Matter is an illusion: A better case for God.

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Matter is an illusion: A better case for God.

It would seem the a popular argument among theists for God here is matter. However, they are going about it all wrong in my opinion and I will hopefully clear everything up.

 

Let us start at the begining (where else) The cosmic inflation. The Grand Unification Theory (GUT) states that the four fundemental forces (Gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear) were once one and seperated. It also states that our favorite sub-atomic particle the proton has a decay rate of approx. 10^31 years. For you non-mathematicians, that is a really, really, really, long time.

 

It has been shown via particle accerlators that the proton itself can be broken down to two down quarks and one up quark (or is it two up, one down? Fuck it, it doesn't matter), the point is what we percive as a proton. (or what was percieved during the famous gold foil experiment) is merely an illusion. We percieve the proton only as a proton because we could not generate high enough energies to smash the proton into the quarks sub-parts. i.e at low energies, a proton can be considered a proton.

 

Speaking of energy, that is merely what matter is. E=mc^2 clearly states that matter and energy are interchangable. As a matter of fact (get it? LOL!) physicist don't use kilograms when dealing with the particle accelerators rather , they use electron volts (ev) One ev=1.6x10^-17J. (if you would like to me to explain where they got this number, please ask). An electron has a rest energy of 0.511 Mev.

 

The classical laws of physics collapse at high speeds/energies. While K.E=1/2mv^2 works for speeds well below sub-light speeds, for speeds faster, you require the Gamma factor SQRT(1-V^2/c^2). This is used for mass difference, time diliation etc... This further shows that mass is an illusion, especially the change in mass formula.

 

The point is that matter is not what is would seem. Now what does this have to do with God? Well, the filtered matter is merely different ways for the experience of the universe. In other universes matter may be dramitically different (A universe of anti-matter for example or muons, or leptons, dark matter etc...) My point was that there are many universes, each one with different types of matter/energy and laws of physics. Now, our universe had a transistion period (The Big Bang/Initial expansion). That is our universe went from one state (some say false vacuum) to another (what you are in now). All different universes. All different ways for God to experience the universe through matter and energy.

[edit:clarity of last paragraph]


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
It seems to me this confuses

It seems to me this confuses various states and compositions of elementary particles with illusion. Matter is certainly *something* even if it can be decomposed into smaller things. THis seems like saying a car is an illusion because it is really a bunch of smaller parts.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Sorry, but was there

Sorry, but was there supposed to be an argument for some sort of god in there? I missed it if there was.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
rexlunae wrote: Sorry, but

rexlunae wrote:
Sorry, but was there supposed to be an argument for some sort of god in there? I missed it if there was.

 

Last paragraph.

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: It seems

wavefreak wrote:
It seems to me this confuses various states and compositions of elementary particles with illusion. Matter is certainly *something* even if it can be decomposed into smaller things. THis seems like saying a car is an illusion because it is really a bunch of smaller parts.

 

What I am saying is that matter is interchangable with energy. At the classical level, yes, a car is a car. You can physically touch it, drive it etc... However at the quantum level, it is not.  


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

rexlunae wrote:
Sorry, but was there supposed to be an argument for some sort of god in there? I missed it if there was.

 

Last paragraph.

 

I read the last paragraph. I still don't see anything that supports the existence of a god. I understand all the rest of what you are saying, I just don't understand the leap from "Matter and energy are interchangeable" to "All different ways for God to experience the universe through matter and energy". God just seems to come screaming out of nowhere here.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


SamSexton
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
well, a car is actually

well, a car is actually just a formation of matter. the fact that i cannot walk through it means it is there at least from what i can percieve it is there. it's too abstract to consider matter to be an illusion. first of all define what you mean by illusion and then tell us why you jump to abstract concepts like God to justify such a thing when if true, science should be able to hypothesise much more feasable answers


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
rexlunae

rexlunae wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

rexlunae wrote:
Sorry, but was there supposed to be an argument for some sort of god in there? I missed it if there was.

 

Last paragraph.

 

I read the last paragraph. I still don't see anything that supports the existence of a god. I understand all the rest of what you are saying, I just don't understand the leap from "Matter and energy are interchangeable" to "All different ways for God to experience the universe through matter and energy". God just seems to come screaming out of nowhere here.

 

Okay, I'll re-word that now. Sometimes I think of ideas in my head and summerize them, leaving out the important stuff.

My point was that there are many universes, each one with different types of matter/energy and laws of physics. Now, our universe had a transistion period  (The Big Bang/Initial expansion). That is our universe went from one state (some say false vacuum) to another (what you are in now).

 

Now do you see what I mean?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Oh btw In the other thread

Oh btw

In the other thread in the brane post when I said that I retracted my statement that matter was an illusion, I meant I retracted my statement that matter is an illusion generated by spacet-time, I still hold that matter per se is an illusion.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


SamSexton
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
still, it's far far too

still, it's far far too abstract to commit to.

 

when i think of the universe i think of a giant empty space of nothingness, there can't be two of this because that would suppose a gap between then, which would make more problems.  


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Oh

deludedgod wrote:

Oh btw

In the other thread in the brane post when I said that I retracted my statement that matter was an illusion, I meant I retracted my statement that matter is an illusion generated by spacet-time, I still hold that matter per se is an illusion.

 

Yeah, I know. I posted after you that matter is still an illusion.

 

Quote:

well, a car is actually just a formation of matter. the fact that i cannot walk through it means it is there at least from what i can percieve it is there. it's too abstract to consider matter to be an illusion. first of all define what you mean by illusion and then tell us why you jump to abstract concepts like God to justify such a thing when if true, science should be able to hypothesise much more feasable answers

Heisenburg Un-certainty principle. You can THEORITICALLY walk through it.

 

Let me try now with a wall.

*walks into wall*

ouch.

 

However the sheer probability through limits and such is zero. You would have to walk into it longer than the universe has existed.

 

If you do it at a quantum level however, you have quantum tunneling. Possible on the quantum level, not on the classical. 


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Okay,

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Okay, I'll re-word that now. Sometimes I think of ideas in my head and summerize them, leaving out the important stuff.

Heh. I do the same thing, don't feel badly. I could also just be missing something...

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
My point was that there are many universes, each one with different types of matter/energy and laws of physics. Now, our universe had a transistion period  (The Big Bang/Initial expansion). That is our universe went from one state (some say false vacuum) to another (what you are in now).

I don't have a problem with this, although the notion of a "transition period" is a little strange given that prior to all this starting, the dimensions, including time, were, as I understand it, likely wound around themselves very small, i.e. when it started, there was no time by which to measure a period.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Now do you see what I mean?

Not yet. I don't think the part I'm missing is the physics behind it, just the connection to god.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


SamSexton
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
it's far too

it's far too academic.

 

by that reasoning you could end up with the conclusion that everything is an illusion and nothing is real and by extension nothing is anywhere but the fact i can see things is testament that at least something is somewhere. If we are going to be academic lets just admit the one and only thing we know to be true, something is somewhere, although to the theist that something would have to be God, whereas i'm open on the subject 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
rexlunae

rexlunae wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
My point was that there are many universes, each one with different types of matter/energy and laws of physics. Now, our universe had a transistion period (The Big Bang/Initial expansion). That is our universe went from one state (some say false vacuum) to another (what you are in now).
I don't have a problem with this, although the notion of a "transition period" is a little strange given that prior to all this starting, the dimensions, including time, were, as I understand it, likely wound around themselves very small, i.e. when it started, there was no time by which to measure a period. 

 

This begs the question: Are we the only universe out there? In multiverse theory, there are MANY universes. So one 'baby' universe can form through brane collisions etc... The point is that the Big Bang was the start of OUR universe. It could be that another universe 'burped' out this one i.e that it transended into this universe.

 

Quote:

it's far too academic.

 

by that reasoning you could end up with the conclusion that everything is an illusion and nothing is real and by extension nothing is anywhere but the fact i can see things is testament that at least something is somewhere. If we are going to be academic lets just admit the one and only thing we know to be true, something is somewhere, although to the theist that something would have to be God, whereas i'm open on the subject

 

What are you talking about? Something somewhere?  

 

 


ABx
Posts: 195
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
The only way I can see your

The only way I can see your point making sense is if you start with the assumption that god exists, then fit this information into the picture as "his way of doing things". Otherwise, there is nothing about matter not being what it seems that would imply an external creator. There's no reason it couldn't happen without one, in fact it only seems to simplify things without one, and it still requires a big leap in logic to get to a god.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ABx wrote: The only way I

ABx wrote:
The only way I can see your point making sense is if you start with the assumption that god exists, then fit this information into the picture as "his way of doing things". Otherwise, there is nothing about matter not being what it seems that would imply an external creator. There's no reason it couldn't happen without one, in fact it only seems to simplify things without one, and it still requires a big leap in logic to get to a god.

 

All I am trying to show is that a God is plausible.

 


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
ABx wrote: The only way I

ABx wrote:
The only way I can see your point making sense is if you start with the assumption that god exists, then fit this information into the picture as "his way of doing things".

 

Why not try fitting God's proclaimed way of doing things into what you can assume instead. 

 

Quote:

Otherwise, there is nothing about matter not being what it seems that would imply an external creator. There's no reason it couldn't happen without one, in fact it only seems to simplify things without one, and it still requires a big leap in logic to get to a god.

You get to the same conclusion if you replace God with the words reality or nature or source or what have you, it's just a name and it has to have a name; you have to assume something somewhere exists at least in some contigent sense. If it's not matter but energy which ultimately exists then the first implication is that there is an unseen reality,  God looks pretty good already just with that. 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
When people looked out at

When people looked out at their world, and saw an impassable terrain disappear beyond the horizon, they had insufficient data to suppose it was something other than the edge of a flat earth. When they got beyond that, maybe the ocean became the edge of the world. When the world model became spherical, the edge of reality moved up, or down. Now that we've seen so much of the world, and used telescopes to get an idea of what's out there, we're looking in between particles. I mean, the actual data is fascinating, but not in the service of anthropomorphising matter/energy or fantasizing that what's beyond the "edge" is something ultimately affirming of human purpose.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: When people

magilum wrote:
When people looked out at their world, and saw an impassable terrain disappear beyond the horizon, they had insufficient data to suppose it was something other than the edge of a flat earth. When they got beyond that, maybe the ocean became the edge of the world. When the world model became spherical, the edge of reality moved up, or down. Now that we've seen so much of the world, and used telescopes to get an idea of what's out there, we're looking in between particles. I mean, the actual data is fascinating, but not in the service of anthropomorphising matter/energy or fantasizing that what's beyond the "edge" is something ultimately affirming of human purpose.

I agree Magilum. The proof that there is an unseen reality has most probably won countless thousands of God arguments throughout history in that very way. Eventually we get back to where we have been in recent times, split down the middle as to whether there is another horizon or not, whether we have reached that final closure point that, really, we don't want to reach, running for it endlessly is much more fun (and I don't mean that sarcastically at all I think it is fun).

 Does God have to come into it? No, nobody needs to bring God into it, because in a purely agnostic sense if there is a god he's already in it for himself, and if he's a god worth his god salt surely all he could want for humanity is to find that horizon, embrace it and be fruitful and multiply so to speak. If the case is any different to that then God could go jump. I'm a theist that doesn't believe that the case is different. 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


ABx
Posts: 195
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
All I am trying to show is that a God is plausible.
Sorry mate, I just don't see it. It only makes more sense of existing scientific theory and speculation to me - suddenly the idea of the universe being condensed into a tiny little point and "exploding" into what it is now is a lot easier to visualize and understand.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I just don't see it. From my POV it does more to move me away from your idea than support it.

Quote:
Why not try fitting God's proclaimed way of doing things into what you can assume instead.
Perhaps we should do the same with all the gods? Shall we fit the story of the Egyptian creation myth of Ra ejaculating into his own mouth? Perhaps if I do this myself it would bring me closer to god? (Or at least understanding his ways.)

When it comes to science, you shouldn't be trying to fitting anything into it or assuming anything. You should be working very hard to make sure that your personal biases aren't influencing your perception of reality.

Quote:
You get to the same conclusion if you replace God with the words reality or nature or source or what have you, it's just a name and it has to have a name; you have to assume something somewhere exists at least in some contigent sense.
I don't follow. If the multiverse theory is correct, there is even less reason to think that there's a god outside our immediate universe. To me this also only lends to an infinite amount of them, leaving less room for god. Even if you do assume "something else", it's still a huge leap to go from "natural phenomenon" (as we would recognize it) to an infinitely complex intelligence that created it all. If you want to assume some intelligence somewhere outside our universe, then feel free. I see no reason to do so, and I certainly see no reason to follow that reasoning into the realm of a creator, particularly an omniscient, omnipotent, loving god that will doom you to eternal torture for thinking the wrong things.


ABx
Posts: 195
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
There was a time that I was

There was a time that I was getting excited about some of the quantum consciousness stuff. I was reading a bit about neuroscience and the physicists' view on the matter, and how the neuroscientists were borrowing from the physicists when it came to how to conceptualize. The more I read of the "quantum consciousness" philosophies, however, the more disappointed I became. What it came down to was that they tried to take principals of the microscopic world and scale them directly to the macroscopic without regard for the bigger picture. Fluff like "The Secret" has resulted; people thinking that because quantum particles can behave one way, so can things at a larger scale. What they fail to realize is that it's the combination of incomprehendable numbers of these behaviors happening all at once that causes the rather benign things that we see and experience. To try to apply it directly to the incomprehendably large is simply absurd.

It doesn't fit, it doesn't work, it doesn't make sense of anything, and it's all circular. If anything, I would say it only makes the actual facts harder to grasp.

What it all boils down to is people just stretching new information to give a veneer of intelligence and authority to the exact same concepts.

I'm not necessarily saying that's what anyone here is trying to do, but it's become popular now and it would be an easy trap for anyone with belief in the supernatural to fall into.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ABx wrote: There was a

ABx wrote:

There was a time that I was getting excited about some of the quantum consciousness stuff. I was reading a bit about neuroscience and the physicists' view on the matter, and how the neuroscientists were borrowing from the physicists when it came to how to conceptualize. The more I read of the "quantum consciousness" philosophies, however, the more disappointed I became. What it came down to was that they tried to take principals of the microscopic world and scale them directly to the macroscopic without regard for the bigger picture. Fluff like "The Secret" has resulted; people thinking that because quantum particles can behave one way, so can things at a larger scale. What they fail to realize is that it's the combination of incomprehendable numbers of these behaviors happening all at once that causes the rather benign things that we see and experience. To try to apply it directly to the incomprehendably large is simply absurd.

It doesn't fit, it doesn't work, it doesn't make sense of anything, and it's all circular. If anything, I would say it only makes the actual facts harder to grasp.

What it all boils down to is people just stretching new information to give a veneer of intelligence and authority to the exact same concepts.

I'm not necessarily saying that's what anyone here is trying to do, but it's become popular now and it would be an easy trap for anyone with belief in the supernatural to fall into.

 

Here's the problem. I and many other pantheists do NOT believe int he super-natural.

 


ABx
Posts: 195
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Neither do I.

Neither do I.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ABx wrote: Neither do

ABx wrote:
Neither do I.

 

Then why did you bring it up? 


ABx
Posts: 195
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Exactly.

Exactly.


SamSexton
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
but God is supernatural by

but God is supernatural by definition since his powers trancend that of nature. What you mean is you don't believe in the supernatural...except for this one place in your head where you've allowed a pretty damn abstract concept to get through.

 

even if we can suppose that matter and energy are not eternal, it's not for us to then say that God did it, we need to first explore all the possibilities and lets face it, knowing that our conciousness is a formation of matter and energy, how can we attribute conciousness to something that preceeds matter and energy? the answer is that we can't.

 

with such an inherintly unknowable question, all answers must have equal probability, except ofcourse the answer where we attribute things that we know only to exist within ourselves to things that preceed our very creation.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ABx

ABx wrote:

Exactly

????

 

 

 

SamSexton wrote:

but God is supernatural by definition since his powers trancend that of nature. What you mean is you don't believe in the supernatural...except for this one place in your head where you've allowed a pretty damn abstract concept to get through.

 

Re-read the topic. I have never said that God is 'supernatural'.  He is limited by the universe's laws of physics.

 

Quote:
 

 even if we can suppose that matter and energy are not eternal, it's not for us to then say that God did it, we need to first explore all the possibilities and lets face it, knowing that our conciousness is a formation of matter and energy, how can we attribute conciousness to something that preceeds matter and energy? the answer is that we can't.

 

See my other topic

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/7137

 

  

Quote:

with such an inherintly unknowable question, all answers must have equal probability, except ofcourse the answer where we attribute things that we know only to exist within ourselves to things that preceed our very creation.

 

 

I don't get what you mean by this.

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Nobody likes high energy

Nobody likes high energy physics?

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
bump  

bump