CHADS Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 Einsteins last theory was to prove the existance in a God (in a creator of some form)... CAN YOU HELP PROVE THAT THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED BY A GOD? It should be interesting... Heres my basics ... The universe has an uncanny way in creating stars .. There are billions.Stars have a good chance of creating planets ... there are nine main ones in our solar system alone . Of these planets all would have at least a breif experience with an atmosphere of some kind in there evolution . So therefore if the univere inevitably creates stars and planets and atmospheres ... then water and carbon were inevitable from the onset....this would suggest that life is the point ... as we are 90% water and carbon based all the elements help make life ... If its not designed for life then whats the point .. no thing could appreciate it .... if it is remarkable designed for life who or what would do that?is it a coincidence that we feel pain to give us a sense of our parameters to aid our survival May be just a product of the universes great plan of something other than life But i feel that life was inevitable from the onset and all the stars are designed for life... As i said who or what would be bothered giving life a chance other than life itself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargazer Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 Einsteins last theory was to prove the existance in a God (in a creator of some form)...What theory was that? Where can I read more about it? Heres my basics ... The universe has an uncanny way in creating stars .. There are billions.Stars have a good chance of creating planets ... there are nine main ones in our solar system alone . Of these planets all would have at least a breif experience with an atmosphere of some kind in there evolution . So therefore if the univere inevitably creates stars and planets and atmospheres ... then water and carbon were inevitable from the onset.... this would suggest that life is the pointWell, there are plenty of planets where life as we know it would be impossible, and we haven't found life elsewhere in this solar system even. It seems there's plenty of real estate but very little life, even if we consider the possibility that there is a life-bearing planet in most of the star systems. ... as we are 90% water and carbon based all the elements help make life ... If its not designed for life then whats the point .. no thing could appreciate it .... if it is remarkable designed for life who or what would do that?As I see it, life is important only to living organisms, whether they know it consciously or not. That would, in my opinion, be why we like to see us as the most remarkable thing, the crown of the creation so to speak. Well, I could agree that we are fantastic, but only if we consider it as a viewpoint that we have because we can have it, and nowhere else in the universe among nonliving stuff do we find that attitude. Also, only living structures have the ability to appreciate something. Therefor, before there was life, or us, there was no concept of appreciating things. is it a coincidence that we feel pain to give us a sense of our parameters to aid our survivalNot really. It is the way it is because it works. Everything else simply don't exist. May be just a product of the universes great plan of something other than life But i feel that life was inevitable from the onset and all the stars are designed for life... As i said who or what would be bothered giving life a chance other than life itself?Are you saying that a biological creature created this universe? Also, terribly little of the energy from our sun goes to maintain life. Sure we exist because there is a star nearby that gives energy input, but that star will die at some point. It's entirely possible that there wont be any stars at all in a distant future, and that goes for more than one end scenario. Then what was the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 CHADS: Einsteins last theory was to prove the existance in a God (in a creator of some form)... Stargazer: What theory was that? Where can I read more about it? I second the motion: more details please. It's not like I know everything about Einstein's life, but he spent the last part of his life focussing on trying to unify the forces of nature, never suceeding. I am not familiar with this so-called "Einstein's last theory" related to proving the existence of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelonious Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 It's not like I know everything about Einstein's life, but he spent the last part of his life focussing on trying to unify the forces of nature, never suceeding. I am not familiar with this so-called "Einstein's last theory" related to proving the existence of God. I have studied Einstein's life quite extensively and I have never heard of this at all. His final work was on grand unification, indeed. Heres my basics ... The universe has an uncanny way in creating stars .. There are billions. Stars have a good chance of creating planets ... there are nine main ones in our solar system alone. I do not see how your reasoning points to the existence of a god. Rather, I think it supports the position of there NOT being a god. But showing that there are so many planets you imply that the chance of life appearing on one of them is inevitable. is it a coincidence that we feel pain to give us a sense of our parameters to aid our survival Well, the nervous system has strong roots in evolution. Certain fish have very basic nervous systems and there is a strong path of evolution evident up to the most advanced, humans. So, no, I do not believe it is a coincidence. As i said who or what would be bothered giving life a chance other than life itself? Probability would suggest life is an accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHADS Posted February 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 Basically Einstein said" before i die i want to prove there is a God".... basically he didnt believe in probability .. He refused to believe that god played dice ... If grand unified theory is found then i assume that you could predict the future accuratly .. possibly to infinity .... if all the past and present conditions are known .. Grand unified theory and further theorys that show the fundementals and ways of the universe in its entirity .... With knowledge that shows the universe from begining to its end and also the working of everything in between .. and being able too predict anything ...well all you would need Thelonius is a bit of big bang starter and you could do it yourself .... would you give your self a chance to live? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelonious Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 Basically Einstein said" before i die i want to prove there is a God".... basically he didnt believe in probability .. He refused to believe that god played dice ... Einstein's religious beliefs were very complicated. I think you may be interpreting him incorrectly. If grand unified theory is found then i assume that you could predict the future accuratly .. possibly to infinity .... if all the past and present conditions are known .. Yet we know from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that we cannot know the velocity and position of particles, so we cannot predict the future nor the past with certainty. well all you would need Thelonius is a bit of big bang starter and you could do it yourself .... would you give your self a chance to live? Yes, but how does this prove the existance of God? Personally, I do believe God did create the universe in whatever means He chose, even the Big Bang. But there is not any simple or obvious way to prove this. However, there are two points of interest in this discussion. First, the great amount of energy in our universe had to come from somewhere. Second, there is a sizable amount of missing mass if our cosmological model is correct. Now, these are not definitive proofs, but they do leave grounds for the discussion of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paultrr Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 Einstein was not an orthodox Jew. In fact, while its true that he believed in a Creator, he was a Deist as where several founding Father's of this country. In generaL, Deist believe in a creator who started everything but cares little about the details. Its rather an inpersonal kind of Creator when you boil it all down. Its refered to as the belief in God based on natural reason. That was the type of God he refered to when he spoke of him not playing dice. Such a type of God would in philosophy be simular to Kant's first cause and nothing more. Its little different from saying that Nature itself is our Creator. Either way you end up with a creator who while having made this universe cares little of what transpires thereafter. Liken such a view to say perhaps the Universe was created in some great lab experiment and afterwords all those scientists went home after they published their paper. Its about the gist of how Einstein believed in God. His dividing point with quantum theory was on the subject of chance and not so much the idea of natural process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHADS Posted February 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 In relation to the uncertainty principle i think einstein mused that if you control the posibilities then you could place the particle were ever you wanted or know exactly where and when it was ...... and as god would know this then possibility would be negated.... Maybe thats what he meant by proving god ...... Good points Thelonius .. maybe the missing mass is Gods way of checking up on things ..... or maybe the missing mass was never there ..... certainly there was potential of some kind before the big bang ...not sure i would be happy with the idea of a God who says" whatever" though Paultrr but interesting all the same .. I know its very common concept but please can you explain the missing matter model ... Is it to do with the universe facing a big crunch or continuing for ever .. and what observations are there for missing matter becoming a possibility ....... .Sorry to go over old ground ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 In relation to the uncertainty principle i think einstein mused that if you control the posibilities then you could place the particle were ever you wanted or know exactly where and when it was ..... IF he did, then it would be just one more example of Einstein being wrong in his views against quantum mechanics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 Basically Einstein said" before i die i want to prove there is a God".... Where do you show Einstein saying this? Where's your support that this was Einstein's last theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 I've always disliked the uncertainty principle because it puts human limitations on science, rather than true limitations. A particle has a position and a velocity at any given time, the fact that we can think of no way to determine them both precisely does not mean that they do not co-exist. All it means is that we may never test for precise velocity and position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelonious Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 I know its very common concept but please can you explain the missing matter model ... Is it to do with the universe facing a big crunch or continuing for ever .. and what observations are there for missing matter becoming a possibility Check these articles out: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/cosmic_darkmatt_020108-1.html http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/cosmic_darknrg_020115-1.html They should answer any questions you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aki Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 I've always disliked the uncertainty principle because it puts human limitations on science, rather than true limitations. A particle has a position and a velocity at any given time, the fact that we can think of no way to determine them both precisely does not mean that they do not co-exist. All it means is that we may never test for precise velocity and position. And also I dislike the fact that when we observed and measure a particle, because the fact that we're measuring it, the particle behaves differently, and that has an influence on our measurements. So basically there is no way to measure anything precisly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 It's not because we measured it, it's because of the way in which it is measured. I know that at this point in history, we do not have any way of measuring a particle without disturbing it, but that does not mean that precision is impossible, merely that we need a way of measuring it outside of its system. We would need to find something that it affects but that does not affect it. Currently, there is no such thing, but to state it as a fact that it is impossible, rather than that we cannot do it at this time, seems to me to be making an excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 I've always disliked the uncertainty principle because it puts human limitations on science, rather than true limitations. pg, this is a misconception. The uncertainty principle has nothing to do with our limitations but with the fact that particles do not behave like classical objects but have a quantum nature. A particle has a position and a velocity at any given time, the fact that we can think of no way to determine them both precisely does not mean that they do not co-exist. All it means is that we may never test for precise velocity and position. Yes. But why is this a human limitation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelonious Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 I've always disliked the uncertainty principle because it puts human limitations on science, rather than true limitations. A particle has a position and a velocity at any given time, the fact that we can think of no way to determine them both precisely does not mean that they do not co-exist. All it means is that we may never test for precise velocity and position. Then how does quantum mechanics so accurately predict the quantum world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargazer Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 It makes sense though that if you measure something, you alter it in some way. After all you do need some sort of data from the particle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts