Proof Of God In A Photon

Submitted by: PoppetX 5 years ago Science
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/proofs-of-god-in-a-photon-1527306.html?fb_action_ids=2562906603883%2C2562899083695&fb_action_types=news.reads&fb_source=other_multiline#access_token=AAADWQ6323IoBANJrts9H4B7PuaRGT1v0otFxqGT6r773R2l2TZAvNIgVKmlLkcJigVcL4KlHK1mSJDkVFbVfbFG4QZBwQiZAVGwLLq

Even the scientists are protecting themselves for 2012
There are 67 comments:
Male 621
@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! :-)
0
Reply
Male 321
Aithiest = narcissist. You believe nothing could be or is greater than yourselves, or if you don`t understand it you reject it. How unscientific.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
What a nothing article full of conjecture.
0
Reply
Male 36,400
@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!"
0
Reply
Male 108
I don`t believe that God exists. But if he does, then I am not a fan of him.
0
Reply
Female 7,833
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?
0
Reply
Male 546
@5Cats
Only pointing out how pretentious and ridiculous your little story about your imaginary friend sounded to the rest of us.
0
Reply
Male 3,578
that was a waste of time
0
Reply
Male 2
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.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
I read about five paragraphs until I realized this was just some half-assed borborygmus of words.
0
Reply
Male 36,400
@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!
0
Reply
Male 3,472
My God has a first name, it`s O-S-C-A-R...
0
Reply
Male 48
@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.
0
Reply
Male 621
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.
0
Reply
Male 928
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.
0
Reply
Male 238
TL: DR
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Capital G there! Just in case.[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 546
@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?
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Of COURSE there is a purpose to the Universe. It exists to irritate me.
0
Reply
Male 36,400
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?
0
Reply
Male 36,400
[quote]I particularly liked the fourth bear hypothesis[/quote]
No no! There was a second Goldielocks! She lives on a grassy knoll, eh? The "lone Goldielocks" theory is bunkum!

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

[quote]Maybe your God created the universe with all the fundamental constants and laws and set it running.[/quote]
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!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I`m a believer in GCTU, but not Intelligent Design, eh?[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]It`s just that I`m thinking I agree with what you`re saying, but it seems like you`re disagreeing with my agreeing.[/quote]

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

[quote]There`s also another related point[/quote]

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: [quote]If conditions were different, WE`D be different![/quote]

My reply was about conditions in which no life at all could exist - an addition to your argument, not a disagreement with it.
0
Reply
Male 14,773
unidentified flying object <> little green men invading earth

unexplained changes in the seasons <> fairies

unexplained physical phenomena <> gods

unexplained pregnancy of `virgin` bride <> messiah
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]idk your side here, are you for `God created the universe` or against it?[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]@Angilion: so I`m not the only geek in the world who thinks that? lolz![/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 36,400
[quote]thermodynamics doesn`t work that way - the bowls of porridge would cool in order of size[/quote]
@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?
0
Reply
Male 546
@Angilion

0
Reply
Female 280
tl;dr There is no God. And of there was, it`s dead now.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Well, Smagboy1 made a summary:

[quote]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.[/quote]

I also have a summary:

I exist, therefore my religion must be correct. This is logic.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]aka: Baby Bear`s Porrige theory[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 1,540
@Angilion

I feel that the "TL;DR" posts have been more valuable to readers than most of the other comments on this post.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]tl:dr[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 759
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.
0
Reply
Male 62
tl:dr
0
Reply
Male 508
Here`s a handful of straws...start grasping.lol
0
Reply
Male 812
Talk about retarded.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]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![/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 36,400
[quote]Yes. It follows from realising that you are not the entire focus and purpose of the universe.[/quote]
@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!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]"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".[/quote]

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

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

[quote]Where have I heard that before?

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

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.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]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.[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 36,400
vv Excellent recap there @Smagboy1!
0
Reply
Male 525
I`ll bet you five hundred bucks that this doesn`t uproot the entire basis of science.
0
Reply
Male 4,746
Don`t you need to have proof, before you offer proof?
0
Reply
Male 25,416
So many words :P
0
Reply
Male 5,314
tl;dr
0
Reply
Male 4,431
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.
0
Reply
Male 1,526
Wall of text. Made from opinion bricks, not proof bricks.
0
Reply
Male 1,540
Proof? More like theoretical essay.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]st. thomas and st. anselm had already given deductive reasons why God exists[/quote]

Did they give proof? No? I didn`t think so.
0
Reply
Male 134
.....fail post
0
Reply
Male 2,516
I saw no proof there, only an essay.
0
Reply
Male 1,623
Let`s see if there is substance and not just bias and pseudo-intellectualism.

Result
0
Reply
Female 385
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.
0
Reply
Male 1,196
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.
0
Reply
Male 68
This is a term paper, not news
0
Reply
Male 10,440
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... "
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Hah! No.
0
Reply
Male 36,400
@pooptart: lolz!
@Link_Hiei: Monty Python shows how to behave when meeting God Almighty.
0
Reply
Male 36,400
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...
0
Reply
Male 5,190
I thought you couldn`t see god in the first place or you`d like die...
0
Reply
Male 1,931
-No evidence provided
-No evidence is evidence
-God exists

Yea... no...
0
Reply
Male 2,440
Step 1. Photons
Step 2. ???
Step 3. Proof of the existence of God.
Step 4. PROFIT!
0
Reply
Male 59
Eeh, not buying it.
0
Reply
Male 5,094
Too long; read later.
0
Reply
Male 1,226
Huge article, first paragraph has nothing to do with the subject at all: TL;DR
0
Reply
Female 38
Link: Proof Of God In A Photon [Rate Link] - Even the scientists are protecting themselves for 2012
0
Reply