TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

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 ?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jun 20 2012: I personally believe that as long as the world is separated into different government types and religion still plagues our land, wars will always continue and may eventually reduce us to sticks and stones.
    • thumb

      E G 10+

      • 0
      Jun 21 2012: Look a believer who don't likes religion ; this is an interesting kind of species .
      • thumb
        Jun 21 2012: Who said I was a believer. I'm an atheist and proud of it. Do you know why so many wars are fought? Because of religion! Christianity is no different than the brain washed terrorists that believe in Ala who kill ruthlessly because of religion. Christianity is no different than the ancient Greek's believing in the many gods that they once had, or the Mayans believing in their Jaguar god. Religion is the same thing no matter what mask you put on it. Simple as that.
        • thumb

          E G 10+

          • 0
          Jun 21 2012: Ouu ... ouuu .............. take it easy , man , I don't put any mask on anything , I think you already did .
        • thumb
          Jun 21 2012: E G, you, me and Kevin are all atheists. We don't believe in Zeus or Apollo or Cthulhu or Horus or Ra. All Kevin and I suggest is that you be consistent and go one God further
        • thumb
          Jun 26 2012: You walked into that Kevin. E G likes to poke and prod to get some reaction.

          Favourite snide E G remark. "Take it easy, man" as he assumes everyone is riled up by his comments.
        • thumb

          E G 10+

          • 0
          Jun 26 2012: Obey :

          The truth is that many are riled up by my comments or my street style , or both .
      • thumb
        Jun 22 2012: 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. And you didn't use the mask metaphor right bub.
    • thumb

      E G 10+

      • 0
      Jun 22 2012: Hi Steward boy :

      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 .
      • thumb
        Jun 22 2012: Well then EG you've abandoned all logic
        • thumb

          E G 10+

          • 0
          Jun 22 2012: Of course I did , am I not a theist ?
      • thumb
        Jun 22 2012: E G, I don't really want to spend the time to explain this, but I will. You see, quantum mechanics proves that particles can pop in and out of existence at the sub atomic level. The physics of a black whole also prove that time actually disappears and space time it self disappears also. In case you don't know, black holes are rips in space time. Kind of like if you cut a whole in a piece of paper. The black hole can be used to represent the era before the universe was created since there is essentially nothing there. So, this rules out the need or possibility for a "creator". Maybe I'm a little off topic, but I didn't want to get in a page long argument explaining this to you little by little.
        • thumb

          E G 10+

          • 0
          Jun 23 2012: Come on man , you don't expect me to buy your little story , do you ?

          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.
        • thumb
          Jun 23 2012: Well EG your argument of nothing can rule out the possibility is very weak, it's another china tea pot around Saturn kind of argument, I can't prove there isn't one but there's just better reasons to think that there isn't. And what Kevin says is true to an extent, the spacetime doesn't disappear but rather stops completely, so if you fell into one you would be ripped apart atom by atom, but you'd also never actually die as time stops in a black hole due to gravitational forces.
          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.
        • thumb

          E G 10+

          • 0
          Jun 23 2012: Steward :

          -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 .
        • thumb
          Jun 23 2012: EG how is a particle/ theoretical physicist not a reference?
          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.
        • thumb

          E G 10+

          • 0
          Jun 23 2012: You still didn't understand anything , we can't continue in this way .

          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 .
        • thumb
          Jun 23 2012: Science does say about why, it says it doesn't have one, never did and never will, it says nothing has a purpose. If you're so desperate for everything to have a purpose then fine make one up but realise that it is only a man made purpose.
        • thumb

          E G 10+

          • 0
          Jun 23 2012: You don't know what you're talking about , science doesn't say it has no purpose . Now that I know where you take your 'scientific' ideas from , I understand you . No need to continue (at least for me) .
        • thumb
          Jun 26 2012: Now its "come on man".

          Your style of comments is just obnoxious E G.
      • thumb
        Jun 23 2012: E G, I can tell your trying to use mind tricks to cheat your way out of this argument. When you say that you don't want Youtube links because you don't think they are professional, that's an obvious tactic that your trying to use. On top of all that, Stewart practically blasted away any true logic you could use to defend yourself with. Your just spewing out words now.
        • thumb

          E G 10+

          • 0
          Jun 24 2012: Of course I try to cheat my way out of it , that was an unbeatable argument , wasn't that ?
        • thumb
          Jun 24 2012: It's the cowards way
      • thumb
        Jun 24 2012: So, if you knew you were losing, why didn't you just keep quiet? Quite frankly, Your making yourself look worse. Once again, science triumphs over theism.
        • thumb

          E G 10+

          • 0
          Jun 24 2012: You guys ate the candy together with the package without even realizing it , we don't have what to talk any more .......... just , frankly , be careful at the farts the package creates .
      • thumb
        Jun 26 2012: Now E G is calling you boy. Condescending. That is how much respect he has for others.
        • thumb
          Jun 26 2012: E G, I understand everything thats going on here. You admitted yourself that you can't conjure up another argument that actually makes sense, so you saying I don't understand what's going on here doesn't make any bit of sense.
        • thumb

          E G 10+

          • 0
          Jun 27 2012: It's right I said I can't conjure up... (being very sarcastic of course , but you understand everything what's going on here , don't you ? ) but even not realizing my sarcasm from the first time , you should have noticed it from the next comment , there I was more explicit ( being careful at the effect though , that's right ) . You understand everything ? are you sure ? ( for not being misunderstood : I AM SARCASTIC NOW ) .
      • thumb
        Jun 26 2012: You know, I think E G is just off his rocker at this point. E G, you have nothing on any of us. You don't think your actually winning do you. You need to just stop arguing because it's getting you know where although, I have to admit, your kind of amusing when you try to use your petty arguments.
        • thumb

          E G 10+

          • 0
          Jun 26 2012: I don't see what I could answer to it , I don't think in terms of winning (unlike you) , to do that would mean to be naive and childish . I'm sure of a thing : you don't understand anything that's going on here . Maybe I'm not all the time polite but with this comment you are not polite surely . But I stop here .
        • thumb

          E G 10+

          • 0
          Jun 27 2012: Kevin : If you didn't notice my sarcasm , an easy thing to do , how the hell could you understand my arguments (a harder thing to do) ? I did make valid arguments , Stewart even now didn't manage to destroy them , and you live in your imagination .
      • thumb
        Jun 28 2012: If thats all sarcasm, then you use it way to much(just to avoid the real topic). When you use sarcasm that much, people are going to think your serious. Your arguments aren't really that complicated either. No matter how hard you might TRY. You keep ranting on about different things. You've barely made any statements on the original topic, so I think your just trying to escape the storm, soto speak.
    • thumb
      Jun 24 2012: Dear Kevin and Stewart,

      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).
      • thumb
        Jun 25 2012: Ahh my children, there is no point arguing about beliefs. If there was logic behind them they would be theories not beliefs. So don't waste your time trying to change that which can't be changed. We all have beliefs, some religeous some about other stuff (Why do I support (edit in sports team) ? Don't try to change anothers beliefs just be aware.
        (Edit in name of some one whos opinion you respect)
        • thumb

          E G 10+

          • 0
          Jun 25 2012: I'm a public threat , am I not ?

          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
        • thumb

          E G 10+

          • 0
          Jun 25 2012: ""My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.""
          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 .
        • thumb
          Jun 25 2012: Right eg google spontaneous particle generation and you'll find tonnes of resources http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html here's one. Now this will really blow your hippie noodle, complete absolute emptiness weighs more than matter, you should watch the youtube video i linked to learn that. Now all that is required for a particle to appear in nothingness is for their to be a quantum flux or change in the quanta. This can give rise to both matter and anti matter, now before you go and speak on the behalf of all scientists maybe you should look up some of the scientists works first and see that they do agree that matter can and does spontaneously appear
          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.
        • thumb

          E G 10+

          • 0
          Jun 25 2012: Nonsense man , nonsense .

          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
        • thumb

          E G 10+

          • 0
          Jun 25 2012: So to summarize if I'm desperate for a purpose in science I'm not more than Einstein was .

          "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 ?
        • thumb
          Jun 25 2012: Right particles pop in and out of existence, now there is no concrete idea as to how the universe began and we'll never be able to know because we can't detect beyond the cosmic plasma. So here's how you get from particles popping to the universe. The big bang and the expansion of the universe creates the space is expands into, so you can't go beyond the universe. So at the beginning time and space were all in one spot. Now at the beginning it's theorised that all of the fundamental forces merged into one. More background knowledge as it is required to understand this, (which btw you said you want to understand the scientists, you realise that's ridiculous right? Even if someone spent their entire life solely learning science they still couldn't understand ALL of what we know, you have to trust them sometimes) the total energy of the universe is 0, now this has important implications i.e even if you have nothing you still have a little something as what we call energy/ mass is mostly made of absolute nothingness. Right so NOW, all you need is an ever accumulating mass of energy so that eventually sub atomic particles form and the fundamental forces start to separate until the energy reaches critical mass and the whole thing effectively explodes creating the universe as it goes along, like I said watch the Lawrence Krauss video, he has wrote two books now on something from nothing, now do you see how you don't need a creator.

          EDIT= the link wasn't about creation that implies a creator, you'll find it's a secular website, bravo on not seeing that.
        • thumb

          E G 10+

          • 0
          Jun 25 2012: Damnit man, you really didn't understand anything , did you ? I don't give a damn if the link is a secular one , it could be , all I care is about my point and they seem to be on my side even though they are secular, I repeat my point for the last time :
          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 ... .
        • thumb
          Jun 26 2012: E G are you for real, or half troll, or high?

          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.
        • thumb
          Jun 26 2012: EG

          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.
        • thumb

          E G 10+

          • 0
          Jun 26 2012: Sina :

          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 .
      • thumb

        E G 10+

        • 0
        Jun 26 2012: Yeah man , that's my English , I didn't learn it at school .
        • thumb
          Jun 26 2012: Here's why I didn't reply, because you were trolling, you weren't looking for evidence you were just wanting to throw words about.
          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.
        • thumb
          Jun 27 2012: E G, It doesn't matter if you were being sarcastic in the first place because you don't have ANY valid arguments what so ever.
      • thumb

        E G 10+

        • 0
        Jun 26 2012: Well , Stewart ( I wasn't careful with steward , I know what it means , my apologize ) let me quote you : ""Well EG your argument of nothing can rule out the possibility is very weak, it's another china tea pot around Saturn kind of argument, I can't prove there isn't one but there's just better reasons to think that there isn't."" so: Well Stewart your argument that I'm trolling , that the fallacy is only in my eyes because I don't know the supposed other facts surrounding the idea of everything coming from nothing is another china tea pot around Saturn kind of argument , I can't prove because I don't know there isn't one but there 's better to think that there isn't .
        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 :
        • thumb
          Jun 26 2012: Ok ok now you're really trolling, we started off with particles coming in and out of existence, you didn't think this could get you logically to not requiring a creator for the universe and I gave you plenty I'll list them.
          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
      • thumb

        E G 10+

        • 0
        Jun 26 2012: Karl Popper , look what he said ( here is the link : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ ) :
        "(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 .
        • thumb
          Jun 26 2012: Like I said up there^^ I have mentioned almost all the facts so that you could have them then base your argument from that and I did it consistently throughout the comments. Where from your side you haven't rebutted anything. You have repeated about how you don't get from particles popping to not needing a God, so I assumed you clearly didn't know the other facts which take you to the knowledge that particles pop in and out of existence, also stated up there^^ especially in my latest post.
          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.
      • thumb

        E G 10+

        • 0
        Jun 26 2012: Steward :

        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 ?
        • thumb
          Jun 26 2012: And in saying this we come back to your own personal need/ wanting for their to be a purpose or a why for the universe. Does it frighten you that there may be no purpose to any of this? Does it frighten you or do you not like the idea of merely being the product of a quantum glitch?
          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?
      • thumb

        E G 10+

        • 0
        Jun 27 2012: Well Stewart , you should know first that metaphysics is not only about purposes is more than this ; it is also a try to explain and to give answers to that kind of questions . So "Why can't you just accept that there may be no purpose?" because I'm not a dogmatic guy , I don't believe in science , I don't accept science just because it is science or because everybody thinks it's a good thing , ok ?, I wanna know why .
        " 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 .
        • thumb
          Jun 27 2012: Right firstly, metaphysics means beyond nature or beyond natural. For all intensive purposes of evidence and proof there is no evidence of ANYTHING that exists beyond the natural world. So here's why NO ONE can be rational when talking about anything which is beyond our physical world, about spirituality or about gods.
          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.
      • thumb

        E G 10+

        • 0
        Jun 27 2012: Stewart :
        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 .
    • thumb
      Jun 26 2012: Hi Kevin,

      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.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.