A universe from nothing

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Before I expend a bunch of bandwidth, is this a lecture on science or religion? I'm frankly fairly tired of the religion debate but if it's a lecture on big bang theory or something I'm interested.

Cosmology, religion, what's the difference?

 

[totalnoob]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Comparatively speaking, Dawkins is an intellectual midget, but because Collins doesn't believe as he does, Dawkins feels he's qualified to be the judge. Fortunately Obama doesn't give a shit about Dawkins agenda and hired him anyway. Why? Because he's good. Real good.

You will notice however that Collins and other scientists over history are respected and remembered for their SECULAR contributions to human knowledge. Edwin Hubble might have believed in God..but he did not include "magic beard man" in his description of the movement of galaxies or the redshift phenomenon. If a doctor finds the cure for cancer then molests children in his spare time, it is still possible to admire his work in cancer research while considering him a depraved human whose opinions outside that area are unworthy of respect. This is how Dawkins (rightly) feels about biologists who discard the mountains of information that prove the fact of evolution in order to cling to primitive supernatural beliefs. For a biologist to discard the overwhelming amount of data, he must be willfully ignorant and willfully suspend his faculties of judgment. Collins might not be a "mental midget" on the whole, but his he is certainly intellectually dishonest by picking and choosing which parts of reality to believe in.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: totalnoob

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Comparatively speaking, Dawkins is an intellectual midget, but because Collins doesn't believe as he does, Dawkins feels he's qualified to be the judge. Fortunately Obama doesn't give a shit about Dawkins agenda and hired him anyway. Why? Because he's good. Real good.

You will notice however that Collins and other scientists over history are respected and remembered for their SECULAR contributions to human knowledge. Edwin Hubble might have believed in God..but he did not include "magic beard man" in his description of the movement of galaxies or the redshift phenomenon. If a doctor finds the cure for cancer then molests children in his spare time, it is still possible to admire his work in cancer research while considering him a depraved human whose opinions outside that area are unworthy of respect. This is how Dawkins (rightly) feels about biologists who discard the mountains (no, GALAXIES) of information that prove the fact of evolution in order to cling to primitive supernatural beliefs. For a biologist to discard the overwhelming amount of data, he must be willfully ignorant and willfully suspend his faculties of judgment. Collins might not be a "mental midget" on the whole, but his he is certainly intellectually dishonest by picking and choosing which parts of reality to believe in.

Are you saying Collins doesn't believe in evolution? What aspects of science does he reject?

Edit:
Here lies my beef with Dawkins and his ilk. Collins has an impeccable record in the field of research. There has not been an accusation of duplicity or scandal regarding his work. Yet the proselytizing atheists consider him incompetent. Why? Because he's a Christian, and that is a defacto admission of incompetence. His record strongly suggests otherwise, and that shows a lack of objectivity, and an agenda on their part.

Dumb = Dumb no matter what their religious status is. Dawkins is effectively a bigot, and proud of it.

 

[totalnoob]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Are you saying Collins doesn't believe in evolution? What aspects of science does he reject?

I honestly don't know particularly what he believes..but the poster seemed to indicate he was a "non-literal" biblical creationist...someone who believes in the Christian god..but not the official story described by "God's word" (the bible). I think it is fair for Dawkins to criticize such wishy washy beliefs.. " Holding them implies that rationality can be suspended in some areas and that there is a reasonable compromise possible between science and the supernatural, when in fact there is no compromise possible.

The good is the rational...The evil is the irrational. There is no compromise possible between them. In a compromise between food and poison, only death can result. To concede that irrationality is ok "some of the time" is to sanction the ignorance of less informed people and to put supernaturalism on even footing with naturalism. It does not deserve that kind of respect.

 

[timosyy]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Before I expend a bunch of bandwidth, is this a lecture on science or religion? I'm frankly fairly tired of the religion debate but if it's a lecture on big bang theory or something I'm interested.

Science, just with a few religious jabs thrown in. It's worth the watch regardless of your religious (or lack thereof) beliefs though.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: totalnoob

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Are you saying Collins doesn't believe in evolution? What aspects of science does he reject?

I honestly don't know particularly what he believes..but the poster seemed to indicate he was a "non-literal" biblical creationist...someone who believes in the Christian god..but not the official story described by "God's word" (the bible). I think it is fair for Dawkins to criticize such wishy washy beliefs.. " Holding them implies that rationality can be suspended in some areas, and that there is a reasonable compromise possible between science and the supernatural, when in fact there is no compromise possible.

What is his basis in fact which shows that Collins cannot be as good a scientist because of his particular beliefs?

And what right does Dawkins have to challenge Collins professionally because he doesn't approve of how he views his religion?

If he wants to go up to Collins and say "You aren't doing your religion right", hey OK. It's when he says that he can't do a job that he's been doing right for decades, then he's crossed the line into bigoted stupidity.

Now lots of people (some well educated) are stupid bigots so Dawkins is just one of many. Not many years ago he might have done this with women or blacks. I don't know what drives that mentality, but it always starts with the view of their own superiority. So be it.

 

[totalnoob]

After googling him, I see he does accept the evidence of modern biology and astronomy. That being the case I see no reason to harshly criticize him since he does at least acknowledge reality "where it counts" and can definitely contribute something in the field. He seems to have more of an Einsteinian "awe and wonder at the universe" spirituality..rather than believing traditional religious dogma that can conflict with the data. Knowing this I think Dawkins is out of line for attacking Collins professionally, however I can certainly understand the reasoning behind the criticism (as I mentioned earlier).

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: totalnoob
After googling him, I see he does accept the evidence of modern biology and astronomy. That being the case I see no reason to harshly criticize him since he does at least acknowledge reality "where it counts" and can definitely contribute something in the field. He seems to have more of an Einsteinian "awe and wonder at the universe" spirituality..rather than believing traditional religious dogma that can conflict with the data. Knowing this I think Dawkins is out of line for attacking Collins professionally, however I can certainly understand the reasoning behind the criticism (as I mentioned earlier).

Certainly Dawkins isn't in any way obliged to accept a contrary view of religion. There is no problem with him not liking Collins one bit. Where he loses credibility is going on an attack because they don't agree. Professionally, there is no argument. Collins is qualified, and he's always done well. If he could part the waters, he wouldn't be fit to serve in such a position if he tried to bend his data to suit a preconceived notion.

That leaves just one thing left. He dislikes the man based on his religion to try to discredit him. That's hardly objective.

Bottom line. If anyone can't do their job for whatever reason, then they shouldn't do it. Otherwise leave them be.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Wow! What a great lecture. Thanks for the link OP, I really enjoyed it. Can't wait for the next time someone asks me why there is something rather than nothing, I've got a good hour of material to explain to them

 

[totalnoob]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Can't wait for the next time someone asks me why there is something rather than nothing, I've got a good hour of material to explain to them

This lecture was a start on explaining that..but of course it still doesn't make sense. If there was no space for a quantum fluctuation to take place in, how did it take place? For a fluctuation to happen, there needs to be something to "fluctate" doesn't there?

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: totalnoob

Originally posted by: JS80
this shit makes no sense. so nothing is something, but nothing is nothing only because we can't see it? *headasplodes*

If you really want to blow your mind, do some reading on quantum mechanics beginning with the double split experiment..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc&fmt=18

Your brain will explode when you understand what happens at 4:25.

DUDE! WTF. . .I heard of this experiment in conversation before but I never actually saw or heard a good detailed description of it like this until I looked at the video in your link. Now, having watched that, I can clearly understand what the experiment found and why it is so mind boggling! But what I want to know next is. . .can they explain how the mere act of observing makes the waveform collapse? Do they know WHY this happened or is it still yet another one of those things that we haven't figured out yet? I must know more about this!

 

[totalnoob]

DUDE! WTF. . .I heard of this experiment in conversation before but I never actually saw or heard a good detailed description of it like this until I looked at the video in your link. Now, having watched that, I can clearly understand what the experiment found and why it is so mind boggling! But what I want to know next is. . .can they explain how the mere act of observing makes the waveform collapse? Do they know WHY this happened or is it still yet another one of those things that we haven't figured out yet? I must know more about this!

lol..even people who spend a lifetime studying this stuff are saying "DUDE WTF?" as well.

I believe there is a good explanation but it goes way over my head. Consider making a post over in the "highly technical" forum and I'm sure you will get some good answers.

You next mission: Read up on quantum entanglement.

Here is the "Dr Quantum" youtube explanation...It is quite short and not very thorough but should give you an overview of the phenomenon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh8uZUzuRhk&fmt=18

 

[totalnoob]

.....

 

[totalnoob]

.....

 

[totalnoob]

.....

 

[totalnoob]

.....

 

[totalnoob]

.....

 

[totalnoob]

.....

 

[totalnoob]

sorry for those blank posts yall.. My response wasnt showing up on the forum so I posted the same thing like 6 times. It finally appeared 5 minutes later. Woops.

 

[magomago]

Interesting lecture and the guy is clearly extremely smart. Although I must LOL for him to refer to Rick Warren as a pompous asshole. He doesn't need to look much beyond his nose to find another pompous person.
I don't get the religion bashing though, I really think it makes little to no sense when considering the subject matter. After all he discussed, I'm at a loss to say where the proof is that God doesn't exist. Actually I would even go and say where is there any proof for God's existence. The only thing I can take from this in the end if simple - only God can create something from nothing.

One thing that I can agree with him completely on the very end is that humans try to create special meaning out of nothing.

But for the actual content and meat of the discussion, its incredibly interesting.

 

[alrocky]

85 minutes in:

If a universe got created ...

From the inside it would look like it was growing exponentially

From the outside it would look like it was shrinking to form a black hole

Doesn't this sound like our big bang was someone else's view of the formation of a black hole and the black holes we "see" or suspect are new universes being created?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

DUDE! WTF. . .I heard of this experiment in conversation before but I never actually saw or heard a good detailed description of it like this until I looked at the video in your link. Now, having watched that, I can clearly understand what the experiment found and why it is so mind boggling!

Neils Bohr said something to the effect of "If you are not profoundly shocked by quantum mechanics, you haven't understood it yet."

But what I want to know next is. . .can they explain how the mere act of observing makes the waveform collapse?

There are a number of "competing" interpretations of quantum mechanical phenomena. The Copenhagen Interpretation has been the most popular for the longest time, but if I'm not mistaken among a plurality of the greater minds in quantum mechanical study the Everett (so-called "Many Worlds") Interpretation is now favored. I particularly like the work of David Deutsch in quantum computing. You can find some info on his work at www.qubit.org

Do they know WHY this happened or is it still yet another one of those things that we haven't figured out yet? I must know more about this!

I personally favor the many worlds interpretation, despite how radical it may appear to be at first blush.

 

[EGGO]

85 minutes in:


Doesn't this sound like our big bang was someone else's view of the formation of a black hole and the black holes we "see" or suspect are new universes being created?

a=b
b=c
Doesn't necessarily mean a=c

 

[totalnoob]

final bump

 

[zerocool84]

final bump

This did not need a bump. Anything that gets religious/atheist people arguing never deserves a bump.