• Our friends from the Johto Times are hosting a favorite Pokémon poll - and we'd love for you to participate! Click here for information on how to vote for your favorites!
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Someone explain religion to me

I demand sources and scientific evidence before I so much as consider a post that defies one of the most basic laws of the universe I know and accept. o.o So I will not be responding to your post before such. Nothing personal.

So until you can do that...

https://www.braungardt.com/Physics/Vacuum%20Fluctuation.htm

That's Jurgen Braungardt PHD 's website's explaination and his sources include Stephen Hawking and Heinz Pagels.

If you want more about proof for quantum field theory, Wikipedia has it covered:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory

Now, let's not let this get off-topic. It is merely proof that you can get something from nothing.

Oh, and most of modern Physics is built around this understanding.
 
Last edited:


https://www.braungardt.com/Physics/Vacuum%20Fluctuation.htm

That's Jurgen Braungardt PHD 's website's explaination and his sources include Stephen Hawking and Heinz Pagels.

If you want more about proof for quantum field theory, Wikipedia has it covered:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory

Now, let's not let this get off-topic. It is merely proof that you can get something from nothing.

Oh, and most of modern Physics is built around this understanding.

Wikipedia is not a source and I don't acknowledge this as proof. =/
 
Wikipedia is not a source and I don't acknowledge this as proof. =/

Google "Quantum Field Theory" and "Vacuum Fluctuation" and you'll find millions of results, each site showing you the proof whether you understand it or not! Stop being so awkward and pedantic about this. As I have said all of modern physics is based on this understanding. It has been proven by Fock, Pauli, Heisenberg, Bethe, Tomonaga, Schwinger, Feynman, Dyson, Gerard 't Hooft, Frank Wilczek, David Gross, David Politzer,Michael Fisher, Leo Kadanoff and Kenneth G. Wilson who all contibuted to it from 1950-1970. Physicists base so many of their ideas on this fact. If you don't want to believe it, fine, but unlike God this can be proven.
 


Google "Quantum Field Theory" and "Vacuum Fluctuation" and you'll find millions of results, each site showing you the proof whether you understand it or not! Stop being so awkward and pedantic about this. As I have said all of modern physics is based on this understanding. It has been proven by Fock, Pauli, Heisenberg, Bethe, Tomonaga, Schwinger, Feynman, Dyson, Gerard 't Hooft, Frank Wilczek, David Gross, David Politzer,Michael Fisher, Leo Kadanoff and Kenneth G. Wilson who all contibuted to it from 1950-1970. Physicists base so many of their ideas on this fact. If you don't want to believe it, fine, but unlike God this can be proven.

Please show the proof then, and no asking me to find it myself. Just show it, if it's so apparent. I'd appreciate it if you'd stick to your original theory, by the way, that being vacuum fluctuation.
 
The only problem I have with atheism (as I'm Christian) is that can you honestly say to yourself that all the planets, all the animals, all the solar systems, and even you just came out of nowhere? That every single cell in your human body, every atom in the universe just magicly formed into something that complex?
 
Please show the proof then, and no asking me to find it myself. Just show it, if it's so apparent. I'd appreciate it if you'd stick to your original theory, by the way, that being vacuum fluctuation.

Actually, it's all there in the two links... and Wikipedia is a reliable source when it comes to science and math. I've yet to see one major error in those areas. Plus, the citing is rather good, so in this case (I wouldn't trust it for politics or the likes), yes, Wikipedia is a citable source.

However, Cynic, I think it's deceiving to say that we're getting something from nothing... for example, when matter and antimatter combine, they destroy each other. But they don't just pop out of existence, they, in essence, transform into pure energy through Einstein's famous equation, [E=m*c^2]. So I don't think it's a case of "something from nothing", I think it's more of a case of conversion between mass and energy (rearranging Einstein's equation to [m=E/c^2], which, to me, is a lot more scientifically sound.

(See, even a scientist has issues with the "something from nothing" idea. haha)

I tied to wrap my brain around the stuff in the first link (I'm only recreationally interested in theoretical physics :P), and it seems its talking about the positive-negative energy particle pairs (which are also seen as matter and antimatter). The idea of antimatter was proven (I think it was Hawking, actually) through the mathematical studies of black holes (the fact that it sucks matter in, and matter cannot be created or destroyed, so there had to be something to explain it: that a particle was sucked in, and another anti-particle was spit out; I apologize, but I actually forget the whole story, but I'm pretty sure it's something along those lines.

As far as the Big Bang violating the law of conservation of mass, I believe the continued idea is that the Universe "popped" into place from an infinitesimal, infinitely dense pinpoint. The infinitely dense I'm sure has a theoretical value to it, but that covers the apparent violation of conservation of mass. So, like Cynic said, Zet does not win.
 
The only problem I have with atheism (as I'm Christian) is that can you honestly say to yourself that all the planets, all the animals, all the solar systems, and even you just came out of nowhere? That every single cell in your human body, every atom in the universe just magicly formed into something that complex?

>.>

That's not what atheists think (at least I hope it isn't). Most atheists I know believe in the big bang theory which, as explained above, was not the universe forming "magically". And the formation of cells etc. is down to natural selection, which is (once again) not "magic" in any way. A lot of it (especially the things re: the big bang) is pretty damn confusing and I'd be lying if I said I perfectly understood all of it. But, to me, it makes more sense than some God that created us just for kicks.
 
This is starting to sound like that awesome TV show The Big Band Theory...

Anyway, yeah. Religion is just something used to understand the world. How and why you interpret it is a whole other topic.
 
Religion is the voluntary abandonment of logic and reasoning. I say this not because I believe that everything religious is false or useless, but because of the attitudes of the majority of religious people I've talked to. Many of them refuse to question, update, or reform anything. This makes them incapable of improving their religion or their relationship to their religion, or even themselves.
 
Last edited:
Actually, it's all there in the two links... and Wikipedia is a reliable source when it comes to science and math. I've yet to see one major error in those areas. Plus, the citing is rather good, so in this case (I wouldn't trust it for politics or the likes), yes, Wikipedia is a citable source.

However, Cynic, I think it's deceiving to say that we're getting something from nothing... for example, when matter and antimatter combine, they destroy each other. But they don't just pop out of existence, they, in essence, transform into pure energy through Einstein's famous equation, [E=m*c^2]. So I don't think it's a case of "something from nothing", I think it's more of a case of conversion between mass and energy (rearranging Einstein's equation to [m=E/c^2], which, to me, is a lot more scientifically sound.

(See, even a scientist has issues with the "something from nothing" idea. haha)

I tied to wrap my brain around the stuff in the first link (I'm only recreationally interested in theoretical physics :P), and it seems its talking about the positive-negative energy particle pairs (which are also seen as matter and antimatter). The idea of antimatter was proven (I think it was Hawking, actually) through the mathematical studies of black holes (the fact that it sucks matter in, and matter cannot be created or destroyed, so there had to be something to explain it: that a particle was sucked in, and another anti-particle was spit out; I apologize, but I actually forget the whole story, but I'm pretty sure it's something along those lines.

As far as the Big Bang violating the law of conservation of mass, I believe the continued idea is that the Universe "popped" into place from an infinitesimal, infinitely dense pinpoint. The infinitely dense I'm sure has a theoretical value to it, but that covers the apparent violation of conservation of mass. So, like Cynic said, Zet does not win.

Thanks Rich, I couldn't be bothered to read through that entire portfolio I was being handed searching for a single bit of proof. I wanted the Cynic to point me directly to something factual. Wikipedia is only reliable if you go through the whole process of investigating the sources and once again I can't be bothered to do all that work for someone. This is why wikipedia itself isn't reliable, and a very bad place to site as a source. Rather, going to wikipedia and siting the source that is related to the thing on Wikipedia is far better both in looks and ease for the reader.

I don't think you've defeated the argument though. Where did that infinitely dense point come from? See the thing about Zet's argument is that it boils down to that if there was ever a beginning there is a god.

Now I ask you, has the universe always existed? I've seen theories on it, but the idea is pretty magical in itself. I mean, why would it just exist? Seems like that would not kill the idea of God even then, but would do a number on creationism.


Religion is the voluntary abandonment of logic and reasoning. I say this not because I believe that everything religious is false or useless, but because of the attitudes of the majority of religious people I've talked to. Many of them refuse to question, update, or reform anything. This makes them incapable of improving their religion or their relationship to their religion, or even themselves.

What is this, the stereotype bandwagon? Cmon.
 
Last edited:
I don't know much about the physics side to this but I'll state my views.

Obviously I'm only 14 so a lot of time for my views to change I'll admit.

I'm personally agnostic but I lean slightly toward atheism. The reason I'm agnostic is because I do believe that neither side has proven their argument yet, the bible isn't concrete evidence but (unless them physics have something to say) I don't think science has either. The reason I lean toward atheism slightly is because if I'm right and science hasn't proved religion wrong yet its because it is not at an advancement to do so while if any religion was true, God/Jesus/Anyone has had ample time to prove their existence.

So those are my views, I'm sure they're not perfect and someone might prove some part wrong right now but there you go.
 
Now I ask you, has the universe always existed? I've seen theories on it, but the idea is pretty magical in itself. I mean, why would it just exist? Seems like that would not kill the idea of God even then, but would do a number on creationism.

The theory that the universe has always existed is only as magical as the theory that a God created it.
 
The theory that the universe has always existed is only as magical as the theory that a God created it.

Yeah, but, it's accepted that god is magical. Science, on the other hand, is not supposed to be magical. =/
 
Please show the proof then, and no asking me to find it myself. Just show it, if it's so apparent. I'd appreciate it if you'd stick to your original theory, by the way, that being vacuum fluctuation.

I could explain it if you have a basic grasp of quantum theory. If not, I'll run you through the basics.

Actually, it's all there in the two links... and Wikipedia is a reliable source when it comes to science and math. I've yet to see one major error in those areas. Plus, the citing is rather good, so in this case (I wouldn't trust it for politics or the likes), yes, Wikipedia is a citable source.

However, Cynic, I think it's deceiving to say that we're getting something from nothing... for example, when matter and antimatter combine, they destroy each other. But they don't just pop out of existence, they, in essence, transform into pure energy through Einstein's famous equation, [E=m*c^2]. So I don't think it's a case of "something from nothing", I think it's more of a case of conversion between mass and energy (rearranging Einstein's equation to [m=E/c^2], which, to me, is a lot more scientifically sound.

(See, even a scientist has issues with the "something from nothing" idea. haha)

I tied to wrap my brain around the stuff in the first link (I'm only recreationally interested in theoretical physics :P), and it seems its talking about the positive-negative energy particle pairs (which are also seen as matter and antimatter). The idea of antimatter was proven (I think it was Hawking, actually) through the mathematical studies of black holes (the fact that it sucks matter in, and matter cannot be created or destroyed, so there had to be something to explain it: that a particle was sucked in, and another anti-particle was spit out; I apologize, but I actually forget the whole story, but I'm pretty sure it's something along those lines.

As far as the Big Bang violating the law of conservation of mass, I believe the continued idea is that the Universe "popped" into place from an infinitesimal, infinitely dense pinpoint. The infinitely dense I'm sure has a theoretical value to it, but that covers the apparent violation of conservation of mass. So, like Cynic said, Zet does not win.

2 crucial points.

In vacuum wave theory when the particles "pop out of existence", that is not anihilation. No energy or mass is left behind whatsoever.

2nd of all dark matter =/= antimatter.

Thanks Rich, I couldn't be bothered to read through that entire portfolio I was being handed searching for a single bit of proof. I wanted the Cynic to point me directly to something factual. Wikipedia is only reliable if you go through the whole process of investigating the sources and once again I can't be bothered to do all that work for someone. This is why wikipedia itself isn't reliable, and a very bad place to site as a source. Rather, going to wikipedia and siting the source that is related to the thing on Wikipedia is far better both in looks and ease for the reader.

I don't think you've defeated the argument though. Where did that infinitely dense point come from? See the thing about Zet's argument is that it boils down to that if there was ever a beginning there is a god.

Now I ask you, has the universe always existed? I've seen theories on it, but the idea is pretty magical in itself. I mean, why would it just exist? Seems like that would not kill the idea of God even then, but would do a number on creationism.




What is this, the stereotype bandwagon? Cmon.

The 1st source I sited was all in layman's terms for you and was directly relevent. Wikipedia was just if you wanted to enhance your understanding by putting it into a wider context.
 
C'mon dudes and beauties can't you settle or something? You're making a bad thread even worse. aka bad. aka horrible. aka horribad.

I know... I hate myself for dragging myself into an argument but when you screw with Physics, you screw with me.

Anyway, let's get back to talking about religion....

[PokeCommunity.com] Someone explain religion to me

 
Thanks Rich, I couldn't be bothered to read through that entire portfolio I was being handed searching for a single bit of proof. I wanted the Cynic to point me directly to something factual. Wikipedia is only reliable if you go through the whole process of investigating the sources and once again I can't be bothered to do all that work for someone. This is why wikipedia itself isn't reliable, and a very bad place to site as a source. Rather, going to wikipedia and siting the source that is related to the thing on Wikipedia is far better both in looks and ease for the reader.

I don't think you've defeated the argument though. Where did that infinitely dense point come from? See the thing about Zet's argument is that it boils down to that if there was ever a beginning there is a god.

Now I ask you, has the universe always existed? I've seen theories on it, but the idea is pretty magical in itself. I mean, why would it just exist? Seems like that would not kill the idea of God even then, but would do a number on creationism.

The "always existing thing" has indeed been thought about, historically. But it was shown, and ultimately proven, that the Universe is expanding (and I think it's actually speeding up in the process; that part I can't really explain, though). Basic logic would say, if the Universe is expanding, and you reverse time, there had to be a singular point (which scientists cleverly call "the singularity") that the expansion started from. This is essentially the evidence that first substantiated the Big Bang Theory.

The fact of the matter is, we scientists, we just don't know what happened! We have our evidence, we have our theories, but we don't truly know what happened, or what existed before the Big Bang, or what caused it (although there are theories about that one - ever hear of a particle accelerator? The collision of two particles at neat the speed of light... we have, in effect, created mini-Big Bangs through this).

I think my beef comes from the idea that, when religion is introduced into science, when we scientists don't know something, it automatically goes to "God caused it", which is clearly an ignorant and illogical assumption and ceases further research. I think obviously something happened, and the fact that we don't know is kind of exciting! But there has to be scientific reason behind it. I, personally, don't think that's disputable, period.

The danger of religion in science (and actually in general) is that it allows people to believe they have all of the answers when, in fact, they do not. If we confront an idea of which the answer we don't have, we approach it from that point of view, of not knowing and wanting to. We look at evidence, and fit that around scientific laws and come up with a logical conclusion that is both scientifically and mathematically sound. There are some instances, such as "the singularity" where the laws of physics actually begin to break down, and that's why we don't know what happened. That's the reason more theories come into play, such as String Theory, or M-Theory... we rationalize these ideas, and show that they work, and apply them to see what could have happened. Sometimes these theories are incredibly abstract, but there's research behind it, and moreso calculations that can substantiate it. Can a Creationist say the same thing?

If we approach it from a "God caused it" stance, where is the science? Where is the research? Where is the evidence? Where is the math? Where is the logic? There is none. When you say "God caused it", what you're really saying is, "it's divine, cannot be questioned, so let's not pursue the idea further". As a scientist, that, to me, is just plain stupid.

EDIT:

2 crucial points.

In vacuum wave theory when the particles "pop out of existence", that is not anihilation. No energy or mass is left behind whatsoever.

2nd of all dark matter =/= antimatter.

First point: Hm, well that's news to me! I'm a chemist, so I can't claim to be incredibly well read on physics, but I'll have to look further into that.

Point two: I never mentioned dark matter. :-/
 
I think my beef comes from the idea that, when religion is introduced into science, when we scientists don't know something, it automatically goes to "God caused it", which is clearly an ignorant and illogical assumption and ceases further research. I think obviously something happened, and the fact that we don't know is kind of exciting! But there has to be scientific reason behind it. I, personally, don't think that's disputable, period.
"I want to know God's thoughts. The rest are details." -Albert Einstein

In Christianity (And Islam, apparently) there's no reason not to search for answers. I love answering questions, and I'd like to make a discovery or two myself. It's just that it's not all we have, and we don't have to rely on observations to understand that it works.
Also, didn't you say that you thought people thinking about the universe expanding is making expand faster? On all accounts, it shouldn't work. A+B+down when you throw your Pokeball.

The danger of religion in science (and actually in general) is that it allows people to believe they have all of the answers when, in fact, they do not. If we confront an idea of which the answer we don't have, we approach it from that point of view, of not knowing and wanting to. We look at evidence, and fit that around scientific laws and come up with a logical conclusion that is both scientifically and mathematically sound. There are some instances, such as "the singularity" where the laws of physics actually begin to break down, and that's why we don't know what happened. That's the reason more theories come into play, such as String Theory, or M-Theory... we rationalize these ideas, and show that they work, and apply them to see what could have happened. Sometimes these theories are incredibly abstract, but there's research behind it, and moreso calculations that can substantiate it. Can a Creationist say the same thing?
If a Christian tells you they know everything, they're lying. I don't know what kind of people you formed your opinion upon, but we're not all like that. I've found evolution is hardly mathematically sound. String theory and such as never really piqued my interest, so I have little to say there.

If we approach it from a "God caused it" stance, where is the science? Where is the research? Where is the evidence? Where is the math? Where is the logic? There is none. When you say "God caused it", what you're really saying is, "it's divine, cannot be questioned, so let's not pursue the idea further". As a scientist, that, to me, is just plain stupid.

I'd prefer it if words were not put in other people's mouths. Heck, I'd prefer it if religious people on the whole were not dismissed as illogical and irrelevant. When I say "God caused it", I mean what I say. At the root of the matter, God caused it. But what can we learn from it, how do we go about extracting information from this phenomenon? As a scientist, it's stupid to stop looking. As a God-fearing scientist, it's still stupid to stop looking, but it's more incredible to learn what you learn. After all, this isn't just the way it is, this is what an almighty, extra-dimensional, eternal being created from nonbeing, just so you could figure it out, why the universe is the way it is!
 
"I want to know God's thoughts. The rest are details." -Albert Einstein

In Christianity (And Islam, apparently) there's no reason not to search for answers. I love answering questions, and I'd like to make a discovery or two myself. It's just that it's not all we have, and we don't have to rely on observations to understand that it works.
Also, didn't you say that you thought people thinking about the universe expanding is making expand faster? On all accounts, it shouldn't work. A+B+down when you throw your Pokeball.

Not necessarily. There are probably (physical) forces at work; electromagnetic repulsion is one, but I admit I'm not exactly an expert in the subject. I'm pretty sure we have ideas why its expanding faster and faster, but I don't know what they are, exactly.


If a Christian tells you they know everything, they're lying. I don't know what kind of people you formed your opinion upon, but we're not all like that. I've found evolution is hardly mathematically sound. String theory and such as never really piqued my interest, so I have little to say there.

True, technically, but it is logically sound. It makes more sense that we are a product of millions upon billions of years of genetic mutations that eventually led to better survival than saying we just appeared this way. And again, we really don't know! It's almost universally agreed upon because it answers the questions and has the most backing to it. There's no evidence for Creation outside of the Bible, however.


I'd prefer it if words were not put in other people's mouths. Heck, I'd prefer it if religious people on the whole were not dismissed as illogical and irrelevant. When I say "God caused it", I mean what I say. At the root of the matter, God caused it. But what can we learn from it, how do we go about extracting information from this phenomenon? As a scientist, it's stupid to stop looking. As a God-fearing scientist, it's still stupid to stop looking, but it's more incredible to learn what you learn. After all, this isn't just the way it is, this is what an almighty, extra-dimensional, eternal being created from nonbeing, just so you could figure it out, why the universe is the way it is!

haha, if that's the case, I want to shake God's hand, because he's got a decent (albeit, slightly sadistic) sense of humor.

I'm referring to the most extreme cases, which are out there in larger numbers than you think. The people who stubbornly believe the Earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so, despite the scientific evidence we have that it's not. And it's these people that don't believe looking for an answer is needed. I agree with you, stopping to look is stupid, whether you believe in God or not.

Think of it this way... it's almost like an ex-Nazi coming in to work for the US Government (don't worry, I'm not calling religious people Nazis, this is just a metaphor). Because of the history of Nazis, he is immediately suspect, even if he's truly reformed or truly "on our side", going to follow our rules, or our way of dealing with things, etc, so to say. It's the same thing with highly religious people in science. Do I think they can play by our rules (that is, the rules of science)? Of course. Some of the most famous scientists in history believed in God (such as Einstein, as you quoted above). But are they, perhaps, suspect at first? I think so.

PS: You could think about it this way too... say a Muslim came into your church to give a speech on Christian philosophy. Could everything he says be accurate, according to the Bible? Of course! But wouldn't you question the situation, perhaps at first?
 
Last edited:

The 1st source I sited was all in layman's terms for you and was directly relevent. Wikipedia was just if you wanted to enhance your understanding by putting it into a wider context.

Also, I took the time to read something I very much did not want to read and found quotes and records of expirements.

Where did all the matter and radiation in the universe come from in the first place? Recent intriguing theoretical research by physicists such as Steven Weinberg of Harvard and Ya. B. Zel'dovich in Moscow suggest that the universe began as a perfect vacuum and that all the particles of the material world were created from the expansion of space...

You know this quote seems to cover what I need to respond to. I honestly think too little is known about this theory to be using it to disprove a much more well established theory. =/ I think that would be jumping to conclusions when the best we've got about how these particles behave is "unpredictable". For all we know, they obey the law.

You know what's frustrating? Having your beliefs stereotyped like this thread and several posters did. That's what I'm here to argue against. Definitely not theoretical physics.
 
Back
Top