Do you think the earth is flat or round?

This topic contains 91 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by Luckydestiny Luckydestiny 6 years ago.

Viewing 20 posts - 61 through 80 (of 92 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1611318
    MacGuffin
    MacGuffin
    Participant
    • :

    Computers do the legwork and can assist making the hard to comprehend, understandable. They can acquire the knowledge, which then means we dont have to find it, we just have to decipher what is already stored in the computer.

    I suspect there are limits to the science of how the universe works (topic of discussion I think). That the universe is expanding is a red herring. Human population is expanding but it doesn’t stop us learning medicine. Put another way, if there is a ping pong ball making machine, we dont have to keep track of the latest ping pong ball to come off the conveyor belt … we just need to understand the machine.

    The argument you and others use for god is that it is planned. Many religions adhere to the Gods Will and predestination theory. There’s no point discussing god theory until its proponents explain what it is. Seems to me to be a moving target, goal post shift constantly.

    For me the laws are fixed and how events pan out is random within those constraints. A bit like a game of football …. random events within a defined parameter.

    #1611365
    Luckydestiny
    Luckydestiny
    Participant
    • :

    Mac, we are not disagreeing in the sense that I am not defining god and claiming he exists, I am describing the properties of a causeless cause (if there is one)

    There are many different descriptions and claims on the nature of god, you need to argue those points with the people making those claims, I am not.

    I have never claimed the universe is planned, just open minded to the possibility that the universe may be intelligible because it is founded on intelligence, that something without purpose and generated randomly can be intelligible is a “miracle” in some sense, in terms of its seemingly overwhelming improbability. also the absurdity of the idea that physical reality actually exists leads me to believe it possibly doesn’t and that everything we perceive as existing is actually belonging to a supreme conscious mind or intelligence, the idea that matter comes from consciousness, not the reverse paradigm which dominates western culture.

    No point continuing with your analogies on how artificial intelligence can reveal the whole truth of reality to us in a language and context human brain can understand, I get what you are saying its just theoretical futuristic clap trap at this moment in my opinion, doesn’t mean we should not try, just cant believe its possible.

    #1611392

    Paxman
    Participant
    • :

    Lucky Destiny – Ifr the are an infinite number of accidental scenarios then the outcome we have on Earth was bound to happen at least once, it is all a matter of probability.

    #1611397
    Luckydestiny
    Luckydestiny
    Participant
    • :

    exactly pax, that is the only acceptable naturalistic alternative and one I am open to, would take faith to assert it as certain though when not possible to verify empirically.

    #1611595
    tom182
    tom182
    Participant
    • :

    LD – Most theories work on the idea that a separate timeline is formed when even the tiniest detail in the past is changed.

    Eg. Reality as we know it:

    Macguffin is a good poster on teamtalk

    Alternate possibilities which may be running concurrently:

    Macguffin is not a good poster on teamtalk
    Macguffin doesn’t post on teamtalk
    Macguffin doesn’t exist
    Teamtalk doesn’t exist

    The film ‘The Cloverfield Paradox’ released earlier this year explored the idea of parallel universes colliding and ‘competing’ for the same space, the results were chaotic but inconclusive.

    #1611615

    Paxman
    Participant
    • :

    Reality to Tom, Reality to Tom, I think we have lost you 🙂

    #1611646
    Luckydestiny
    Luckydestiny
    Participant
    • :

    Tom, yes I have read theories along those lines, some claiming that it ties in with quantum theory. each decision creating an alternative universe seems to be a beautiful way to understand how luck and destiny could co exist.

    P.S, I think I share your reality as I think mac is good poster too.

    #1611688
    Luckydestiny
    Luckydestiny
    Participant
    • :

    Pax, to add to what you said if there are infinite universes then there will be infinite number of life permitting ones too. Not only that but there would be infinite numbers of planets identical to ours including me and you posting the exact same posts an infinite number of times.

    I concede is possible, but never seen evidence for it, to me the hypothesis is no less absurd than most theological hypothesis in terms of its nature or more importantly its verifiability.

    #1612061

    Paxman
    Participant
    • :

    Lucky – You could argue that the sky is pink and you have never seen the evidence against it if you have never looked at it 🙂

    #1612354
    Luckydestiny
    Luckydestiny
    Participant
    • :

    Pax, that is a very stupid statement.

    Science is based on hypothesis that can be proven to be empirically true, you should know that. The argument in my last post is sound and you have failed to provide a counter argument.

    Care to explain how your silly remark actually relates to my argument? If I was claiming something as fact and then running away from or ignoring evidence or arguments to the contrary then it would.

    The irony is thats what you just did.

    #1612513

    Paxman
    Participant
    • :

    Lucky – It was not a stupid statement it is just outlining the fact that just because you have not seen evidence it doesn’t mean there isn’t any. Scientific evidence like this is not something you can just google and grab the answer, there is so much to work through and most of it is done by people with far more understanding than you or I, so even if we came across the evidence, the chances are we would not understand it.

    #1612552
    Luckydestiny
    Luckydestiny
    Participant
    • :

    Pax, you are talking out of your backside.

    The infinite universe theory is hypothetical and one I am genuinely open to. However there is no scientific evidence to support it what so ever, if there is and your belief there are infinite universes is based on it then you could cite it.

    If you cant cite it just admit you believe it without evidence.

    The point I am making is that the universe is so remarkable that whatever is behind it is likely to be absurd to human mind. whether that’s infinite universes or infinitely powerful consciousness or mind, both are absurd to human mind and both unverifiable at this point in time, we may never know the answer

    #1612612

    Paxman
    Participant
    • :

    Lucky – No one has ever said this is the answer this is 100% correct, science is an ever evolving subject, what science gives us is the best possible hypothesis from the information we currently have with the tools that are currently available, as we evolve and technology evoles we get more data we have better tools, and the best possible answer evolves with it. Choose what you want to believe, choose what you want to ignore but it is there and it is not a case of citing 1 piece of evidence, there are huindreds of thousands peices of evidence that have brought about the current conclusion of how the universe works.

    #1612622
    Luckydestiny
    Luckydestiny
    Participant
    • :

    Pax, you are still talking bs mate, no scientist has put a percentage probability on the existence of infinite universes based on objective evidence, I am contesting there is no scientific evidence for it, you are not contesting that very well mate. maybe reconsider your opinion if you are as rational as you pretend to be.

    #1612652

    Paxman
    Participant
    • :

    Lucky – As I said feel free to believe what you want to believe, and I am sure you are right, that the idea of an infinite universe was just something that was conjured up in somones head, and they were so persuasive that it is now considered the most likely explanation of the universe 🙂

    #1612675
    Luckydestiny
    Luckydestiny
    Participant
    • :

    Pax, I don’t know who you are arguing with, the development of the scientific method is in my mind mankinds greatest achievement, would not argue against its virtues what so ever.

    I will however argue with arrogant people such as yourself who criticize others for believing things without evidence and then do exactly the same thing.

    Our understanding of the workings of universe does not extend to any true understanding of what is outside of it. To believe there are infinite universes because it is revealed to you by superior beings you can not question is pathetic.

    In answer to your question, while the infinite universe hypothesis is philosophically sound, just as the infinite intelligence hypothesis is, it is just as unscientific a proposition as it can not be tested. in short it exists in the heads of some scientists as a philosophical answer to how such a finely ordered universe can exist , just like various ideas of god exist only in the heads of believers as a philosophical tool to the same end.

    Difference between us is I am open to both, you have dismissed one outright and claimed the other is scientifically founded without citing the research to back it up.

    #1612702

    Laughing Lenny
    Participant
    • :

    Hey Lucky. What’s your spin on “Dark Matter”? I posed this to Mac the other day but am still in the dark.

    Scientists constantly tell us that “Dark Matter” is everywhere out in space and it’s over 75% of everything that exists out there.
    But when you ask the obvious questions i.e. What is it?, or, Where is it?
    They say they don’t know but they believe it’s everywhere.
    Then if you ask them: Can we get some down here? They just laugh and say: Of course not!

    So if they don’t know what it is, and they don’t know where it is, and they can’t get any down here to prove it, is there any reason why we should believe them?

    #1612713
    killyboye
    killyboye
    Participant
    • :

    what if our universe is the smallest piece of matter we can imagine and is lumped alongside and inside other pieces of matter so there is an innumerable number of universes above our ‘universe’ and each piece of matter in our universe holds innumerable ‘universes’?

    #1612740
    Luckydestiny
    Luckydestiny
    Participant
    • :

    Hi Killboye, I don’t understand the science behind dark matter or dark energy, but I thought it was similar to our understanding of gravity in a way. Gravity is a natural phenomena we can observe regards the way bodies of mass attract each other, the behavior is predictable and can be described mathematically. We still don’t understand its true nature though. Think the same must apply to dark matter but its harder for us to understand simply because while gravity and its effects are easily observable the proposed dark matter only seems to interfere with gravity and does not affect other things like light (which gravity does).

    #1612743
    Luckydestiny
    Luckydestiny
    Participant
    • :

    With regards your second point, god knows mate 😉

Viewing 20 posts - 61 through 80 (of 92 total)

You must be logged in to reply this topic.