The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 50    Average: 2/5]
67 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 15459
Rating: 2
Category: Science
Date: 12/11/11 09:30 AM

67 Responses to Proof Of God In A Photon

  1. Profile photo of PoppetX
    PoppetX Female 13-17
    38 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 10:01 am
    Link: Proof Of God In A Photon - Even the scientists are protecting themselves for 2012
  2. Profile photo of vicious_liar
    vicious_liar Male 13-17
    1226 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 10:10 am
    Huge article, first paragraph has nothing to do with the subject at all: TL;DR
  3. Profile photo of Tiredofnicks
    Tiredofnicks Male 30-39
    5097 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 10:11 am
    Too long; read later.
  4. Profile photo of lucidexistan
    lucidexistan Male 30-39
    59 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 10:12 am
    Eeh, not buying it.
  5. Profile photo of Pooptart19
    Pooptart19 Male 18-29
    2441 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 10:14 am
    Step 1. Photons
    Step 2. ???
    Step 3. Proof of the existence of God.
    Step 4. PROFIT!
  6. Profile photo of ggolbez
    ggolbez Male 18-29
    1933 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 10:25 am
    -No evidence provided
    -No evidence is evidence
    -God exists

    Yea... no...
  7. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32756 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 10:35 am
    MAN! That`s a lot of words to say very little, eh?
    (I just skimmed it)
    About half-way down he FINALLY gets to the "point" and mentions Non-Locality which is one of my favorite things!
    But it`s been known for decades and proven as fact in the 90`s...
  8. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32756 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 10:39 am
    @pooptart: lolz!
    @Link_Hiei: Monty Python shows how to behave when meeting God Almighty.
  9. Profile photo of Buiadh
    Buiadh Male 30-39
    6739 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 10:42 am
    Hah! No.
  10. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10441 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 10:47 am
    I`m not buying it.

    It`s a long way from "Photons!" to "the universe has a purpose".

    Just glancing at this article it looks like it`s filled with garbage. No evidence mentioned, riddled with fallacies and easily dismissible creationist argumentation.

    "a mind-boggling coincidence it is that we are here at all. If the fundamental constants of physics did not have the precise values they do, the universe would be either too small and too hot, or too big and too cold for life".

    Where have I heard that before?

    Oh yeah, it was years ago, back when I was 12 and realized it was bullsh*t.

    Why is it so hard for people to accept a lack of supernatural purpose? Soon, I`m going to start seeing it as a sign of weakness. "I`m not strong enough to decide what to do with my life... "
  11. Profile photo of DSDavis008
    DSDavis008 Male 13-17
    68 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 10:50 am
    This is a term paper, not news
  12. Profile photo of tatripp
    tatripp Male 18-29
    1196 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 10:54 am
    I couldn`t get past the first few paragraphs because the author clearly doesn`t know what he is talking about. He does not understand Rene Descartes or the Church. It is obvious he is very biased against the Church. He says that the existence of God couldn`t be proved or disproved, although st. thomas and st. anselm had already given deductive reasons why God exists. He says that science and the Church were split which is a real load of poop because the Church was the biggest influence of the scientific method. Come on... Gregor Mendel is a practicing Catholic priest who founded genetics.
  13. Profile photo of Yaezakura
    Yaezakura Female 18-29
    385 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 11:09 am
    I think it`s pretty telling that the article is in the "Arts and Entertainment" category. Because it`s certainly not news, and I highly question if it`s even entertainment.

    It`s a bunch of rambling nonsense.
  14. Profile photo of kairobert
    kairobert Male 18-29
    1623 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 11:28 am
    Let`s see if there is substance and not just bias and pseudo-intellectualism.

    Result
  15. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 11:38 am
    I saw no proof there, only an essay.
  16. Profile photo of Xpekt
    Xpekt Male 18-29
    134 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 11:44 am
    .....fail post
  17. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 11:55 am
    st. thomas and st. anselm had already given deductive reasons why God exists

    Did they give proof? No? I didn`t think so.
  18. Profile photo of Thetas
    Thetas Male 18-29
    1540 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 12:25 pm
    Proof? More like theoretical essay.
  19. Profile photo of Ajikan
    Ajikan Male 18-29
    1526 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 12:47 pm
    Wall of text. Made from opinion bricks, not proof bricks.
  20. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 12:53 pm
    Here, let`s see if I can do it, too: Many scientists have been struggling with squaring their belief in God with their belief in scientific method. Many theologians have been embracing the beauty of scientific findings in the laboratory. Therefore, it is clear that there is a God.
  21. Profile photo of ScottSerious
    ScottSerious Male 18-29
    5316 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 1:05 pm
    tl;dr
  22. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25420 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 2:00 pm
    So many words :P
  23. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 2:04 pm
    Don`t you need to have proof, before you offer proof?
  24. Profile photo of M_Archer
    M_Archer Male 18-29
    525 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 2:13 pm
    I`ll bet you five hundred bucks that this doesn`t uproot the entire basis of science.
  25. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32756 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 2:30 pm
    vv Excellent recap there @Smagboy1!
  26. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 2:53 pm
    It is obvious he is very biased against the Church. He says that the existence of God couldn`t be proved or disproved, although st. thomas and st. anselm had already given deductive reasons why God exists. He says that science and the Church were split which is a real load of poop because the Church was the biggest influence of the scientific method.

    You clearly don`t know what you`re talking about.

    You don`t even know what "prove" means. Why should anyone take you seriously?

    Anselm et alia make a moderately compelling argument in support of the existence of some sort of cause for the beginning of things. To claim that as proof that your religion is correct is utterly ludicrous.

    Science and the church were split. Split to the extent that the CHURCH KILLED SCIENTISTS. How much more split can you get? You`re a revisionist making up propaganda.
  27. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 3:02 pm
    "a mind-boggling coincidence it is that we are here at all. If the fundamental constants of physics did not have the precise values they do, the universe would be either too small and too hot, or too big and too cold for life".

    Hahahaha, he seriously used that argument as if it supported creationism?

    Nobody who thinks would do that. It`s such an obvious logical fallacy.

    Where have I heard that before?

    Oh yeah, it was years ago, back when I was 12 and realized it was bullsh*t.

    Yes. It follows from realising that you are not the entire focus and purpose of the universe.

    For those with faith:

    OK, fine, believe in fairies or whatever. Just don`t pretend it`s a rational position supported by evidence. Just be honest about rejecting those things and having faith instead. It`s low for you to try to corrupt thought by claiming that faith is it.
  28. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32756 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 3:16 pm
    Yes. It follows from realising that you are not the entire focus and purpose of the universe.
    @Angilion, try telling that to my CAT!

    I also agree that the "the universe is just right for us!" (aka: Baby Bear`s Porrige theory) is weak to say the least. We`ve found life in horrific conditions here on Earth: vocanic vents, sulfur caves and under glaciers! If conditions were different, WE`D be different!
  29. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 3:25 pm
    We`ve found life in horrific conditions here on Earth: vocanic vents, sulfur caves and under glaciers! If conditions were different, WE`D be different!

    There`s also another related point, which is that various constants exist with particular values that make things the way they are. If they were more than a bit different, the universe would be non-existent, unstable or wildly different, e.g. no stars existing. Life would then be impossible...and there wouldn`t be anyone to talk about it.

    The argument some people are making is like someone winning a lottery and concluding that the lottery came into existence because they bought the winning ticket. It makes no sense.
  30. Profile photo of Intaresting
    Intaresting Male 18-29
    812 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 3:30 pm
    Talk about retarded.
  31. Profile photo of antagonizer
    antagonizer Male 18-29
    508 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 3:32 pm
    Here`s a handful of straws...start grasping.lol
  32. Profile photo of Turducken
    Turducken Male 18-29
    62 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 5:11 pm
    tl:dr
  33. Profile photo of RdDan
    RdDan Male 30-39
    759 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 5:52 pm
    If existance of a god was ever proven or disproven in my lifetime it wouldn`t make a blind bit of difference to me.

    I still wouldn`t worship one.
  34. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 6:55 pm
    tl:dr

    Well whoopie-do for you.

    I`m not sure which makes me worry more for the future - the undermining of thought and reasoning by claiming that faith is thought and reasoning or the underming of thought and reasoning by having a society in which it is normal to think that not reading something because it has lots of words in it is a good reply.
  35. Profile photo of Thetas
    Thetas Male 18-29
    1540 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 6:59 pm
    @Angilion

    I feel that the "TL;DR" posts have been more valuable to readers than most of the other comments on this post.
  36. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 7:01 pm
    aka: Baby Bear`s Porrige theory

    I went looking for a nicely worded rebuttal, to see if someone had written one better than mine.

    I got side-tracked by a discussion on a physics forum about the implausibility of the original story (thermodynamics doesn`t work that way - the bowls of porridge would cool in order of size) with various retcons suggested to explain the discrepency.

    I like the internet.
  37. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 7:04 pm
    Well, Smagboy1 made a summary:

    Here, let`s see if I can do it, too: Many scientists have been struggling with squaring their belief in God with their belief in scientific method. Many theologians have been embracing the beauty of scientific findings in the laboratory. Therefore, it is clear that there is a God.

    I also have a summary:

    I exist, therefore my religion must be correct. This is logic.
  38. Profile photo of DethRose
    DethRose Female 18-29
    280 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 7:27 pm
    tl;dr There is no God. And of there was, it`s dead now.
  39. Profile photo of El_Chinche
    El_Chinche Male 18-29
    546 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 7:32 pm
    @Angilion

  40. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32756 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 7:45 pm
    thermodynamics doesn`t work that way - the bowls of porridge would cool in order of size
    @Angilion: so I`m not the only geek in the world who thinks that? lolz!

    idk your side here, are you for `God created the universe` or against it? It`s just that I`m thinking I agree with what you`re saying, but it seems like you`re disagreeing with my agreeing.

    I`m a believer in GCTU, but not Intelligent Design, eh?
  41. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 7:54 pm
    @Angilion: so I`m not the only geek in the world who thinks that? lolz!

    No, it`s cropped up quite a bit. I didn`t realise it until I saw it as a sig on another forum, then I thought "oh yes, of course it would work that way". It was interesting to read the retcons. I particularly liked the fourth bear hypothesis:

    Another bear had sneaked in before Goldilocks did and eaten the porridge from Daddy Bear`s bowl and Baby Bear`s bowl, but not Mummy Bear`s bowl. The 4th bear then refilled the two bowls from the porridge pot on the stove. Mummy Bear`s porridge was coldest because it had been cooling for longer.

    Retcons in general interest me.
  42. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 8:02 pm
    idk your side here, are you for `God created the universe` or against it?

    Which god? There are so many.

    I think it`s most likely that no person or people created the universe, but I think it`s not disproven. Maybe one or more of the numerous gods humans have made up over the years. Maybe someone else. There`s no evidence for any particular god doing it.

    All we can *prove* about how the universe came to exist is that the universe does exist. Which doesn`t prove anything about how it came to exist. If, indeed, it makes any sense to talk about the universe coming into existence. If the universe came into existence, there was a time before then. But if time is a part of the universe, then there was no time before the universe existed. So there was no time before the universe, so the universe never came into existence - it just always was, since the beginning of time.
  43. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14620 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 8:04 pm
    unidentified flying object <> little green men invading earth

    unexplained changes in the seasons <> fairies

    unexplained physical phenomena <> gods

    unexplained pregnancy of `virgin` bride <> messiah
  44. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 8:10 pm
    It`s just that I`m thinking I agree with what you`re saying, but it seems like you`re disagreeing with my agreeing.

    No, I`m saying that there`s an *additional* point, *as well as* the line of argument you stated:

    There`s also another related point

    You stated that life exists in conditions far outside that which humans could live in and concluded that the existence of conditions we can live in is not *proof* those conditions were created by a god specifically for life. As you succinctly put it: If conditions were different, WE`D be different!

    My reply was about conditions in which no life at all could exist - an addition to your argument, not a disagreement with it.
  45. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 8:14 pm
    I`m a believer in GCTU, but not Intelligent Design, eh?

    I don`t really do belief. I`m OK with "I don`t know", to all extents from "I have absolutely no idea whatsoever" to "I think the evidence indicates <whatever thing> is almost certainly true" and every point in between.

    Maybe your god created the universe with all the fundamental constants and laws and set it running.

    Maybe someone else`s god did so.

    Maybe humanity did it, in some bizarre time travelling paradoxical thing.

    Maybe nobody did it and the universe just is, for no reason.

    I don`t know.
  46. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32756 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 8:49 pm
    I particularly liked the fourth bear hypothesis
    No no! There was a second Goldielocks! She lives on a grassy knoll, eh? The "lone Goldielocks" theory is bunkum!

    So there was no time before the universe...
    Ah! A fair question that, with no answer really.

    Maybe your God created the universe with all the fundamental constants and laws and set it running.
    Capital G there! Just in case. And yes, for me the creator of the universe is God. If it`s the Big Bang then "God" is an unthinking cosmic event, no loss for hoping in a "plan" and stuff.

    Hey, thanks for answering my questions @Angilion, I appreciate it! @Baalth and @madest have really worn my patience lately, so I`m glad some IABers are still nice folks!
  47. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32756 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 9:02 pm
    I had a dream (at night, while asleep).
    In that dream was a book.
    In that book, the titular charecter talks to God for about 120 pages (it was a long book!)
    God explained LOTS of things, but also refused to discuss many other things.

    I learned a lot about my own beliefs in God and such in that dream. It was years ago, but I remember every minute of it! No, God didn`t contact me in the dream, that would be egotistical! But thinking about what I saw there in dreamland brought clarity to my conscious mind.

    Weird eh?
  48. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 9:29 pm
    Of COURSE there is a purpose to the Universe. It exists to irritate me.
  49. Profile photo of El_Chinche
    El_Chinche Male 18-29
    546 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 9:38 pm
    @5Cats
    I had a dream (at night, while asleep).
    In that dream was a movie.
    In that movie, the titular character talks to
    a magical talking penis for about 120 minutes (it was a long movie!)
    The magical talking penis fapped on LOTS of things, but also refused to fap on many other things.

    I learned a lot about my own beliefs in magical talking penises and such in that dream. It was years ago, but I remember every minute of it! No, a magical talking penis didn`t fap on me me in the dream, that would be weird! But thinking about what I saw there in dreamland brought clarity to my conscious mind.

    Weird eh?
  50. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 10:09 pm
    Capital G there! Just in case.

    Not from me, so you misquoted me.

    Two replies. One grammatical, one religious.

    Grammar:

    I was referring to your god, not naming them. Capital letter for name, lower case for noun.

    If I was referring to, for example, Epona, I`d capitalise the name. I`d still say "your god" to one of her worshippers.

    Religion:

    To you, your god is the only one and you capitalise the word for religious reasons.

    To me, your god is just one of hundreds that various people have believed in at various times in various places. I have no religious reasons, so I don`t capitalise.
  51. Profile photo of demonveteran
    demonveteran Male 18-29
    238 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 10:13 pm
    TL: DR
  52. Profile photo of Corpsecrank
    Corpsecrank Male 30-39
    930 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 10:17 pm
    That is actually one hellova good article. If you were actually able to read and comprehend what was said then you would have enjoyed it. That article is very thorough in the fact that it brings into account all relative subjects and examines where each plays it`s part. Something that is very rarely done on any subject.
  53. Profile photo of HiEv
    HiEv Male 40-49
    621 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 11:27 pm
    An annoyingly written article. It`s poorly structured, inaccurate, slanted, meandering, and even a bit insulting.

    For example: "life will only fit into one shape of hole - the one we have got." That`s only true for life as we know it. However, if the universe were structured differently, there may be some tiny fraction of that universe that could support an entirely different form of life. It`s ridiculous to assume that there`s only one possible set of laws that can bring forth any type of life in a universe.

    Also, the final sections are rather irritatingly titled "The Atheists", "The Believers", and "The Open-Minded". This assumes both that the first two groups are close-minded, but as an atheist I can tell you that I`m open to any strongly supported scientific theory, and it also assumes that the so-called "open-minded" aren`t closed-minded to the ideas of the other two groups.
  54. Profile photo of lingh0e
    lingh0e Male 30-39
    48 posts
    December 12, 2011 at 12:36 am
    @HiEv - the puddle comment really got to me, too. First he quotes Douglass Adams and in the very same breath makes the exact statement that Adams was lampooning.

    I appreciate where the guy is coming from. I really do, but this is really metaphysics 101 type stuff he`s going over.
  55. Profile photo of tommy2X4
    tommy2X4 Male 50-59
    3446 posts
    December 12, 2011 at 3:02 am
    My God has a first name, it`s O-S-C-A-R...
  56. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32756 posts
    December 12, 2011 at 5:32 am
    @Angilion: I was being funny, actually, in putting the capital G there. I honestly don`t think an Almighty God cares a bit if we put a capital letter there or not. Of if Allah cares what hand we wipe our bums with? He`s not the God for me!
    You make valid points, but aren`t `titles` like Sir Elton John, or Duke of Nottingham, the S and D are capitals. So in my view: God is a title for the universe-creator. Not being arguementive, y`all can lower-case all you like!

    @El_Chinche: Oh how clever! No, wait, it`s lame actually. As in totally lame, crippled even.

    @demonveteran: you posted that just to bug @Angilion, didn`t you! lolz!
  57. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    December 12, 2011 at 6:35 am
    I read about five paragraphs until I realized this was just some half-assed borborygmus of words.
  58. Profile photo of mightymouse8
    mightymouse8 Male 18-29
    2 posts
    December 12, 2011 at 6:43 am
    You all realize this article is from 1995, right? Even if this guy was even close to what they thought was right then, this entire article is outdated by 16 years. Science has moved on.
  59. Profile photo of dm2754
    dm2754 Male 40-49
    3334 posts
    December 12, 2011 at 6:51 am
    that was a waste of time
  60. Profile photo of El_Chinche
    El_Chinche Male 18-29
    546 posts
    December 12, 2011 at 8:01 am
    @5Cats
    Only pointing out how pretentious and ridiculous your little story about your imaginary friend sounded to the rest of us.
  61. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7552 posts
    December 12, 2011 at 9:02 am
    It is not the existence of god which appears to vex people- but the definition of god. 5cats makes the point that God is the term he uses for the universe creator, which is the way many people would use the term. That is quite a leap to then assuming sentience and omnipotence. From that point some then assume that we can influence our surroundings through prayer- which could work either by effecting change in ourselves ( thus changing the world through ourselves) or by appealing to the good nature of their God - assuming he has a good nature. I think it is the leap from unknowable force to sentience that causes the rows, but I cannot see HOW people make that leap?
  62. Profile photo of Zagger
    Zagger Male 30-39
    108 posts
    December 12, 2011 at 9:28 am
    I don`t believe that God exists. But if he does, then I am not a fan of him.
  63. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32756 posts
    December 12, 2011 at 10:48 am
    @El_Chinche: You did notice it was a dream, like at night while asleep? And I didn`t talk to anyone, the charecter in the book did.
    If I read Moby Dick it doesn`t mean I personally believe in a huge albino whale, m-kay?

    Thanks @madduck! It IS quite a leap (of faith some would say) to go from "there is a God" to "God will help the Bengals win the Superbowl this year! Because I prayed so much!"
  64. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    December 12, 2011 at 10:52 am
    What a nothing article full of conjecture.
  65. Profile photo of snakecharmer
    snakecharmer Male 18-29
    321 posts
    December 13, 2011 at 8:21 am
    Aithiest = narcissist. You believe nothing could be or is greater than yourselves, or if you don`t understand it you reject it. How unscientific.
  66. Profile photo of HiEv
    HiEv Male 40-49
    621 posts
    December 24, 2011 at 1:51 am
    @Snakecharmer: What the heck is an "aithiest"?

    Assuming you mean "atheist", then you might want to try actually talking to an atheist for a while with an open mind, rather than ignorantly judging us based on how you incorrectly assume we think.

    I`m an atheist and I think that the universe is far greater than I am. And I don`t reject things because I don`t understand them, I reject things because they are illogical and/or have no good objective evidence to support them.

    Believing things on faith alone, especially when they are in opposition to objective evidence, is what`s REALLY unscientific.

    Have a nice day! :-)

Leave a Reply