Where Is Your God?

Reason without faith.

Archive for November, 2008

Introducing Plasma Cosmology

Posted by spitlermike On November - 14 - 2008

Hello, for my first post I have chosen to introduce an alternative cosmology.

(Let me preface this by mentioning that I am not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to cosmology and physics; I just happen to have read about this theory and found it interesting. I welcome anyone who is more knowledgeable about the subject to comment on it.)

In short, plasma cosmology argues that electromagnetism is the main force shaping the universe rather than gravity. The reason for this is that most of the universe that we know of consists of plasma, rather than regular matter. The stars are plasmas, auroras are plasmas, nebulas are plasmas, and on and on.

One of the most baffling things about the universe is its filamentary structure. However, novelty plasma globes also exhibit this type of behavior. When electrons flow through a plasma, magnetic fields form around it and compress it more closely together, resulting in filaments of plasma forming.

Another interesting fact is that electromagnetic force is much more powerful when acting on plasmas than gravity is. While the force of gravity is the inverse of the square of the distance between two objects, electromagnetism is only inverse to the distance. Therefore gravity tapers off far sooner than magnetic force does, meaning that at the macro-cosmic scale electromagnetism should be dominant rather than gravity.

Among some of the interesting implications of this theory is that the Sun is actually powered from external electrical currents rather than from within. As the theory goes, the filaments of plasma that streak the universe act as conductors for massive flows of electrons that cause the stars to burn, rather than internal nuclear reactions.

Oh, and it also holds that the universe has no beginning or end.

Here are some relevant links on the subject:

http://www.plasmacosmology.net/index.html

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

Plasma Cosmology videos

So, what do you guys think?

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [MySpace] [Reddit] [Slashdot] [Spurl.net] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] More »
ADD COMMENTS

Creationists: Please read a book

Posted by Brandon On November - 13 - 2008

I watched a documentary at work during lunch today. It was Richard Dawkin’s “The Blind Watchmaker” and it was a fascinating, if not slightly old, film debunking the watchmaker argument. Though that specific argument will definitely be something I address in a future article, I want to talk about a certain revelation I had.

I was watching this documentary and thinking about the arguments Dawkin’s was using and the various computer simulations he designed to emulate how evolution works in nature. The arguments he made were sound and even intellectually poetic to me. But I realized that some of these arguments were not easy to understand always. Don’t get me wrong, they were simple enough, but I could see some people (can we say religious?) not really analyzing the evidence he presented.

God is easy to understand; there’s not much to it. A supreme, invisible being, created the universe and loves us and made everything happen using his supernatural powers. You only have one book that describes, in basic terms, how existence came about. Saying that reality was created with “magic” (or equivalent thereof) is not hard to understand, even a child can figure it out. But to actually devote yourself to studying evolution, astronomy, geology and various other sciences isn’t so easy. It’s really the same phenomena as any other supernatural experience that people have. Either someone doesn’t have enough understanding of the universe, or they want to believe and will mold perception to fit their preconceived notions.

This is really easy to observe. Just watch a debate between someone pro evolution and someone pro creation. They will say something to the effect of “Oh this all happened by chance?” or “The human eye is too complex to have sprouted up magically” or “We all evolved from monkeys?”. All of these prove, without doubt, that they have never once even looked at any data on the subject. But this isn’t really what I’m getting at, we all know theists have no sense of logic or understanding of their surroundings. What I’m trying to get at is why?

Personally, I attribute this lack of critical thinking to two things: One is the fact that science doesn’t offer something that most people find comforting. I think all people wouldn’t mind living forever and knowing that if they’re good people they will live in heaven for eternity. To put it crudely “Shit in one hand, wish in the other. See which one fills up first.” Yeah, that was pretty gross but it makes a good point that desiring for something doesn’t make it true. The second thing is what I said earlier in the post: Evolution, and various other fields of science, are difficult to understand in a few, poorly phrased sentences that Christians use to explain them to their followers. If you’re a theist and have doubts about Darwinian evolution you really need to do some independent study on the subjects without the extreme bias of someone who can barely understand it. I mean, seriously, on one side you have scientists who devote their lives to study these areas of science and on the other hand you have creationists who don’t even know that evolution doesn’t say we came from apes. If you can’t even understand that apes and man have a common ancestor then you lose all respect in my eyes.

This article ended up being quite a bit longer than I had originally wanted it to be. The main point I’m driving it is towards the religious: Please, please, read about the subject you are arguing about before you try and debate someone who understands the subject much better than you.

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [MySpace] [Reddit] [Slashdot] [Spurl.net] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] More »
ADD COMMENTS

A Shot in the Dark

Posted by Ryan On November - 11 - 2008

There’s something that’s always bugged me about religious arguments; the absolute certainty of both sides. On one hand you have the standard theist who says ‘Without a doubt, my god exists and is the singular correct god.’ Obviously that’s ridiculous, but isn’t it equally ridiculous to say, ‘Well I don’t know what the answer is, but it sure as hell isn’t that.”

What is faith, really? Believing something without question, right? A while ago I was speaking with someone who was very much an atheist and, as they were ranting about how stupid religious people are, I realized that they were as fervent and adamant in their belief about the non-existence of god as the very people they were insulting. I got to thinking, isn’t it the very same faith? On one hand you have unbacked, unsupported belief that one thing is true. On the other, you’re making a claim that has some circumstantial evidence but no direct proof and believing that is true, often without a doubt. And often with an awful lot of contempt.

I consider myself an agnostic, and unlike most atheists I don’t consider it “fence sitting” or “being a pansy”. Being agnostic to me is simply saying “It is impossible to know whether or not God exists.” Now, I’m not talking about religion mind you. Religions can be disproved because they make claims centered in our world. The earth was created 6,000 years ago, for example. This claim, regardless of the efforts of radical Christians across America, has been proven false. All of that aside, the central claim that there is a divine entity that created the universe and governs it with its almighty will can not reasonably be proven to be false.

There’s plenty of arguments against this and all are logical fallacies. The bottom line is that the argument makes claims that are outside the bounds of our universe, and thus outside of our capacity for perception. “Haha, but Ryan,” you might say with a broad, condescending smirk, “Does that mean you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Or what about Santa Claus and fairies?” Of course not, but what are you claiming? That a magical fat man flies house to house and drops presents into fireplaces? You can disprove that by finding the parents receipt. That is not the same as claiming that god created and runs the universe, a claim that cannot be either proven or disproved.

I believe that any reasonable minded person will have to admit to both possibilities, that god may or may not exist. To say with scientific certainty that God, without a doubt, does not exist means that you must have some evidence to prove that statement. And when it all comes down to it in the end, science simply is not at a point that it can provide that. When confronted with this argument, most reasonable scientists will agree (much like Dawkins), but reply with “Well, I’m 99.999999% certain god doesn’t exist.” This allows for the possibility, technically, while saying that they’re almost certainly right. That is also incorrect, or at least not logically viable. How can you come to a figure of 99%? The definition of probability is: “the relative possibility that an event will occur, as expressed by the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the total number of possible occurrences.” When coming to a figure of objective probability, you need some factual data to quantify that figure. What possible data can contribute to this assessment? Whether religions have been proven false? That some other Gods have been proven to not exist?

Probability doesn’t have a memory, my friends. It doesn’t care that no gods live at the peak of Mt. Olympus, or that the sun does not orbit the Earth. Does the Judeo-Christian God exist as the divine creator of our universe? It’s a shot in the dark folks, 50%. Yes or no.