₦airaland Forum

GrizzlyBear:
What I actually meant by my statement, was that in terms of the premise of my write-up, there isn't anything inherently beautiful about it. It's a grotesque expression of the grim truth about our existence, and hence your description of it is paradoxical. But I made the statement on a jocular note. Nothing too serious.

Thanks for appreciating it.

your welcome!

GrizzlyBear:
Your paradoxical reply is much appreciated.

paradoxical? ......calm down bro

Beautiful write up

Vctr:
Yes, the universe can broadly be categorised in two scales i.e the quantum and macro/real world.

I think it would be unfair to think that the universe is being ruled on a random setting. In space and our own surroundings, the laws of physics are real because we can see them and they are predictable... Nuclear fusion, thermodynamics... All of these and many more occur in outer space

but in the crazy world of quantum mechanics or should i call it "the uncertainty world" the laws of physics are shatterd. From the movement to the acceleration of particles is real randomness. This are the limits of the laws of physics

but looking deeper, the quantums are the biulding blocks of the macros. Everything we see are made up of particles/molecules and yet the macros are more organised than their constituents.
So can random+random=pattern ?.

If the cosmos were as uncertain as the quantums, would we exist?

Why would the quantum really be differentiated from the real world? , because everything both the the quantum and the macro are part of the same universe. Since there are certain laws that govern how everything is suppose to act, why do some hold for the real world and break down at quantum scale.

For example, cause and effect is completely shattered at quantum level. Is it that maybe were not just explaining things correctly yet, or the universe is messing with us.

aaronson:
One thing you need to understand is science is subjected to change and re-evaluation that's the reason we have critiques of lots and lots of theories, physics isn't an exception. As a scholar, you can come up to critique a theory and if it holds water you would be recognized academically.

Even Albert Einstein made some dumb assumptions and postulations concerning quantum mechanics but another physicist critique that of Einstein's and he ended up being right. Einstein kept on saying "God does not play dice with the Universe" but the other guy had to disprove Einstein's initial proposition.

Physics could sometimes be crazy and complex that a theory and critique may both be right that's why I personally love physics. For example, let's take a light as a case study.

A theory explains light to be a wave. Correct!, A critique came up and proved Light existed as particles. Upon scientific observation over time, Both theories turns out to be correct. So what am I saying? Scientific theories are very open to changes prior to new evidence/observation.

Ok nice.....maybe there's more to everything we think we know about nature. Take for example, a new hypothesis suggests that gravity might be an illusion, a side effect and not cause of whats happening in the universe, because at large scales, it seems, gravity just doesn't behave the way Einstein's theory predicts.

http://www.sciencealert.com/a-new-paper-claims-our-understanding-of-gravity-is-totally-wrong

following...

Ok great scientists of nairaland, ive been thinking lately, i have been pondering on this human construct by which we claim to understand the universe called laws of physics or nature. Do certain laws really govern how everything operates in the universe?.

This thought came to mind when i read about the law breaking EM drive that seems to shatter newtons third law of motion by generating thrust from well, basically nothing.

http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-nasa-s-peer-reviewed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published.

Its a known issue that einstein's theory of relativity doesnt hold at quantum level, because of this scientists have been on the search for an ultimate theory that unifies the both, dubbed- the theory of everything. Do we have two separate scales at which everything operates?..the quantum scale and the macro world? , or is it that we just try to make sense out of random piece of cosmic waste and call them laws.

Now, my issue is, is the universe really suppose to behave a certain way all the time?. Or is it maybe we havent fully understood the way the universe is operating.?

dolphinheart:
who said the earth has existed for just 6000 years.

Tracing the geneologies from genesis to the modern day gives roughly 6000 years.

uncleck:
Do we also discard belief in God because we never witnessed him creating?

Discard a belief in a creator or a cause? simple no....but the creator described in the bible?..yes. because the creation story is impossible for this current universe. Maybe it was meant for an alternate universe, because for this one, NO

uncleck:
the argument raise above is simple.

If we've not seen macroevolution occur, does it mean it didnt happen.
Do we waive off every murder case simply because there's no video recording of it happening?

It is impossible for the earth to have existed for just 6000 years. This alone makes everything written in the bible trash.

Evolution have been withnessed. Yes, you heard right, but disshonest and unelightened people call it micro evolution, even though it follows essentially thesame principle and is not even really differentiated from macroevolution biologically.

Not only this, evolution is backed by overwhelming evidences from past discoveries to very modern day observations.

Evolution happens, whether you like it or not, species didnt all appear magically 6000 years ago.

arguments presented(though weak) , arguments trashed but watch it come back a month later

CeoMYN:
Nice one sir

Thanks, I modified.

Can the universe exist without a cause?...

This is a nice question, although not new, it does sound fresh everytime.

Did the universe really begin at a certain time?....i know the obvious answer that comes to mind is a resounding yes, because basically every belief system, ideology and empirical evidence seem to suggest so, but then again what if everything we know about the universe is wrong?.

Scientifically, up unto the closest we've observed, it seems the universe began roughly 14 billion years ago. This theory, the big bang, puts scientists in a very tight corner, because it seems to suggest that the universe began, but how exactly it began(the cause) , is experimentally indeterminable.

Why is this so?... laws of physics, which by what we understand to produce effect from a preceeding cause was not present before the universe emerged. In other words the universe might have began without a cause.

This doesnt make much sense, does it?... no worries physicists are finding a way around such a situation where the universe would emerge from nothing. One of such, was proposed by world famous physicists Stephen Hawking, called the no boundary condition. This hypothesis is a way around the universe having to have a cause or even begining atall ....it uses a concept in theoretical physics known as real and imaginary time, which are at right angle to each other and imaginary time being essentially as real as real time...wtf right?. Its a nice idea but so far so good no concrete observational support.

In science sometimes nothing is ever completely sure, which to me is not entirely suprising considering the random nature of the universe( look up the EM drive to understand what i mean). But it still remains the best way to understand nature.

Away from science... did the universe emerge from a non physical cause which is outside the universe and not bound by universal laws and principles? . This is not entirely impossible, infact scientific laws gives room for such a cause, but what is this cause? , maybe even who is this cause?. Can we ever know with certainty the answer to these questions?.

Personally, though am atheistic, i believe shutting the door completely for a universal first cause be it concious or not, is a little closemindedly. But the first cause suggested by most if not all religions are unlikely to exist(topic for another day).

After all the long story, the simple and most honest answer to your question is WE DO NOT KNOW!!!.

interesting

DoctorAlien:
Fixed.

personally, i dont have a problem with anyone claiming they know how the universe began.....if you have a belief, keep it. But dont preach it as the truth.

DoctorAlien:
If you like use "jump-start." We know that Something brought the Universe into existence.

glad we can agree that it might be a thing, that we dont know yet

DoctorAlien:
Good. At least, you've taken one step out of delusion. The Universe was created, and didn't pop out of nothing.

True, too, you don't know Who created the universe. One day, you will know Him.

kick started, not necessarily "created". It may be what and not who you know

DoctorAlien:
I don't know why you think you're the only one who has a knowledge of science. Anyway, the delusion is common to "atheists".

For the fact that the universe did not create itself, Something created it.

Good night.

where did i suggest that i alone has knowledge of science.?...point out please

For the fact that the universe did not create itself, Something created it.

If something did...fine.... the fact is no one knows what exactly that thing is....yet

KingEbukasBlog:
I mean if you share these "benefits" with the deists , pantheists , panentheists , pandeists , agnostics , religious skeptics etc and Christians who reject religious practices then its not the exclusive to atheists - this means its not really your thing . Just general benefits to people who reject religion .

You dig ?

since its not exclusive to any one of them, im happy to share

DoctorAlien:
More like you don't really know what to tell me.

I am not seeking a magical explanation of the universe. I know that GOD created the universe.

Goodluck with trying to explain to us how the universe came from nothing and then expanded.

you see ....If am arguing with science and you with religion, we can never be on the same page.....

E.g how exactly can you prove god created the universe?.......a text from the bible?

The universe did not come from nothing (at least in the sense we understand nothing to be). The laws of physics in the macro universe doesnt hold in a quantum scale and further breaks down at the point of sigularity. We dont know how anything is supposed to behave at that point, or even if the point is actually real or imaginery (theoretical physics). The bottom line is we do not know.

Goodnight sir, because i can already envision your response.

Are you new here?

DoctorAlien:
What little does he know?

Sir, i really dont have the strength to embark on a cyclic argument this lovely night. I know you theists are seeking a magical explanation for the universe.....goodluck with that.

KingEbukasBlog:
Breaking News sir !!!!

The deists do the exact same thing !

The deists are against religion and religious practices but not in an impious and opprobrious way like the atheists .

So whats your point??........the things i pointed out arent benefits of being an atheist?? ...so what if we share them with deists.

DoctorAlien:
Why did you try to make it look as if you're so sure of how everything came about? Isn't it an act of dishonesty to parade yourself as someone in the know when, in fact, you know nothing?

Atleast the little he knows is substanciated with evidence.

Atheism is not about collective benefits per say(its not a thing), its more of an individual thing. Its more about what the individual atheists could enjoy out of life in the absense of a thing (religion).

Personal benefits could be: not having to waste money unnecessarily in the name of paying tithes.....not having to worry about offending gods whilst ignoring humans who feel the pains directly of our bad actions......taking full responsibility of your life, decisions and actions.....liberation of thought (no zombie follow follow)....etc

There are numerous benefits we atheists derive from being atheists with each perculiar to different individual.

In short Atheism epp the Atheists

Ethically, it is difficult to find a moral issue with beastiality, consent in this case is ambigous because how exactly are we to determine if the animal is willing or not?. Their mental capacity is comparable to that of a child.

Soceity tailors morality towards what is necessary for the collective survival and well being of our race. This is why theres nothing morally wrong with killing and eating animals, because it is necessary for our survival.

Personally, beatiality is outright disgusting, disgusting because im not by default attracted to animals in any way. However, this alone doesnt make it wrong.

There are men who find fat women disgusting and unimaginabe to have sex with, this doesnt mean it is wrong to sleep with fat women.

Unless you give me an ethical reason why beastiality is wrong i dont give a rats ass if a person decides to bang his goat or cow. It doesnt concern me rather does it affect the human race in any way.

Its the guys you migle with or the ones you assume in your head that gives you this funny perception of ALL men.

raphieMontella:
you do not know the curse you are bringing upon yyourself...
My God will strike you dead...
He will drown you like he did to those sinners in noah's days...
Watch and see

My broda tell him ooo. God loves him, so much that he plans to burn him for eternity(cosmic scale eternity). If that is not the greatest, purest form of love imaginable, then i dont know what is.

As a theist, i think dna, brain, blood, eyes etc is a perfect proof of Gods existence. What do you guys think.?

GrizzlyBear:
What religious people call god, doesn't exist. The biblical god doesn't exist, same as the islamic god, and the hindu god, and all the other gods that ignorant humans have fabricated through history.
But that doesn't mean I believe that there isn't something out there that orchestrated the big bang and engineered the evolutionary process. I think it's silly to think that the universe just arose on it's own and formed the whole complexity and sophistication and mathematical laws that apply perfectly to it, without any force programming this whole thing into existence. I agree there is something out there, but whatever it is, I don't think it's the God of any religion, and I don't think it intervenes in our lives and I don't think it gives a Bleep about the earth and whatever exists in it. I also don't think we have the cognitive tools to understand such force. Humans recently evolved to make sense of their world, primarily to aid their survival, I don't think our brains have evolved to comprehend forces outside of our perceived reality

What we tag as "supernatural" are just aspects of the natural world that we don't have sufficient knowledge of.

You were probably in a haste to call yourself atheist in the first place. Judging from your post, you might be a Deist.

Deicide:
It Seams like Some become Atheist Without Even knowing what the Word is what Is attached to it...

Atheists arent supposed to hold exactly the same worldview. The only thing they have in common is a lack of belief in deities.

One can be an atheist and say, well, i dont believe in God, so i can kill, steal, rape, cheat and commit all sort of attrocities afterall theres no God at the end of the day.

Can we say because of such a person all athiests are horrible?. This why when i see topics condemning atheism because of some horrible atheist leaders, i just laugh at their ignorance and leave. Because people dont understand what atheism is in the first place.

This is why atheists these adds more tags to themselves such as humanist, realist etc...just to be clear their exact worldview.