'll have less to account for..

Anyhow my reason leaves me at this hour which I believe should be reserved for sleep
Thank you.. been a pleasure and gnight!
 
Instead of going in circles, I suggest both of you check this out

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=6474278760369344626

Its a discussion between Alistor McGrath and Richard Dawkins. They are arguing similar pts but go into alot of detail. Its a bit lengthy but certainly worth it.

That aside, what I am wondering is how exactly an Islamic goverance and economic system will work today when it has failed in modern day supposidely Islamic states.
 
lessons on how to turn a thread on atheist ideology to "Bash Islam" in few easy steps.

wow what a "great" place
 
Even if We did send unto them angels, and the dead did speak unto them, and We gathered together all things before their very eyes, they are not the ones to believe, unless it is in Allah's plan. But most of them ignore (the truth).


Surah Anaam Verse 111

what im tryin to say is the arguments against the existence of God seem ridiculous, look at what Allah says, if the simplest signs arent enough then the most complex signs wont be enough..
Of course, to a believer the arguments against the existence of God would seem ridiculous. But to one who doesn't believe, the Quran is seen to be nothing more than a somewhat interesting book. So please take words like 'ridiculous' out of your argument as they really are very subjective. :)
 
PurestAmbrosia said:
If he doesn't, then you need to account for where everything came from!
No I don't. I don't pretend to know the length of the causal chain. My argument simply explains how infinity must exist and I see no reason to place this onto God.

You're begging the question. Allah is not a necessary being in my world view and neither is any form of God with similar attributes. I could very much be argued Pantheistic - the difference is I see no reason to call what Pantheists call 'God'.

PurestAmbrosia said:
It means that God is very much unremitting, the mere fact that you post here of his non-existence show an indefinitely long continuing preoccupation, which holds your mind and attention, even if you chanel that to an argument of quantum physics!
Discussions about God are not my only interests.

PurestAmbrosia said:
It is as innate as your need to pee and sleep. I have already stated the mere fact that you are here discussing this is a testament to it!
Except that it isn't. It is a testament to me being opened up to the topic of philosophy and then discussing it after formulating viewpoints.

If human beings had a innate desire to worship, then a lot more dictators who carved personality cults would have been a lot more successful. Humans value freedom more and systems involved in totalitarianism and dictatorial regimes know this. This is why such systems attempt to call themselves 'freedom'.

PurestAmbrosia said:
you don't know that.. anymore than you knew what awaited you outside the womb,
I didn't have any understanding then. Or any significant awareness of existence.

PurestAmbrosia said:
anymore than you know what will await you once you fall asleep!
I generally know what will happen when I fall asleep.

I may dream. Or I may not and then I will wake up hours later.

PurestAmbrosia said:
Who has replaced your dead grandma?
No-one.

PurestAmbrosia said:
You thought I was devaluing atheists when comparing them to animals earlier.. in fact it is an atheist who does that to himself! You are here for a reason, there is no other like you, in that there is great value .. impossible to replace!
The fact that we are able to comprehend so much about our existence is value in itself.

PurestAmbrosia said:
that conclusion YOU'VE just drawn, is the strongest profession of belief!
That's not my conclusion in the argument. That is only my 2nd point.

And it has not been touched upon.

PurestAmbrosia said:
absolutely!
So you then agree that eternality exists. The chain of existence must go back to infinity.

PurestAmbrosia said:
But it isn't verifiable, I'll reference you back to the above two articles..
They do not disprove the universe. In fact, the universe is very much being referred to in those articles.

PurestAmbrosia said:
necessary for something outside your definition and outlines. The one who engineered it in whole!
Of course this is the jump.

The universe itself is not (by definition) a cause at all. It is instead the sum total of all causes, all effects, all entities and all phenomenon. And because the chain of causality is infinite, every cause within it has its own cause. Every single one.

PurestAmbrosia said:
it is not-- it will meet with a certain end.. I gurantee it, like I gurantee 150yrs from now none of us on this forum will exist!
I am sure. However, the chain of causality will continue.

PurestAmbrosia said:
Well, I found flaws in it...
You seem to disagree only on one point.

You do not challenge ex nihilo, nihil fit. You do not challenge an infinite chain of uncaused causes. You do not challenge the very basis of my conclusion. You only challenge that the eternal existence is the universe. You say it is Allah.

PurestAmbrosia said:
you'd rather attribute eternal to Quantum physics rather than God, because it would mean you'd have to conform in part and that just seems without civilizing influences, you know so démodé, so 10 o'clock news.. and there just can't be truth in those uncultivated folks.
Eh? You appear to be entirely unaware of my reasons.

PurestAmbrosia said:
These are the variables to the formula, you just want to make it less complicated so you'll have less to account for..
No.

It is just that in this particular argument we are not talking about the design argument.

We are talking about infinite existence.

A final note on all of this:

As I have pointed out, I make no assumptions and offer no assertions that are not identical to yours. They are these:

1. Something cannot come from nothing.​
2. Something must have always existed.​

But since these assumptions are exactly the same, they provide no basis for discriminating between your position and mine. An eternal and uncreated universe and an eternal and uncreated Allah both satisfy these assumptions.

The difference between us is that I have evidence that the "something" I contend always existed actually exists. The direct observational evidence that there really is (or ever has been) a "something" called "the universe" is overwhelming and undeniable.

To compare, there is no empirical evidence (or otherwise) whatsoever that there really is (or ever has been) a "something" called "Allah" which can fulfill the properties of being eternal and uncreated.

This is then where our positions lose all similarity. My "assertion" that the universe is eternal and uncreated is not a bald one, because we know that there really is a universe. Your "assertion" that Allah is eternal and uncreated is a completely bald one, because we have no evidence for Allah at all.
 
But since these assumptions are exactly the same, they provide no basis for discriminating between your position and mine. An eternal and uncreated universe and an eternal and uncreated Allah both satisfy these assumptions.

Glad to hear that he have revoked clause number 10 :) (10. Therefore it is a bold step to assume Allah exists.)

The difference between us is that I have evidence that the "something" I contend always existed actually exists. The direct observational evidence that there really is (or ever has been) a "something" called "the universe" is overwhelming and undeniable.

Now you are are contradicting what you said earlier:
We do not know anything about it or can have any direct observation of it.

You have no evidence Skavau, this is you belief and opinion and it is baseless. Not only that but is seems you are changing them as you progress within this thread, which maybe a good thing :)
 
Glad to hear that he have revoked clause number 10 :) (10. Therefore it is a bold step to assume Allah exists.)
Except that I haven't revoked that statement. The rest of what I type here addresses the differences between the universe and Allah.

The point was that the two assertions alone:

1. Something cannot come from nothing.​

2. Something must have always existed.​

Provide no way between discriminating from either the universe or Allah.

Z.Al-Rashid said:
Now you are are contradicting what you said earlier:
Except that I am not. The fact that the universe can be shown to exist is infinitely more reason in its favour for eternality than Allah. That is how I differentiate between them.

The final 'note' I provided makes this clear. How can you be misinterpreting what I am saying so badly?

Z.Al-Rashid said:
You have no evidence Skavau
I have no empirical evidence - I do however have reason and logic supporting me.

Both appear to have actually gone unchallenged so far.

Z.Al-Rashid said:
, this is you belief and opinion and it is baseless.

1. Something cannot come from nothing.​

2. Something must have always existed.​

Do you disagree with either of these two?

Z.Al-Rashid said:
Not only that but is seems you are changing them as you progress within this thread, which maybe a good thing :)
Pray tell where I have changed?
 
1. Something cannot come from nothing.
2. Something must have always existed.
Do you disagree with either of these two?

Joke, this in no way provides logic for the eternal universe - Research on matter, energy, force before you make this assumption. This is not an opinion, it is just dead wrong. Anything determined by this (i.e. universe) has a creation point REGARDLESS of what you believe - thats concrete fact.

The only thing these 2 can prove is the eternal unmaterial/nonmatter/metaphysical being being the eternal existance - The universe being eternal is as likely as a human being eternal. Why do you just contradict yourself in every way?
 
Last edited:
Joke, this in no way provides logic for the eternal university - Research on matter, energy, force before you make this assumption. This is not an opinion, it is just dead wrong. Anything determined by this (i.e. universe) has a creation point REGARDLESS of what you believe - thats concrete fact.
This universe as we know it now may have a beginning and an end. The universe is simply defined by the way as 'everything that exists'. My assertion is that everything that exists is eternal.

But by sheer understanding of ex nihilo, nihil fit - existence must extend infinitely.
 
The ex nihilo, nihil fit better explains God with its philosophical "Nothing comes from nothing" - What has that got to do with the Universe is eternal?

How can you say everything that exists is eternal, when everything in the matter state has had a beginning?

You are contradicting yourself.
 
The ex nihilo, nihil fit better explains God with its philosophical "Nothing comes from nothing"
No. It simply explains existence itself being infinite.

Md Mashud said:
- What has that got to do with the Universe is eternal?
It doesn't have anything to do with the universe in itself.

Md Mashud said:
How can you say everything that exists is eternal, when everything in the matter state has had a beginning?
They are parts of the universe. They are not universe itself (which I reiterate is 'everything that exists'.) The universe is more than them individually.
 
Let me end it here. Your arguement could only be plausible if the big bang was a myth - Usually people with the belief you have call the big bang a myth and never happened - Check here: http://www.byteland.org/cosmology/infinity.html, he says everything you have said, but ofcourse his ideology is completly mistaken.

So, its obvious you have no credibility with such statements, to deny the bigbang. The reasonings of multiple universe sucking energy to others - endeavours the same big gap that is - what created the first universe? Matter based existance cannot NOT have a beginning.

Reading this article, like most of the theories, they try to explain process instead of cause. Gap gap gap...
 
Let me end it here. Your arguement could only be plausible if the big bang was a myth - Usually people with the belief you have call the big bang a myth and never happened - Check here: http://www.byteland.org/cosmology/infinity.html, he says everything you have said, but ofcourse his ideology is completly mistaken.
I do not dispute the Big Bang.

Md Mashud said:
So, its obvious you have no credibility with such statements, to deny the bigbang. The reasonings of multiple universe sucking energy to others - endeavours the same big gap that is - what created the first universe? Matter based existance cannot NOT have a beginning.

Reading this article, like most of the theories, they try to explain process instead of cause. Gap gap gap...
See above.
 
Let me end it here. Your arguement could only be plausible if the big bang was a myth - Usually people with the belief you have call the big bang a myth and never happened - Check here: http://www.byteland.org/cosmology/infinity.html, he says everything you have said, but ofcourse his ideology is completly mistaken.

So, its obvious you have no credibility with such statements, to deny the bigbang. The reasonings of multiple universe sucking energy to others - endeavours the same big gap that is - what created the first universe? Matter based existance cannot NOT have a beginning.

Reading this article, like most of the theories, they try to explain process instead of cause. Gap gap gap...

why does that matter? the big bang could just have been one bang in a infinitite chain of big bangs.

We are just in the current incarnation.
 
Let me follow on from Hawkins statement last year (compared to that theory which is hugely discredited years and years ago)

Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking speaks at an international gathering of scientists on the origins of the universe at Beijing's Great Hall of the People in China Monday, June 19, 2006. Hawking is in Beijing to attend the 'Strings 2006' conference on the riddle of string theory which, if solved, could help unlock the mysteries of black holes and the creation of the universe. Photo: AP)

Is the universe eternal, or did it have a beginning? World-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking gave his answer to a large audience in Beijing on Monday.

He gave a 45-minute multimedia presentation at the Great Hall of People on the occasion of the International Conference on String Theory 2006, that traced the development of theories on cosmic origins, beginning with African creation myths.

He described -- through his electronic speech synthesizer -- how the general theory of relativity and the discovery of the expansion of the universe provoked conceptual changes, which meant that the idea of an ever-existing, ever-lasting universe was no longer tenable.

The 64-year-old scientist and author of the global best-seller "A Brief History of Time" uses a wheelchair and communicates with the help of a computer because he suffers from a neurological disorder called amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS.

One of the best-known theoretical physicists of his generation,Hawking has done groundbreaking research on black holes and the origins of the universe, proposing that space and time have no beginning and no end.

The image Hawking drew of this process was that of bubbles appearing and bursting, corresponding to mini universes that expand and collapse. Only those which grew to a certain size would be safe from collapse and would continue to expand at an ever increasing rate.

The theorem which he and Prof. Roger Penrose developed in 1970 said that general relativity predicated that the universe and time itself would begin with the big bang and that time would come to an end in black holes.

"One can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning in a similar way in which we got rid of the edge of the world," said Hawking.

Likening the beginning of the universe to the South Pole, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time, Hawking explained that the universe would start as a point at the South Pole.

"As one moves north, the circles of constant latitude, representing the size of the universe, would expand. To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question because there is nothing south of the South Pole," Hawking said.

In this view, the beginning of the universe would be governed by the laws of science: the creation of the universe would be down to spontaneous quantum creation.

"Cosmology is a very exciting and active subject. We are getting close to answering the age-old questions: Why are we here? Where did we come from?" Hawking said.


Good debate. Please find a scientist to discredit this statement, one even Einstein agrees with.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top