New Scientific Theory Suggests Consciousness Does Not End at Death.

Devils' Advocate said:
... the same issue I have with dark energy ...
Click to expand...

Dark Energy theoretically could be pegged at any value up to 10 to the power 500 (effectively virtually infinity).

In fact it's pegged -- as if on a ruler from here to the sun -- to operate within a range less than the diameter of an atom from the start of the scale at zero.

This is the only range for dark energy that could make existence of the universe possible. Less and gravity would have prevented the universe from happening, more and it would have expanded too fast for stars etc, to have had a chance to form.

So they say?

It's just one of about a dozen 'fine-tunings' for the universe which -- stacked and multiplied upon one another -- the logical 'scientific atheists' propose as an answer to a 'spiritual intelligence'?
 
Last edited:
Interesting that you should bring this up. A quite recent discovery may have implications if dark energy is needed after all. Or at the very least, not as much as we thought was needed. As you know there is not enough matter in the universe to explain everything that is going on. Hence the theory that there was something we could not observe, dark energy.

But it turns out that there is very likely 10 times as many galaxies in the universe than we thought. Which we can not see for a variety of reasons. Careful examination of the wealth of images Hubble has given us over the past decade were used to come up with this new mass.

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-universe-ten-galaxies-previously-thought.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Devils' Advocate said:
Interesting that you should bring this up. A quite recent discovery may have implications if dark energy is needed after all. Or at the very least, not as much as we thought was needed. As you know there is not enough matter in the universe to explain everything that is going on. Hence the theory that there was something we could not observe, dark energy.

But it turns out that there is very likely 10 times as many galaxies in the universe than we thought. Which we can not see for a variety of reasons. Careful examination of the wealth of images Hubble has given us over the past decade were used to come up with this new mass.

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-universe-ten-galaxies-previously-thought.html
Click to expand...

Of course the matter contained in hidden/unknown galaxies might explain the extra mass.

Dark Energy is the anti-gravity force causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. It's not quite the same thing as dark matter, we're told? :)
 
RJM Corbet said:
Of course the matter contained in hidden/unknown galaxies might explain the extra mass.
Click to expand...

I don't think so, though I'm not sure actually. Far as I know the mass needed must exist in each separate dimension. If there even are all these extra dimensions; which is one of those current theories that 'the math' suggests but I am having a hard time accepting. Until and unless more evidence is found I'll remain a doubting devil about that.

RJM Corbet said:
Dark Energy is the anti-gravity force causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. It's not quite the same thing as dark matter, we're told?
Click to expand...

Yes. Exactly right. Dark matter is a tiny percentage of the whole, as is normal matter. So actually my suggestion is likely a Duh moment. Finding more normal matter probably means there is less need of dark matter. Dark energy would not have been affected by the find of more normal matter. My bad! Good catch!
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
RJM Corbet said:
It's just one of about a dozen 'fine-tunings' for the universe which -- stacked and multiplied upon one another -- the logical 'scientific atheists' propose as an answer to a 'spiritual intelligence'?
Click to expand...

Now this statement, cannot agree so much. lol. The 'logical' proposal is an attempt to explain the scientific reason for what is happening in our reality. It does not address any spiritual/religious intelligence either for or against.

I think there is a general confusion and false equivalency about science and religion. Science does not attempt to even address the question of gods.

Atheists use science to attack theists. Big difference. Even though a lot of scientists are atheists, I don't believe a whole lot of them would state unequivocally that gods are impossible. Even Laurence Krauss, one of the most strident atheists says he is open to the possibility if a god would only show itself. For him it is about the evidence. If we looked up at the sky tonight and the stars we know and have known for thousands of years suddenly shifted positions to spell out "I am God and I approve of this message", even he would be impressed by that as evidence of a deity. For the simple reason that there is no way the laws of the physical universe is capable of such a thing on its own. Not to mention the super massive havoc to the galaxy, gravitational fields, magnetic fields etc., that such a thing would create.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
This makes sense to me.
atheism.jpg
 
Last edited:
The difference between Jews, Christians and Muslims..., and atheists.... Is atheists believe in just one leas god than they do...
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
wil said:
The difference between Jews, Christians and Muslims..., and atheists.... Is atheists believe in just one leas god than they do...
Click to expand...

The atheists I know don't like to be labeled at all: in the sense that the 'off' button isn't a programme. Something like that :)
 
In the pedantic sense that someone can't be identified by what they don't believe in? ;)
 
Interesting you should say that phrase could have come out practically word for word out of my atheist brother's mouth. Can't be against something that doesn't exist so the word is senseless.

So obviously we need a new word for those people with this philosophy. Hmmmmm. Since I believe we should stick with the Latin/Greek standard as is used for the rest of these words, I suggest:

Infideliator!

Admittedly it is a work in progress.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Downright silly....theist, deist, atheist, agnostic, humanist, scientist... These labels...none of them are negative by themselves...only by the perceptions of ones mind.
 
Nothing inherently negative about bicyclists either, but if one enters an automotive enthusiasts venue and starts faulting folks for enjoying their hobby, they get a negative impression of all bicyclist.
 
Last edited:
wil said:
Downright silly....theist, deist, atheist, agnostic, humanist, scientist... These labels...none of them are negative by themselves...only by the perceptions of ones mind.
Click to expand...
I think I agree. People who are negative of a label often criticize the origin or a sort of literal meaning of the label. I hear this most often with feminism where it is insisted that since it starts with 'fem-' a feminists position is that woman should be dominant. This is, as I hope all of you know, not true. It is a wide field of positions that include all theorise on gender equality (however many there are).

And I think the same is true about atheism, it is not a position centred on the God they don't believe in. A reality that exclude the existence of a God is fundamentally different from a reality that include a God and atheists hold the former position. It might be possible to come up with another name for atheists that are made up of non-religious words that describe their non-religious position, but I'm not sure that it would change anything meaningful. And the nature of language means that many of descriptions we use today would originally have had a slightly different meaning at other points in history.
 
Aussie Thoughts said:
Nothing inherently negative about bicyclists either, but if one enters an automotive enthusiasts venue and starts faulting folks for enjoying their hobby, they get a negative impression of all bicyclist.
Click to expand...
True....just as religionists get a bad rap due to aggressive door knockers and sidewalk preachers with bullhorns insulting folks as they walk by.
 
wil said:
True....just as religionists get a bad rap due to aggressive door knockers and sidewalk preachers with bullhorns insulting folks as they walk by.
Click to expand...
Not exactly where I was going, but in the ballpark. Just saying if you enter a venue for and about faith and attempt to cast doubt on the existence of God, you're bound to make a negative impression.
 
As a truth seeker... I enjoy hearing things from all angles. This is not a site (as far as I know) that was made to promote faith or convert or save anyone...(although we've had those coming in trying...those that think they have the one and only truth and feel the need to proselytize, berate, cajole others into agreement)(it typically hasn't worked out well for them)

This is an interfaith site...discussing all faiths, and the lack of it, and faith in science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top