What do you believe?
 

Just to make this clear, I don't mean for this to be a thread about religion, or rather a thread solely about religion.

I want to know what you believe about certain unknowns in our world. Do you believe the big bang theory? Do you believe we're all doomed eventually when the universe recollapses? Do you believe there is a supreme being who watches over or influences us? Do you believe there was a supreme being who started everything but has since taken a hike?

I'm not targeting any once specific topic. Anything that you think might be considered controversial or unconfirmable.

I don't want this to end up a debate about who is right or who is wrong, though I do hope that it will lead to that elsewhere. I encourage you to start debates with people, but do try to keep it out of this thread.




I'm somewhat undecided about whether or not there is a supreme being or any sort, myself. I've considered such things as there being not a supreme being but rather a supreme power of some sort that is not necessarily a sapient "being." There are things such as dark matter, gravity, etc, that we can somewhat theorize about but we can't seem to completely explain. Perhaps these are examples of or part of this "supreme power."

I do believe in the big bang theory. All of the evidence points to such an event and it's becoming pretty widely accepted these days. The only problem with such an event is that it almost makes a supreme being or power of some sort a necessity in explaining why it happened, whereas an infinite universe with no beginning and no end has no specific event that must have been caused by something.

However, there is the question in my mind of whether or not the universe will ever contract. There seem to be two possible outcomes in my mind, either the universe will continue to expand, never reaching but approaching zero expansion, or it will eventually reach the end of it's expansion and start contracting, similarly to how a ball thrown up into the air eventually stops and then returns. The evidence currently points to the former, since the average density of the universe doesn't seem to be dense enough to where gravity will eventually get a grip on it and bring it back. However, there are some things we can't really accurately account for, such as dark matter, so it's hard to say either way.

I'm going to leave it at that for now, but give a few topics that people can build on(and perhaps I'll address later.)

Evolution
Black Holes
The speed of light and how it affects our universe
Time Travel
Unified Theory
Dark Matter
Crazy Shit

ETC.

I believe there is something that has influence over us, but doesn't act upon it, or hasn't yet to my knowledge. I've read about God being on different planes of existance, and our time is unaffected by him, apparently.

Ya, rather than make up some fanciful theory about how god might possibly exist, I'd rather just say some dipshit talked about it to make a few free bucks from some poor suckers. As for believing the big bang. I do believe it because there is evidence that everything in the universe is moving away from each other...which means it's all moving away from the center of the explosion.

C'mon guys, you can give us more than that. I want more than a couple of sentences.

Well I don't feel like writing any essays right now...

I believe in the philosophy of rational, objective inquiry. Plain and simple. I know you want something longer KA, but I just don't have the time today. Perhaps I will expand over the weekend. Or maybe sooner if possible.

That's fine, I'm sure I won't be disappointed so it's worth the wait.

I just want to add, feel free to address any of the other topics I mentioned, or anything else. I don't want this thread to be all about the big bang and God.

Honestly, we don't have near the evidence either way for me to believe in either wholly, I've always maintained an open mind to these kinds of things.

The most believable story at the moment is the theory that there is (was) a White Hole at the center of the universe that spewed forth matter collected from another universe (a Big Bang alternative theory).

Since Evolution is pretty much a given, many accounts in the Bible would be wrong (or misinterpreted at best), the whole Adam and Eve thing would be off, however it could have been a metaphor for the world at large how God created the world and Satan had sent it on its course of evolution.

There's honestly so many ways that this could be looked at, believing in one blindly seems rather foolish to me without any real evidence one way or the other. I maintain an open mind to all things until evidence surfaces. You could say I'm Theological Switzerland. ;)

Just wanting to collect my thoughts on other threads I'd like to start based on what's been said here so far:

- Big Bang and General Relativity
- Deism -- I plan on writing another one of my religion threads attempting to debunk this idea

I would be interested to add to or comment on the Big Bang and General Relativity stuff.

By the way, I've been reading A Brief History of Time, a dude from work let me borrow it.

Didn't you order that a few months ago? How do you like it so far?

I did order it but it ended up getting returned after ONE failed delivery.

I'm loving it, he's a brilliant dude. I'm in like chapter 5.

To me, evolution is based on what is happening in your surrounding areas and what situations you are involved in (both learning and facing competition). I do believe in a "higher power" but i also believe that man is the front runner for evolution, both physically and mentally. For example, our ancestors (the caveman) moved with the herds of the time. After they hunted and herds moved on, the caveman would take his family and move to the next area where he could hunt because his life depended on three things, food, shelter and sex. The caveman faced many hardships out in the world, short life spans, hunger and in most cases, death. Once caveman learned to farm, there entire world changed. By staying in one spot, their lifespan increased, hunger diminished and civilizations were formed. Herds would leave but migrate back, so food sources were plentiful. The caveman evolved because of the situation that they were in.

Another situation which shows evolution also occurs with the caveman. What some call natural selection, others call survival of the fittest. We all make jokes like if you and a friend see a sick dog foaming at the mouth, and he charges, just make sure your faster then your friend. This was the case with the caveman’s evolution. He had to learn to be quick on his feet, so that he could catch his food and escape sure death from predators. He also had to be smarter, which lead to him becoming educated (hey they did figure out fire didn’t they)

Another example which proves that man has caused evolution could be traced back to the Industrial Evolution. Many "mom and pop" stores created products with their own two hands, in which case made for long periods of time without products to sell. Since products were in demand, only a certain amount could be made and this made for stiff competition (because others could make the same product). Because of this competition, people founded ways (creating machines to do the job for them) to make the same products faster, cheaper and quicker, which left competitors in the dust. People evolved by taking simple ideas (sewing for example) that had been the norm for all those centuries, and put them in machine form (sewing machines).

If you look today, man makes evolution all the time. A new and better IPOD is released, a new updated computer system, a bigger and more powerful weapon of destruction, the list goes on. It seems to me that evolution comes with education. So is it safe to say that evolution=education/ competition? I think that this could be the case, but I also believe that the situation depends on what is happening at that specific time and what is the norm that all people face.

I have other examples which helps me prove my point, but I do not have time right now to list them. Maybe ill post more later.

First and foremost, I do not, in any sense, think that there was an intelligent sentient entity or entities that created the universe. As a matter of fact, I emphatically deny the existence of such a being. There is no ultimate purpose for the universe. It simply exists. The same thing goes for all life on earth. True, we have some evolutionary imperatives, however in the grander scheme of things we exist without any purpose.

I accept Darwin's theory of evolution as fact. I do not accept it precisely as Darwin explicated it, as it has been modified and refined over the last century, but I absolutely think that descent with modification is fact. I accept all of the obvious implications that go along with the theory, such as a multi-billion year old earth, a common ancestor between any two organisms, and that there is no implicit hegemony in the animal kingdom.

On a somewhat related note, I think it is fairly probable that aliens exist. The fundamental constituents of life are known to be prevalent in the universe. An understanding of evolution also allows me to know that the phenomena of life is not based on random chance, in which case life would be extremely improbable, but on a meticulous system which manipulates the fundamental constituents of life. Unfortunately, the scope of our search is limited. We can not probe with much detail outside of our solar system. However, if we were able to investigate places more suitable to life with greater detail I would not be surprised to find life there.

The big bang becomes increasingly clear to me as I continue reading. I accept the theory. It appears that in all likeliness any new evidence we uncover will either support or slightly modify the big bang theory rather than replace it.

Black holes probably exist. Same with dark matter. That is all I have to say about them.

I don't think the speed of light itself influences our universe at all. It's simply the upper speed-limit of the universe. Our realization that it is the upper speed limit of the universe, and also that it is the same in all inertial reference frames affects our understanding of the universe profoundly, though.

There is nothing extraordinary about time travel. We do it all the time. We're doing it right now. We can even manipulate how fast we travel through time, but only to a slight extent. We constantly travel through space-time at C -- the only thing is in general most of that is being done in the time dimension. Velocity causes something somewhat analogous to a rotation of the space-time coordinate system, which allows us deflect some of that velocity we use traveling through time in order to travel through space.

I do not accept any currently proposed grand unified theories of physics. String theory seems to be a promising line for inquiry, though.

Above all I believe in the scientific method for ascertaining the secrets of our universe. Rational inquiry should always take precedent over anecdotes and personal revelation.

Now that's what I wanted.

I think I might make a thread about the speed of light and time travel later.

I will really find it to be a great let down if we're on the brink of "understanding the beginning of the universe" etc etc. We've pretty much just begun in our research. Can it really be that simple that such a perplexing thing can be figured out in a matter of centuries?

Here's another great einstein quote for you fella's. "A question that sometimes drives me hazy. Am I or are they crazy?"

Here's my theory on alien life I'll throw out there for you guys, I haven't been on here in a while but this thread was intriguing. I believe that there's most likely no life forms in our solar system that resemble anything like us, the other planets are obviously too inhabitable. This is what perplexes myself... There are so many other stars out there that are explained as similar to our sun that there must be a few planets, at least, that have some sort of living beings on them. It's a little arrogant to think that in the entriety of the universe we are the only ones... The other planets that could host life may be more advanced or drastically less advanced than us. As gruesomeBODY posted, it is most likely in direct correlation to their environment.

So there's my two cents.

The beauty of it Josh is that there are habitable zones for just about every star out there that is still burning. The star doesn't have to resemble Sol nor does the planet need to resemble the Earth in regards to size/distance requirements, these all change with the star being orbited.

Then you can't forget the satellites orbiting those planets, or the possibility of extremophiles on planets/satellites within our own solar system. Due to tidal warming on moons like Europa, there may be liquid water beneath the icy shell that makes up the planets outer surface. If there is, you could imaginably see extremophile forms of life similar to what you find near thermal vents at the ocean floor right here on earth.

When you add that kind of information to how many stars there are out there, the assumption that we're the only form of life in this universe seems ridiculous. Other intelligent life may certainly be out there, how and when we learn of it may certainly be centuries away just due to distances involved.

I think there's very likely millions of planets with life forms that're evolved past the single cell phase. Also, if you put that maybe there's 1 intelligent civilization per galaxy (which I doubt since a galaxy is so -huge-) then there are billions of intelligent civilizations out there.

Exactly my line of thinking, the odds of us being the only life out there (intelligent life even) are just too high for me to believe that we're only ones.

It definately does suck that we won't be alive to find that out. I'd love to hear of intelligent life forms on a cool planet.

We may live to see colonization of the Moon/Mars though, although the space program hasn't been around long enough to really get a feel for their progress speed.

I hope we find a way to travel across the universe in a quick fashion. Wormholes or whatever ...there has to be something.

Interesting topic, so *bump*.

I believe we are all part of a greater conscience and the infinite consciousness our minds are all derived from purpose is realizing it's potential through discovery.

I believe in creation by subtraction.

I believe evolution is intelligent design.

I believe that we are coming into a golden age.

I believe that by changing the physical development of the brain one may perform things we may call impossible. Take autistic savants for example. There has been some research done on the Atlanteans and their skull structure. When their baby's skulls were still malleable they misshaped it with wooden boards. That could solve the mystery of how the pyramids were built. (People possessing the power to manipulate different environmental factors or create such to aid the building process such as magnetic fields below the ground.) If the stem of our consciousness is infinite, and the brain is a filter, it supports these views.

Mostly speculation.

I wish I was still young enough to believe things like this.

You're never too young to not be dogmatic.

I would never believe something if not for reason or evidence.

As soon as I find a counterexample I will put it aside and search for other answers. I won't dismiss it entirely, as the argument made against it may be disproven later on.

Why intelligent design, then?

There's no reason or evidence behind intelligent design.

But oh boy would I love to get into this again.

To add to what I said earlier:

If an intelligent designer created us, he's pathetic. He/she has an innumerable number of failed projects. His successful projects aren't that great either. From an engineering perspective, they are energy inefficient. The designer is absolutely unresourceful, giving us structures that are absolutely pointless to our well-being.

Furthermore, evolution by natural selection is the opposite of intelligent design. Organisms evolved to adapt to their environments. This is a purely natural process. An intelligent designer is not only superfluous, it is irreconcilable with the theory of evolution. We either evolved or were created. You can't have both.

Not that I believe in both, but I don't see why you can't have both? Is it not possible that some supernatural being came up with the system of natural selection?

Is it also impossible that a creator of some sort didn't give us the BEST of everything because it wanted to see how well it's system of natural selection worked and to see how we would go about making things better than they are?

Like I said, I don't believe these things, but I don't see how they're entirely impossible. If I were a supernatural being I could imagine myself doing something similar.

Everything in our universe is a consequence of natural laws. Once you have a replicating molecule, evolution by natural selection is a corollary. It is not impossible that an intelligent designer designed the universe, it's just superfluous. It is just as likely that two parent universes had sex and created our universe.

When you throw together the term intelligent design, it usually adds a lot of baggage. Generally, "macroevolution" is thrown out. Different forms were created by a designer, and then "microevolution" took over. The fossil record unequivocally shows otherwise. This form of intelligent design I would say is impossible.

Even then, who's to say that fossil records are true? Perhaps they were planted by a creator so we would not catch on to their existance.

Once again, I don't believe that, but I do believe that it is absolutely absurd for anyone to say they know any better than anyone else. While your theories are possible, so is every other theory that anyone comes up with, and until we know something for sure, which most likely we never will, your theories are no better than anyone elses.

I will admit that your theories might be more likely, but that does not mean that they are right, or even close to right, and it does not mean that people who have different theories are wrong.

Science goes where the evidence leads. The theories are better because they are based on evidence, nothing else. If the predictions from the theories prove true, then the theory holds. That is the ultimate test. If the predictions are all true, then the the theory is right as far as the natural world is concerned.

The idea that anything is possible is comforting. If you want to believe that, that's your prerogative. But any theory you give serious consideration should be based on the facts, and any superfluous postulates should be removed.

There is an absolute right or wrong. While we may have no way of absolutely ascertaining what is right or wrong, I contend that it is far more absurd to assert a conjecture with no evidence than to assert one backed by evidence.

But how can you verify that your evidence is true? Like I said, it could have been planted by a creator and it could be laughing at you right now because you're foolish enough to think that you actually know anything.


I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance. - Socrates

Based on the evidence, theories are made. Theories make predictions. To verify the theory you see if the predictions hold. If the theory is verified, it is fairly safe to say that the evidence was legitimate.

The operative word there is fairly. You can never know anything for sure. Even scientific fact is not fact. For all you know, everything you know is completely untrue. It could all be an illusion.

Until your theory is "verified", if it every truly can be(which it can't,) it's no more valid or invalid than any other theory.

Yes, I believe in evolution. I would say our beliefs are very, very similar. However, I'm not foolish enough to think that I'm any more right in my beliefs than anyone else is. I can choose to believe one thing over another based on "evidence", but there is no way that I can say that Christians are wrong, or Muslims are wrong, or Scientologists are wrong.

I don't think it's absurd to say you believe something. I think it is quite absurd to say you know something. There's a pretty distinct difference.

Lending the same credence to the .000001% as to the 99.99999% is absurd.

By your definition of the word, nothing can truly be known. Again, you're free to subscribe to that philosophy if you want. Even if this were true, it's a jump from there to saying that all theories should be treated with respect. Meanwhile, most people are going to continue to subscribe to the philosophy of what I can sense is what reality is.

Evolution is not something I believe in. No more than you can say that I believe in gravity. Or that I believe I exist.

"Well I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know."

Oh how appropriate that quote is! I'm getting giddy.

Cute, but you're not advocating that at all. You're saying, take what you know and assume you don't know it.