This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
The biggest threat to mankind. What will end the world as we know ?
Does the world need to be saved ? Are we heading toward an inevitable extinction ? will that be a new generation bomb ? or will it be pollution ? will it be depletion of natural resources ? or will the machines be our killers as it is suggested in many sci-fi stories ?
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Kevin Jacobson
E G 10+
Kevin Jacobson
E G 10+
Stewart Gault 30+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Favourite snide E G remark. "Take it easy, man" as he assumes everyone is riled up by his comments.
E G 10+
The truth is that many are riled up by my comments or my street style , or both .
Kevin Jacobson
E G 10+
Why am I calling you boy (don't mind for it ) ? Simple , because you use what other atheists said without thinking too much ( at least this is the impression you made) ; I'm not an atheist at all , I believe that Zeus or Apollo or Cthulhu or Horus or Ra could have existed . Where , how ? I don't know and I don't care because I , as a human being am more evolved now than 6000 years ago .
Man , using atheistic formulas you never pass as a mature man : no formula covers everything, a mature man smells the danger .
Kevin :
"You know E G, it's funny when you apply logic to a religious argument, they don't ever have any logic to defend themselves with because they know they have lost. "
Thanks for informing me ( even though it's useless ), I usually don't buy mere words . Hope you don't too ! ................but why you serve me mere words if you don't buy mere words ? You know , I'm just wondering .
I used the mask metaphor you used before , yes .
Stewart Gault 30+
E G 10+
Kevin Jacobson
E G 10+
First thing I should say is that I doubt that science says what you did (I'd like to see some references).
But even if this : "quantum mechanics proves that particles can pop in and out of existence at the sub atomic level. " is what science says, don't follows logically this : " this rules out the need or possibility for a "creator"" because you can any time ask yourself : why the particles pop in and out of existence ? ; an answer is a creator/God .
And something else : nothing , not a single thing, in this world rules out the possibilities.
Stewart Gault 30+
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#History
Now to really blow your noodle, in the double slit experiment, if you use electrons instead of waves you get the same distortion pattern, what does this mean? It means that the electrons have to exist in two places at the same time to cause this, welcome to quantum mechanics. Now if you get a vacuum chamber and leave in it the right equipment what you find is that whole atoms blink in and out of existence not just quarks, and they leave an energy residue. Here's how that little fact causes the universe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
Given enough time this energy builds up and up until you finally give rise to the universe. And I forget who said it but they said something like science doesn't disprove god, it just makes it possible not to believe in one. And then Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking both say, the laws of physics can create a universe without a god. We truly can get everything from nothing.
E G 10+
-you misunderstood what I said , in fact you understood nothing , that wasn't my argument (look above that 'argument' to see the real argument) , ok ?
I saw also you gave me some leads , about them let me inform you that science is not made on wiki or youtube , I want some real references .
Stewart Gault 30+
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Black_holes now here's a tip, open a new tap, search scholarly articles black holes, and you'll find plenty. And you did make an argument, you said " you don't expect me to buy your little story , do you ? "
Now you also stated something I didn't mention, you said, "why the particles pop in and out of existence ? ; an answer is a creator/God ." The real answer is because we are surrounded by energy, most of the mass of a proton comes from the spaces in between the quarks (which you'd learn if you watched the video). Now with most of the energy existing as absolute nothingness it's actually extremely common for a particle to just pop in and out of existence, it has no purpose or reason it just does, it's like saying why does sodium and chlorine bond together, because a creator makes it. It doesn't, keep up.
E G 10+
I answer anyway to what you said :
why does it has no reason/purpose ? because you don't wanna have one or why ? because science doesn't answer to this question ( at least so you think)?
It doesn't matter if science looks out for purpose or not to ask 'why this ?' I ask because I wanna know and if science doesn't answer , bad for it .
Man , science is science , religion is religion , if you stay only in the science perimeter you'll never get to walk in the religion's one , that's why for me it doesn't matter if science looks out for purpose or not to ask why , get it this time?
The '..pedia's ' are not science , they are only a description , a presentation of it , I want science .
Stewart Gault 30+
E G 10+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Your style of comments is just obnoxious E G.
Kevin Jacobson
E G 10+
Stewart Gault 30+
Kevin Jacobson
E G 10+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Kevin Jacobson
E G 10+
Kevin Jacobson
E G 10+
E G 10+
Kevin Jacobson
Sina Elli 10+
I was away for a while and today when I read the comments I realized TED is TED because of guys like you. Thank you for being there, that gives hope to others surrounded by people like EG.
I couldn't have argued better (Although I found it unnecessary first only to realize later that others can learn from your comments as I did).
peter lindsay 30+
(Edit in name of some one whos opinion you respect)
E G 10+
An what argumentation , nobody could argue better , right Sina ? oh at least not you . By the way , what argumentation ? : that particles pop in and out of existence (that's what they think the science says , even though it doesn't ) and because of it at the beginning , in an environment like the one created by a black hole today , some particles popped in existence ...... and BUUM here you go : The Universe ; therefore we don't need God as explanation . Of course I cannot be than sarcastic to this fair tale story no scientist will buy (they didn't even realize that I'm sarcastic ) , that with gods are better .
But I assumed that is what happened and I told them that even so a rational guy can't buy their story because it's not logical to blend religion with science , what do I mean by it ? simply , I mean that religion is about sense in life , is about ultimate meanings while science is not , that's why if I want to find more than science I can ask very simply : why the particles pop in and out of existence ? and of course an answer to this is God if not the single answer (Steward messed the all thing up even worse at this point with his 'scientific' explanations to a religion question, even though I warned him that if he walks only in the science's perimeter will never get to walk in the religion's one ) .
Come on guys , what rational guy (you don't need to be a scientist ) will not realize that what follows is not part of science , that what follows is a fallacy : " Science does say about why, it says it doesn't have one, never did and never will, it says nothing has a purpose." (Steward) . Do you wanna quote Einstein ? look what Einstein says , the popular quote : " Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. " or
E G 10+
I translate them for you : Einstein says that we can use science to be religious ( religious in a certain sense) , he says that only by science we can have an humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit . So science has a purpose , there is nothing for nothing , I'm right to ask why in this sense because there must be an answer .
But you know , it was the same Einstein who said : " "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."" .
I don't wanna comment any more , think what you wanna do , it's your buissnes .
Stewart Gault 30+
Now back to your personal requirements that everything in the world has to have a purpose, fine go to whatever religion you want for answers but realize they're manmade answers which were largely only created due to personal incredulity or the fear of their not being a purpose to everything.
Now my apparent fallacy doesn't exist, if science says "we don't know" then they don't have an answer, but if they say "there isn't an answer" then that is an answer just think about it.
Now you bring up the religious scientist argument. If you claim there is a superior being then you need to prove it exists or else everyone else is just going to carry on not listening to you, now the deity Einstein believed in was incredibly dilute and he compares it to being the actual laws of physics.
So to summarize, if you're desperate for a purpose go make one up, if you want to know what scientists think, google them, or even email them. If you want to talk about black holes read some Hawking before you do. So whilst you ask the pointless questions of why does water exist and why do electrons sometimes exist in two places at the same time, we'll be asking the better questions, how is dark energy created, how do you get nuclear fussion to sustain itself.
E G 10+
Firstly : - thanks for the site about the creation ex nihilo ; I've bet that the 'ex nihilo process ' are not something that belongs to science , I still doubt it does because I don't believe the scientists , I want to understand them , I'm not a dogmatic guy and I hope you don't ask me to be so because this would mean to lose even the little logic you are left with .
But the argumentation at which you entirely failed was not about it because I assumed the premise as true and I showed you (even though you failed to understand even now in the last moment) that from this premise (that particles pop in existence) don't follows logically the conclusion that we don't need God/Creator.
But look at you : you gave me a site about, be careful now, about creation , I repeat CREATION . Do you still dare to say : we don't need a God/Creator when you , yourself , ask me to believe some scientists who try to prove without any doubt exactly what I was arguing for ? (what I was arguing for here was that from that premise don't follows logically that conclusion , why this? you should know it already but don't trust me trust your scientists who talk about Creation ex nihilo therefore about a creator/a God ; so your story is a fallacy).
"Now back to your personal requirements that everything in the world has to have a purpose," I didn't say it , I said only that science has a purpose , I proved it using the credibility of Einstein and doing so I showed clearly your fallacy , you the one who claimed the contrary . " but if they say "there isn't an answer" then that is an answer just think about it. " they didn't say it unlike you , Einstein didn't say it , what do you want more ?
"Now you bring up the religious scientist argument....." that's nonsense , I didn't bring up anything , I'm fine with the deity Einstein believed in to prove my point , I don't need anything more .
So to summarize
E G 10+
"If you want to talk about black holes read some Hawking before you do" if I mention the word 'black hole ' or any other word from science it doesn't mean I wanna talk about it , we use concepts here if you didn't realize it so far .
Am I clear now ?
Stewart Gault 30+
EDIT= the link wasn't about creation that implies a creator, you'll find it's a secular website, bravo on not seeing that.
E G 10+
There was the premise : the particles pop in existence
the conclusion of this premise : we don't need a Creator (Kevin's post) ; but from that premise don't follows logically that conclusion : - I may need a Creator to answer why the particles popped in existence beyond the scientific explanation (from here started the entire thing about the purpose of science). This why is a metaphysical question .
So summarizing : Kevin's judgement you defended is a fallacy because the metaphysics with its questions exist . This is it , simple like this . I really don't know why is so hard to understand it........... maybe my English but you are a native speaker ... .
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Don't flatter yourself. You are not a public threat, just rude.
"Man, Cool it, Boy, Damnit".
Can you discuss a topic without being plain rude? No issue if your ideas are challenging, but your comments are "condescending" if I'm being polite.
Sina Elli 10+
I understand the pleasure you take from this kind of behavior and confronting rational arguments and I am not going to give that pleasure to you because this conversation is not about you and how "cool" you are being rude and challenging all scientific evidence. I could not argue better than Stewart and Kevin and I would not if I could because the show you are running does not belong to TED and I am definitely not as patient as these valuable TED members. Let me clarify that despite being rude and impolite, you are being well tolerated.
A threat to the public ? definitely no but a threat to yourself is what you may consider thinking about. I see many great hints and lots of valuable links and resources in my friends' comments, you would have used them to your benefit if you had been wise. but that's not the reason you are here is it ?
I advise you to think about Obey No1kinobe's points. you may learn the proper way of communicating with people.
E G 10+
Well , Steward seems to be more clever than you , he didn't answer to my last comment , I assume he understood (if he read it) that what he was defending was a fallacy ; tell him about me "confronting rational arguments " , he may enlighten you a bit now.
"........challenging all scientific evidence." you say it as if it is a bad thing but of course it isn't , let me inform you that this is the very reason of their existence ; are you a damn believer in the scientific evidence ? if you don't challenge them how could you be otherwise ?
It seems you understand science as my dead grandma did , at all .
I think I quote Obey right now , you know your friend Obey here on TED , don't you ? Look what he said to me : " Good stuff E G, now you are really going for the person not the ideas or argument.
Well done showing your true colours." I think I would say the same thing about you now .
E G 10+
Stewart Gault 30+
The so called fallacy, is only a fallacy in your eyes because you didn't know the other facts surrounding the idea of everything coming from nothing, with this knowledge, THEN you can get logically to a universe without a creator. I've given you lots of sites etc to do so and I'd advise that you re read them all and watch the Lawrence Krauss video.
Now challenging scientific evidence is not a bad thing, as long as you do it right ! First you need evidence or an observation that contradicts the prior evidence. Until you have that, challenging what has been proven is pointless and is a waste of everyone's time.
Now I love an argument and a debate, but I only accept evidence and observation as tools of debating, if you haven't got these then you've no base to work from and you're arguing from belief which is another waste of time as it never stands the rigorous process of the scientific method.
So why I didn't reply
1) You'd no argument and refused to value the evidence I provided
2)You were trolling
3) Because my name's Stewart, not steward, a steward is a noun referring to a job rather like a host. Learn the difference.
Kevin Jacobson
E G 10+
if you know the other facts why do you just thank yourself telling me that there are another facts that could alter my judgement , why don't you just tell me one , a single one and refute my argumentation ? Until you don't whatever you else say that remains a BIG fallacy .
In fact I'm not of blame here at all : there was said to me some things , I proved them wrong , if there is something more that could destroy my argumentation it's not my business , it is the business of the one who told me that couple of things at the start ; I worked with what I had , what did you expect I was going to do: that I will have read the entire scientific material on the subject ? come on .
So this two : " 1) You'd no argument and refused to value the evidence I provided
2)You were trolling" are pure nonsense and I proved it .
"Now challenging scientific evidence is not a bad thing, as long as you do it right ! " I entirely agree with you on this . "First you need evidence or an observation that contradicts the prior evidence. Until you have that, challenging what has been proven is pointless and is a waste of everyone's time." Well , it could be a way but is not the single one , I know you don't trust me but there are scientists who talk about the other way I used :
Stewart Gault 30+
Total energy of universe is 0, this means that you don't even require energy to have something and also that energy is actually 0 also. So you don't even need something to start off particle formation, if you had a totally empty vacuum void of everything, eventually particles would form.
The start of the universe is thought to have been a singularity, this means that the laws of physics go out the window,. The four fundamental forces combine to either form one or two compound forces, (the possibility of two is because it's not yet known whether gravity could join the other 3)
A bit more detail on the nothingness, watch the L. Krauss video for a better explanation. Within atoms there are quarks, by using a technique scientists have managed to see the inside of an atom mass wise. This showed that the most energy/mass within an atom came from the space between the quarks. This enters into quantum mechanics. Now I'm not the best at quantum mechanics but I do semi understand parts of it, one such part is the fact that particles can and MUST in some cases exist in two places at the same time, this shows we've a lot to learn particle and energy wise but so far we're seeing that it's almost impossible to have nothing for long as something always happens.
These all happen naturally and very very often. Now these are all the facts I can remember from previous posts there's probably more, now how does this lead you to not needing a god? Simple, because this all shows that you don't need someone or something to cause energy to form particles, all you require is a quantum flux and also due to Pauli's exclusion principle a single quantum flux on Earth affects every particle in the universe.
These are the evidence and observations of origins without god/ gods
E G 10+
"(a) The first is formal, a testing of the internal consistency of the theoretical system to see if it involves any contradictions." but you had plenty of them , you were full of contradictions (even in the last comment you contradicted with an earlier one , I quoted you ) . You come up with something inconsistent , you don't even realize it and mess yourself up choosing to refute my argumentation in the name of other scientific facts . What rational guys would believe you ?
I was right to not consider the other scientific facts that could put in a better light your ideas , I was so simply because I did what Popper said , I did the FIRST test , the test of consistency , and you FAILED , why would I go on ?
Ans something else if your ideas are inconsistent , what make you think they would change in the light of other facts ? It doesn't work that way .
May I quote your friend who put you in trouble ? : " I can tell your trying to use mind tricks to cheat your way out of this argument. " this is all you do .
Stewart Gault 30+
No matter where you go in science these days you don't need god, universe can come from the above observations, thank you.
Edit= If you could also find some inconsistencies I'd be more than happy to clear them up for you.
E G 10+
I knew this : "...These all happen naturally and very very often. Now these are all the facts I can remember from previous posts there's probably more, now how does this lead you to not needing a god? Simple, because this all shows that you don't need someone or something to cause energy to form particles, all you require is a quantum flux and also due to Pauli's exclusion principle a single quantum flux on Earth affects every particle in the universe. " ok ? I knew this and still I came up with my argument : we may need a Creator to answer to the metaphysical why , all you said is just physical , I go beyond this , why this all happen? why this physical ? it's senseless to answer using the science because in the end I gonna ask you : why this science happen ? therefore your all explanation may require a
god ; to keep answering by scientific data you don't do anything else than walking in circle (you pull your tail alone) . I'm sorry to realize you didn't get it so far , maybe now ...... . There is an inconsistency between your premise ( including your patient explanations ) and your conclusion , you see the explanation right above . (the other inconsistencies are not that important but if you want to know them .... there are 2 or 3 I noticed ).
This problem goes even further : someone could ask : ok , to the metaphysical why I may need a god but why this god would create the universe in so way I don't see any sign of him ? ... maybe this is your problem because you say "this all shows that you don't need someone or something to cause energy to form particles " . But you see this is a different problem than the one above and sticking only with the one above you'll never get the answer to this new one . But frankly Stewart , do I need to guess ?
Stewart Gault 30+
A few more facts, the universe is expanding, in tens of billions of years the universe will experience heat death. Everything will then revert back to being nothing. Now I can't see a purpose for this, I can't see some deep meaning, but more than that I don't see why it needs to have a purpose. Why can't you just accept that there may be no purpose? And this isn't a personal jibe or anything but I'm curious, to you, why does there have to be a purpose to all of this? This is what has me confused, everyone here's fine heading face first into oblivion without there being a metaphysical reason, so why do you latch onto the need for one?
E G 10+
" Does it frighten you or do you not like the idea of merely being the product of a quantum glitch?" You are really funny with this question , I'm not frighten of anything . But I don't understand you guys : you pretend to be rational guys and within science if you wanna be correct you must be rational ; but here is my perplexity : once you step outside of science you do the strangest thing you could ever do : you stop being rational , the entire rational attitude cultivated after time spent within science just disappear ; you stop asking yourself why, you just stop thinking and come to me with : 'it may be no answer' or this kind of nonsense . how come this ?
I think I know an answer , it depends on the person but for you I think I know one : - you just have a sum of scientific data in your mind , you collected it without too much thinking , it wasn't really hard : an youtube video , an article from wikipedia or from another site , maybe you have a degree in something ........... listen to me : this is not what science is supposed to be for us , it must be more , it's in its nature to be more . You just mock yourself so . The scientists mock you so .
So " Why can't you just accept that there may be no purpose?" because I'm not an idiot .
Stewart Gault 30+
This why there is no point to even care about metaphysics, it's only speculation and personal beliefs and views based on personal presumptions which are constructed 90% of the time by people who fear death. So people want something more than just this life so they create something beyond this world and they cling to it because it comforts them. Now do you see why science doesn't touch this crap? Because it's not scientific and if it's not scientific it's not worth even looking at.
There is no self respecting, honest scientist who puts any faith into pseudo science or metaphysics.
Now if you don't think there is a purpose to this whole universe/ multi verse then you are not an idiot as you indirectly asserted. Your view is that there must be a reason for this universe, for war, for extinction, for ponies, for rainbows, for death and disease and black holes. You are fine to think that, but don't dare speak as if you know that science values metaphysics or pseudo science or creation science for that matter. Science deals with the real world in which we live and prove exists, now just accept that. Those who claim to be metaphysical scientists are just working off their on presumptions. Last fact for you, you can still believe that there's a purpose, but just so you know this science still says, and most likely always will, that there is no apparent purpose or reason why the universe exists. The best answer any physicist can give to a question as to why? Is that the universe has to exist, the laws of physics for our universe prevent a universe from not existing.
E G 10+
Maybe you have some ideas about physics but about metaphysics you are entirely ignorant . The bad thing is not this , maybe you really aren't interested about it , the bad thing is that you aren't aware enough of your ignorance and come up here with nonsense .
"metaphysics means beyond nature or beyond natural. " and what beyond natural means ? in your opinion it means : the spirituality or a kind of supra reality created by our minds , everything what is not physical ...... and hell knows what else nonsense you are capable of . Well this is not what metaphysics is , more than this that isn't even what 'beyond natural' means . But I comment only on what metaphysics is : it is thinking about ultimate questions and the results of this thinking . It is science about what science is not . My initial point still stays as true and your words as fallacy .
"There is no self respecting, honest scientist who puts any faith into pseudo science or metaphysics. " this is a blasphemy against some of the greatest minds to humankind ever had , just some examples : Bertrand Russell , Alfred North Whitehead , Immanuel Kant , Henri Bergson ... and many others including Einstein .
"You are fine to think that, but don't dare speak as if .... " I think that and even more : I do dare .
Your irrationality hurts you , you better stop here and even though you now feel badly the need to answer (because you are frustrated ), don't do that . You , actually in the last comments didn't make any good point , don't come again discovered here , you'll just hurt yourself more . Good bye .
Stewart Gault 30+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I agree our tribal nature is a problem. Agree religion can reinforce this.
I support freedom of and from religion (within limits). I don't have as many objections with religious views that accept freedom of religion, separation of church and state, don't push their dogma on others unless there is a reasonable secular rationale, and don't indoctrinate their children, and don't harm others including genital mutilation of infants etc.
Suggest working a more moderate and tolerant form of religions may be more practical than hoping it just disappears.
I'm not sure world government is the answer to nationalism. Too remote.
I don't think we can even say liberal democracies are less warlike than totalitarian regimes or theocracies. Look at the US and UK and France since they became democracies, since WW2, since the fall of the cold war.