Through the Wormhole: How Does the Universe Work?

Through the Wormhole: How Does the Universe Work?With the help of massive machines called particle accelerators, scientists studied the subatomic realm and made discoveries about the forces that operate at that level. But the search for a comprehensive explanation still continues.

In particular, physicists have sought to find a way to reconcile Einstein's model of space-time, which seems to work best when applied to big objects like stars and galaxies, and the theory of quantum mechanics, which offers an explanation of electromagnetic and nuclear forces that makes sense of reality at the tiniest level.

In recent years, some have proposed a novel solution called string theory, in which tiny particles are loops that vibrate like violin strings in a multidimensional space.

In the mathematical calculations that make up string theory, gravitation is a byproduct of the process. While string theory offers a possible solution to the ultimate question of the ages, there's a hitch: Scientists have not yet found a way to test the theory experimentally to prove that it's more than just an elegant idea. List of all episodes here: Through The Wormhole.

Watch the full documentary now

Ratings: 7.38/10from 32 users.

More great documentaries

196 Comments / User Reviews

  1. We Created God. And god is everything, as one. and god is in us. so God Created himself.. I'm not saying we created us, but us created we..

    I have a lot of explanations for unanswered questions like gravity, dark matter etc. and would like everyone to know these explanations, because if scientist and engineers knew them, then a whole new era of discoveries and creations will be here already. but if I told people individually, then it would take forever. and if someone creates my creations I won't get paid. but if I could tell everyone or enough people at the same time, I will be satisfied with being recognized for the evolution of our brains.

    so maybe this post will make it possible.

    1. Yeah? It's been a year, how well did that work out for you?

      Maybe do more drugs and you might get there.

  2. Can't talk science with people that bring in the God argument into the conversation. And JONI you are so far gone I can't believe you could ever be fully functional.

  3. Discovery blocked through the wormhole. Of course, how dare them let people get better educated for free!

  4. morgan has a great voice and really pulls you in.

  5. We know right and wrong because we have been taught that since we were young. Humans learned morales because our ancestors evolved our brains instead of physical attributes, which let us develop more emotions than animals have. Take away that and we only use primal intincts like the rest of animals to survive.

  6. I came here to get other people's views, and all I could find was moralist named Joni. just a warning...... Very good series, I have to admit that this episode gave me a few new perspective adjustments

  7. "God" came about by humans to give us hope in life after death. For some it gives a reason to live, or for others a reason to die. But nonetheless believing that there is (could be, might be) life after death calms our minds and allows us to live a more peaceful existence.
    Just fyi most socities were/are based on regilion. If you take that away then what would stop a human from causing harm or killing another. The fundamental laws that humans made for one another (good or bad...corrupt or not) for a better life would cease to exist.

    1. It may be a good side benefit to society and also in some ways a means to help control a large mass of people under reasonable set of standards for behavior. However, if you allow yourself to feel deeply you will realize in your conscience you possess something more than just your blood arteries and thinking. You have an identity and a self awareness which is not present as much in wild animals or farm animals but also a smaller portion is also in them. You can not deny that feelings of right and wrong are written into to your heart. Even the bad people know when they are doing something wrong or cruel because it allows them to get off while doing it also. There is some overwhelming force in the universe and each religion calls it by their own choice of name or terms. And, you know this is truth.

    2. Animals have emotions STRONG one's. And they are more moral than we are.

  8. Through the Wormhole is one of my favorite series on the discovery channel.

  9. how could you watch this and still think god created everything IT NEVER HAPPENED GOD DOES NOT EXIST the only thing religion gives humans is war and its ****** up

    1. and your conclusion is that physics and evolution also created themselves out of some random biological soup over time? what if god used HIS OWN physics to evolve us and this god is still in charge? why do we try to divorce god from everything he created, including the physics and the rights and ability he gave darwin to discover things? war? it's a well known fact that god supports many wars and gives permissions for them to occur. he has his own reasons to allow it. who are you to question this higher authority? in the case of hitler you would agree on that one. what about the enemies of king david? he prayed for permission to devastate his foes. do you ask for permission from anybody when you want to do something? or you are the king of universe? do you see how this is self centered and you are not the top dog anyway. not really.

    2. Have you read the Bible cover to cover? Or is your understanding of it derived only form another's interpretation of their reading of it. Have you ever played the game "telephone" where at one end of a line of people someone says a sentence, they whisper it into the ear of the person next to them, and that person then turns and does the same. Most commonly by the time it gets to the end of the line the sentence is no longer even close to the original the first person whispered. This to me is a good example of the majority of people debating and discussing this topic. They're deriving a belief system about something they themselves have yet to even explore. Coming back to the game telephone.. it shows us that people miss interpret, miss hear, or intentionally alter truth to suit themselves or to control others, for humor, personal gain etc... or in other words. Humans have free agency, and choice. With this understood, lets set aside the Bible all together to eliminate any human error, and talk about prayer.

      Have you ever gotten down on your hands and knees and prayed? Asked all your questions, shared all your doubts etc. Religion is a personal relation ship between yourself and your creator, or your understanding of "GOD", why involve the telephone game aka other peoples personal opinions, understanding, interpretations etc.. . Ask through prayer with an open heart. Rewatch this documentary or others like it, and after, pray about it, ask if its true. Then do the same when you read the bible, Qur'an, or a book on wikin and again see how you feel. Then when you really feel you're being honest with yourself and you feel concrete about it, then own it regardless of what science or religion tells you.

      ps. If you have already read the Bible and other religious books about "GOD" and have prayed about it for at least 45min (why not give it as much time as you did this doc right? I mean, if its all not true anyways than whats the harm) Then I respect the conclusion you've come to,weather same or different to mine. Doesn't matter to me... but to come to the conclusion you did, as concretely as you did in your post here, all without reading the bible in its entirety, well, that should make you question why you feel the way you feel so strongly.

      This is just a side note/question about your war comment. Do you think that if religion didn't exist that there would be no war? Or if we all had the same color of eyes, hair, and skin there would be no discrimination? How can one judge something by the actions of humans. Football is a sport, but some football players beat their wives, some rape women, some use performance enhancing drugs, some murder etc. by your logic then, I can blame football for what these men with their free agency and ability to choose chose to do. Or Soccer riots and deaths is the games fault not the crazy fans.... That doesn't make sense does it? Neither then would judging a religion by what its followers, fanatics, crazies choose to do in religions name.

      Sports stars, actors, billionairs, tv show hosts, all use their "thing" to promote personal agendas, political agendas, personal beliefs etc, but that doesn't mean that that sport, or Hollywood, or tv station, or religion supports what PEOPLE CHOOSE to do. Free agency and Choice, we all have it, thats not the question, the question is, WHAT DO YOU DO WITH YOURS??

  10. There is no God get over it. Science is based on evidence and you don't have any. Why do all you faith freaks try and bring everything back to God?

    1. That depends on what God is, for God to be, it has to be identified or defined, and that's never been done yet.

    2. EVERYTHING including science was created by god including evolution. and you guys are lost in the dark. that's ok if you choose to be there and lost and alone. god is the one who made this big bang. and he invented the physics to do it also. god might be this part we can't figure out or this so called "dark energy" is actually "light energy" in fact. and I am not faith freak. I dont need any faith to see and feel the spirit has influences in nature and in lifetimes. what is geldof anyway, relation to the hobits genetics?

    3. Reijer Hooykaas
      John F. Haught:
      Arthur Peacocke
      Harold K. Schilling
      This is a very small list of authors that also happen to have PHDs in fields like Biology, physics, chemistry, Theology, and so on.

      Read John F. Haughts testimony in Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District. where he states that materialism, the philosophy that only matter exists, is "a belief system, no less a belief system than is intelligent design. And as such, it has absolutely no place in the classroom, and teachers of evolution should not lead their students craftily or explicitly to ... feel that they have to embrace a materialistic world-view in order to make sense of evolution." So.. no.. Science is NOT based on evidence in every case. I know you Bob... you're the guy that was afraid to sail across the sea because science told you the world was flat, backed by the tangible "evidence" you cling to, that it looks to just drop off, and no one ever returns... but years later the facts and evidence were not true, completely false in fact... yet a person like you who is afraid to find out for himself just jumps on the bandwagon with all the other uneducated, afraid, and weak people that just believe what they're told. I can give you 10 examples of Science saying or claiming one thing based on "evidence" and then Science saying, actually thats not it at all. You call people who have faith faith freaks? Yet you also have faith... faith in science! Faith in science which has been proven wrong so many many times, yet the debate of God's existence has never tangibly been proven or dis proven, still you claim to KNOW there is no God. For a person that spouts off at the mouth about having evidence you come with VERY little yourself. Have you read the Tripinaka, Science and Health about Christian Science,the Bible, Analects, Principia, Mabinogion, Vedas, Quran, Kalpa, Torah, The Book of Mormon, Arzhang Manichaeism, Satanic Bible, Intelligent Design, Dianetics Scientology, Kojiki Shinto, Guru Granth Sahib, Tao Te Ching, Ofudesaki, The Book of the Law, Book of Shadows, and the Avesta. (Lemme help you out, these are all religious texts from all over the world all over our histories time line as far back as 400CE and more) I doubt you've read even one of these books in its entirety, yet you claim to know its contents are not true! You do realize that that is closer to faith freak than someone who has read, prayed, asked questions, studied, gone to church, etc etc and decided their belief system based on the evidence they found themselves? Unlike you that just regurgitates verbal diarrhea as if it was an actual independent thought. Having never read about God, but claiming to know he doesn't exist, would be like not watching a movie, but saying it sucks and telling others even tho you don't know. If you read a critic trashing a movie you wanted to see, does that stop you from going to see it? I hope not but it sounds like thats just the person you are, you don't find out things for yourself, you let others decide how you feel, believe, think, and then you spew it on to others not even noticing you have become what you hate. A mindless, moronic drone, that has zero mental capacity rendering you apparently completely unable to formulate independent thoughts and feelings outside of someone else's. Completely unbacked and shallow comments and claims, blind faith... aka or in your words.. a faith freak. You believe what you believe far more blindly than the majority of those who are believers in God. We all have faith and belief in something, its where that faith and belief came from thats important.

      If God doesn't exist this next part should be a breeze for you.... When you're reading the Bible I challenge you to pray about what you're reading. Ask if God is real, ask your questions, speak your concerns, continue to read, everything and anything you want from the list above or whatever it is you read or watch that leads you to believe there is no God, and pray again.. Ask if what you're reading is true. See how you feel. But don't let someone else read and pray for you and then tell you what to believe about it, and don't take some scientists personal theory which is based on things im going to venture to guess you don't really even understand as truth, just as you wouldn't the critics theory on the movie. Why not go to the source of the debate... yourself and God. You wouldn't let someone tell you how to think or feel about your girlfriend would you? I hope not. I hope you feel how you feel about her based on your personal experience with her, why would someone else's opinion or thoughts matter right? Don't let a critic decide your beliefs and thoughts, read and self educate.

      You can have NO opinion of a book and its contents if you haven't even read it cover to cover. Its not popular, cool, or even easy, but you'll be able to at least back yourself up with some substance and not just a regurgitated one or two liner that calls names and concludes decisively something that you haven't even read about yourself. GOD. The level of intolerance, ignorance, and close minded fear that you harbor towards God and people of Faith is so misplaced its obvious you feel threatened. That makes perfect sense, you're so uneducated about it. Seemingly afraid to explore on your own and relying on others to think for you has resulted in your failed attempt to formulate a point, instead shining through your moronic 2 liner like a neon light is your intellect or lack thereof.

      I hope someday you aren't so afraid of what you claim doesn't even exist.

    4. You start with an argument from authority not a great start. You then move on to a statement from a man who could not convince a christian judge of his position. A trial that when ID had the opportunity to present its case if failed miserably and some of these "good Christians" were proven to be liars. You then state "science told you the world was flat" please point me to where science said that? Long before Columbus science proved that the earth was not flat. By the way when science corrects itself in light of new evidence that is a good thing. It is not science that holds on and never accepts new information. You then state "Science is NOT based on evidence in every case." please show me where this occurs? I have read the bible(s) multiple times both as a believer and an atheist. In closing if a god exists the onus is upon you to prove it. Anything else is preaching to the choir (aka waste of time). Even if you do prove gods existence it is still not science and he/she/it is supernatural and not part of science.

    5. Okay, I'll help educate you. Apparently you're unwilling to do it on your own.

      One of the best aspects of science has always been its readiness to admit when it got something wrong. Theories are constantly being re-figured, and new research frequently renders old ideas outdated or incomplete. And for you not to know that science has had theories with no tangible evidence to back them up tells me you like to argue, or really do just need to read. I'll make this quick as you have pointed out to me that this is really just lost on you and a waste of time, but you also asked so what the heck.

    6. thank you for directly answering none of my questions. i asked where ""science told you the world was flat" not a scientist but science. please show me the peer reviewed paper claiming that? i then asked you to back up ""Science is NOT based on evidence in every case.". You never answered that. what you did point out that sometimes the wrong conclusions are reached and as more evidence and understanding is obtained a theory can be modified or outright dismissed. Not that the original theory or hypothesis was based on no evidence. The one think you did get right is I assumed your position. So please enlighten me on your take on religion and god? finally insulting me does nothing for your argument.I personally did not call you any names and i would appreciate you return the courtesy. a productive debate is when both sides attack each others arguments not each other.

    7. "over the edge" is your profile name, you referred to yourself as "the choir" but to be fair I did assume your gender as male and added my personal assessment of emotion behind your message which to me seemed mildly disgruntled.

      As far as you feeling that I didn't properly, or adequately answer your question, or show you a scientific theory that existed without evidence honestly makes me think you didn't look up any of that list or even read my post in its entirety. Or our view points, ways of cognitive deduction, and how we process the same information differs so greatly that we can read the same thing but pull different information from it. That wouldn't be all that surprising or uncommon. Look at how "Radical" Muslims interpret the Koran vs how others do. Its a big, very violent difference. So i could reiterate or expand in further detail, but if we have fundamental thought process differences then like you said before, it would probably be wasted. Besides this information is accessible to anyone and doesn't have to be delivered by me and interpreted by me. Thats exactly what I was trying to get people on here to stop doing, besides, to self educate feels much less like an attack or argument. It is easier however for someone else to question and challenge your beliefs than it is to question and challenge your own. Thats difficult. I've been on both sides of this debate before, and argued to convince others of both sides to see how it fit for me... (any speech and debate?) but again, blind faith in science is no different than blind faith in God or Religions IMO.

    8. Holy tangents batman. For the last time. I never claimed that scientists and science were never wrong. In fact in my first response I stated that "science corrects itself in light of new evidence" . My argument is that those theories (even if later proven wrong) were based on the evidence they had at the time. As you claimed that "Science is NOT based on evidence in every case." you still have not backed up that claim (or any of your other claims).

    9. How have you not touched on any of my questions? I gave you several examples of theories I felt had no tangible and real evidence supporting them. And you have repeatedly ignored them. I asked you to tell me what tangible, real evidence did exist in those specific theories, again nothing from you except an attempt to misdirect. And I showed you where a scientist aka science, as he was acknowledge as an accomplished scientist that could speak on science's behalf and he falsified evidence.. to you that is evidence, to me it is not.. all you can say is the word evidence repeatedly to me, so much so I finally said your definition and what you feel is real and tangible evidence is not what I consider to be evidence. You accept any information no matter how abstract to be evidence simply because they say so and you can't argue because of lake of knowledge so as a result you accept it as truth. Show me where in those 8 to ten examples I gave to you.. show me what specifically is this evidence you claim they had at the time that was tangible and real, not just an hunch, or theory based on other facts, I did give you proof of several scientific theories with no tangible and real evidence and you have yet to even mention one of them specifically or even try to debunk my claim that they're void of evidence.. Define Tangible Scientific Evidence for me please.

    10. I dont see any evidence or examples of you pointing out theories that dont have evidence.

      What would be one of your BEST examples? and we can go from there.

    11. He is all yours Epic. I give up lol

    12. also, admin on this server has reprimanded me for copy and pasting information for you, so I'm sorry, now you HAVE to look it up for yourself, unless of course you're complacent in your current belief structure.

    13. How typical, most all religee's always resort to Ad Hominems when they feel that they are getting backed into a corner, again I say all your rantings are Gish Gallop, trying to overcome an argument by the sheer volume of verbiage.

    14. Is this how you view all educational opportunities? Or can those only come from certain sources? You're not an open minded person willing to listen to opposition are you? Why be Intimidated by, and attach inaccurate and unsupported motives behind someone simply for possesses and utilizes a better vocabulary than yours? Yes i'm educated, articulate and well spoken, but how in your thought process does that equal gish gallop? And backed into a corner on what front? What point? I stood my ground on very few issues at all actually, in fact, really just that people cant be trusted, therefor both science and religion is flawed, but clearly that was all too much for you to read, because instead you made a generalized statement with nothing supporting it at all!!! Now that is typical and true Gish Gallop! And you can be won over in an argument by a bombardment of unnecessary words? Or can anyone you know? Is that really a feeling or belief you have? Do you have insecurities in you're abilities to converse with another person articulately using words with more that three syllables, or is that an instant threat, do you feel it an insult to your intellect? Do you always think a person using such language must harbor malicious intent? Towards you personally or do they have this hidden verbiage agenda just for the general public as whole? Lol You sir are ridiculous.
      btw. you referred to me a a religee... Show me where from my posts you felt I was a religee... when I was talking about how terrible and corrupt church and religion has been for thousands of years.... oh wait.. that was too far into all those confusing words. you didn't get that far.. you just spoke first and assumed my view point off of the few lines you did read. You wear your insecurities on your sleeve, and you hold your lack of effort like a sign above your head that says.... darrrrrrrr

    15. You have alienated a number of people on this doc, me included, you are making TDF an unhappy place for others to converse, you already have 2 warnings from Vlatko and considering this latest post to me I am banning you from TDF, goodby!

    16. For christs sake! Gish Gallop!

  11. Can't get this one to work. Anyone else having problems?

  12. A technical discussion discussing new ideas related to this program can be found here: (PDF download).

  13. Vlatko is the MAN, never question his site or his moderation. Free information for all!

  14. @DonDon1,

    What is the matter with you? You're free to comment, and I didn't delete or moderate any of your comments. What are you talking about?

    You've made your case and a lot of people jumped onto you. What I should have done? Delete all their comments and ban anyone who is against your arguments. I don't think so.

  15. the world is all math....shite! why does the world have to be the most difficult language there is to learn! Wonder how many people speak fluent math.

    1. Well... my dad was one who could speak it pretty well; it was his business, in fact. And yet he couldn't speak the language of art and music at all... Generally, I guess it just depends on how your brain is wired up. Very few people seem to really excel at both kinds of thinking. What probably seems easy to you (art/photography) would've been pretty much impossible for him! Right-brain vs. left-brain, and all that...

    2. no one knows all of math today, there is simply too much to know. the last person to know all of math in existence was a man named Kurt Godel, who helped einstein with his theory of relativity. Einsteins knowledge of math was pathetic compared to Godel's.

    3. and has anybody really done anything new since the early 20th century? this generation is pittiful losers who eat at mcdonalds and dont invent anything new lately, just computer chips, but nothing new, just smaller and faster. information? huh. there is more in the books than they got typed into databases online. even my spell checker can't spell caucasian. that's rediculous. we are majority who could spell the first using English.

  16. @Athiest13

    My apologies for not responding sooner. I work a lot. It's often a day or more before i can read these.

    I haven't read any of the works you indicate. You seem to be well read in classical literature. I tip my hat to your research and quest for insight and knowledge.

    Having not read these. Given only what you have quoted I would lean toward modification to both Descartes and Kant because it seems neither philosophy is as clearly defined as it should be. (in my opinion)

    I would add to what you say Descartes says "start at the very beginning and doubt everything, and I mean everything, the whole world about you, even your own existence. This leads to a conclusion that can’t be doubted. You exist, you’re a thinking thing. You’ve demonstrated and proved it to yourself."
    I would add that some things can't be proven to exist or not, or to be true or not for various reason. Therefor, using pure logic, a possiblility exists either way.

    I'm not sure if this is a direct quote from Kant "He said man describes the world through a combination of all cognitive resources which includes sensory empirical data and rationality and crucially a priori knowledge."

    I However would include a caveat that a "priori knowledge" can only be known for sure with previous experience. Meaning we can't know anything for sure without previous related experience and tangible proof. I would even suggest that the term by definition is a contradiction.

    I'll be honest with you though. It really doesn't matter to me what anyone has written when it comes to the way i discern what's truth or proof in my life. I live my life based on my own perception, What I see, what I deduce to be true or proof. If someone presents a theory for us to scrutinize, I think logically we should use empirical data, rationality, experience( not priori knowledge) and observation to make our deductions. However, based on these things what one proves to be true to himself may differ from someone else. Why? Because these things will vary from one individual to the next. You may have different rational, experience, data, or have seen something others didn't. This is why science evolves.

    So I would say " Believe Only what you discern as true or proof or valid to yourself. Discern this from empirical data, rationality, experience and observation. Some things can't be proven to exist or not, or to be true or not for various reasons. Therefor, using pure logic, a possiblility exists either way. As new data, experience and observations are encountered new proof/truth may be discovered. Don't take anyone's word for anything unless all of what they say meets the criteria above."

    I trust this system. For me it keeps B.S. out and allows me to keep an open mind.

    So personally I would put a "1" in the DonDon1 column :)

    I appreciate that post though. Made me think.

    1. @DonDon1

      Thanks for your reply.

      "Having not read these. Given only what you have quoted I would lean toward modification to both Descartes and Kant because it seems neither philosophy is as clearly defined as it should be. (in my opinion)"

      You have a point, lol (Vlatko 1….DonDon1 One)

      "I'm not sure if this is a direct quote from Kant "He said man describes the world through a combination of all cognitive resources which includes sensory empirical data and rationality and crucially a priori knowledge."

      No it’s not a direct quote, Kant is famously long winded and oblique but I’m happy with my summation. Some bad news though, I’m going to have to take that point you won earlier away now. In my summary I used the word crucially in the most absolute sense possible. This is a bit tricky but stick with me. a+priori= one word. (a priori) Simple definition. Knowledge gained independent of experience.

      It’s a good job we know this because as Vlatko pointed out many times it’s been theoretical science that has been at the forefront of mankind’s advancement. Sadly religion holds it back. It seems you want to define your world entirely by (a posteriori ) (one word again) knowledge. Knowledge gained dependant on experience.
      These terms have been accepted by great minds for over 200 years. Are you really going to say you know better?

      (Vlatko 1… DonDon1 Nil)

      "I'll be honest with you though. It really doesn't matter to me what anyone has written when it comes to the way i discern what's truth or proof in my life"

      I’m going to have to award a penalty against you here for blatant ignorance and stubbornness.

      (Vlatko 2 DonDon1 Nil)

      Can you see how you’re beginning to sound like Plato, “I am the truth”. Which is a bit like saying I am a God.
      Maybe you are but you’ll need a miracle to win this one.:)

      Unkeep the faith

    2. @ athiest13

      interpret as you wish.
      I don't think I'm anyone special. I just trust myself more than a stranger. Certainly more than people who are prejudice and intolerant. I've seen enough people get hurt from taking other people's words as truth. Whether it be religion, politics, business, science whatever. I know we are all human. I know we all have our own little patronage groups and prejudices.

      I've seen many people who happily believe in God come on the site and just want to share that with others get ambushed by intolerance. And by the same token others who disagree with some things proposed in theoretical maths and physics ridiculed for disagreeing with "the most brilliant minds on the planet".

      Makes me laugh, and cry. Seems to me this is a website with religious and science documentaries with references to both in some of these. Seems obvious that with an open forum people will want to say there likes and dislikes about the content. To allow a specific group to run roughshod ambushing well meaning nice people tells me its more like a talk show where the host allows all the callers who agree with his opinion to talk and promote his position. And all the others he then ridicules, insults, disrespects, twists their words and then hangs up on before they can make an argument.
      Or maybe this is a website with an agenda of promoting strict atheism and science. Like a new radical cult. If you disagree with anything stated by the leaders you will be attacked by the pitbulls running loose?

      Clearly you have crossed the line with your comments into disrespect. That to me indicates that you aren't as enlightened as you think.

    3. @DonDon1

      You talk of being ambushed? You have to put your views “out there” first before they’re disagreed with. You talk of being ridiculed, then don’t have ridiculous views. To say the site has an agenda for strict Atheism and Science is just non sense. It’s plain for everyone to see that Vlatko gives much latitude to all, even you. Many of your earlier posts contained some very provocative language and inaccuracies, so what do you think is going to happen? Vlatko aired his views (he’s allowed to have them just like the rest of us) and disagreed with you.

      For being such whiner. (Vlatko 3…DonDon1 Nil)

      And this!

      "If you disagree with anything stated by the leaders you will be attacked by the pitbulls running loose?"

      Don’t make me laugh, lol, bunch of pussy cats round here! They let a preacher walk into science program, take a dump, and most looked away and said nothing.

      Have a chat with thunderf00t, he’s a pit bull.

      "Clearly you have crossed the line with your comments into disrespect."

      Having a gentle dig is hardly disrespect, especially when compared some of your own comments.

      And as for this,

      "That to me indicates that you aren't as enlightened as you think."

      I consider myself a dumb ass, (a tragic donkey) but at least I’m aware of it.

      Unkeep the faith

  17. @Pysmythe

    Unless you’re really into critical analysis of formal logic I wouldn’t worry, read a reiview. Hegel, so notoriously difficult that some of his stuff is ridiculed for its incomprehensibility. Forget him, but Arthur Schopenhauer, I’m sure you’ll like him. Start with “Studies in Pessimism” it’s only an essay but deals with much in German Idealism. Here’s a tip, listen to it free at libravox read by the AMAZING D.E.Wittkower.

    Have you read any Nietzsche? “Twilight of the Idols” is there, read by the same guy. Utterly brilliant.

    I’m glad you’re almost over your mid life crisis, I’ve been there, done that, and got the tee shirt. I was just going to offer a couple of reassuring words. DON’T PANIC! Lol.

    Once you pass fifty you get a licence for eccentricity. Enjoy.

    Unkeep the faith

    P.S. I've just noticed I'm now 14 lol. Whats going on?

    P.P.S. I've just remembered the original "Critque" wasn't aimed at the general public, it was written for academics.

  18. @Pysmythe

    Unless you’re really into critical analysis of formal logic I wouldn’t worry, read a reiview. Hegel, so notoriously difficult that some of his stuff is ridiculed for its incomprehensibility. Forget him, but Arthur Schopenhauer, I’m sure you’ll like him. Start with “Studies in Pessimism” it’s only an essay but deals with much in German Idealism. Here’s a tip, listen to it free at read by the AMAZING D.E.Wittkower.

    Have you read any Nietzsche? “Twilight of the Idols” is there, read by the same guy. Utterly brilliant.

    I’m glad you’re almost over your mid life crisis, I’ve been there, done that, and got the tee shirt. I was just going to offer a couple of reassuring words. DON’T PANIC! Lol.

    Once you pass fifty you get a licence for eccentricity. Enjoy.

    Unkeep the faith

    1. @ Atheist13

      Schopenhauer I only know anything of from very peripheral information, largely garnered from bios of Wagner... About how his ideas influenced Wagner's music. For Nietzsche, the same thing, in reverse: About how Wagner's music influenced his philosophy. I always rather got the impression from these that Schopenhauer's pessimism wouldn't sit too well with me, but I could be wrong; I'll have to check him out without any preconceptions, as much as possible. Poor Fred always scared me away just from the standpoint of being human, (lol): We all know the sad way his life ended, and that has kept me away a little bit, ridiculous though it might sound...I'm afraid I'm still like a child in some respects, reading too much of myself into what I read, and such comparisons can be pretty unsettling, especially if you're the anxious sort to begin with, as I certainly am. However, I did, years ago, read a fantastic little book, by Erich Heller, called 'The Disinherited Mind,' that touched on many of these subjects, especially Nietzsche and Goethe, the latter being another huge favorite of mine. I don't have this book in my library, and every time I remember that, it bothers me. The local-yokel library doesn't have a copy, either, so...I'm gonna have to hit Amazon as soon as I can spare the $30, lol. Did you ever read that one? It really is terrific, and not too hard to grasp.

      Here's a little story about really long-range planning in your reading materials: When I was maybe 22, I tried to read "Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship,' but just couldn't lock into it, no matter how I tried. Knowing something of the value of the book and its influence, I figured it had to be me. I'd also very much enjoyed 'Werther' and 'Elective Affinities,' so I knew it wasn't the writer, lol. So I told myself, "I'll come back to it when I'm fifty. I'll have enough in me by then to be able to appreciate it." I clearly remember that day, and putting the book aside with a huge sense of relief...Well, in four years I'm gonna jump back on it with a vengeance! In the same way, I need to view many of these seminal figures: It's finally time to really start rounding out what I do know, beyond the ability to give a winning question on Jeopardy, lol.

      Towards this end, I appreciate the link, and I'll certainly check it out, along with other sources. Hopefully, I've matured enough to be able to get a good grip on what they're getting at!

    2. @Pysmythe

      You raise some very interesting points and puns! Lol. I haven’t read 'The Disinherited Mind” but It’s now on my list (a very long list unfortunately) of things to read. As far as preconceptions of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche go, have no fear, I’m sure you’ll love them. You mention anxiety. (I’m concerned.) There is much in both their works that deal this human, all too human condition. (See I’m schoolboy just like you! Lol) However you should pay no attention to their views on Women. (Jaw dropingly shocking) They both had a terrible love life.

      Sartre in “Being and Nothingness” deals with it extensively and makes many interesting observations. (He had an excellent love life). I feel I understand you when you talk of reading seminal works. I too feel there are many I should have read by now. But we shouldn’t give ourselves a hard time about it, there is just toooo much, and the list gets bigger every year! Lol.

      Unkeep the faith

    3. @ Atheist13

      In that case, I think I may actually have to start with Sartre! Because if you really would know how deep the "schoolboy" runs in me, I would have to say that the Beauty and Mystery of Women would certainly have been at the very heart of any philosophy I might've contrived, lol. But it's more than just the obvious component, which is not even nearly the most important thing. Attempting to go into this any further might need to be prefaced by someone reading me my Miranda rights... So I think I'll just leave it (potentially) to good ol' cock-eyed Jean Paul to cover most of the bases for me, right? Probably a good idea...

      I did go through a spell in my teens of reading Camus and other existentialist works... Maybe mostly because I just liked saying the word "existentialist"... It's a pretty impressive one, isn't it? lol.

      (Obviously, I'm making light of these things, but, believe me, I do take them very seriously...)

    4. @Pysmythe

      You choose any path you like my very funny friend. I would just add that (imho) Schopenhauer and Nietzsche stand taller than Sartre in the pantheon of great philosophers.

    5. @ Atheist13

      Based on what I know, I'd certainly have to agree with that.

    6. @Pysmythe

      Just in case I accidently misled you. I meant Sartre writes about anxiety in “Being and Nothingness” not women.

    7. @ Atheist13


      Seriously, though, I'm going to check out some of the philosophy docs we've got here. I checked out a couple already a while back, and, as a matter of fact, though I'd forgotten it, I tried to watch the one about Nietzsche 2 or 3 months ago, but ran into the same problem I've always had with him: It just made me too anxious.

      I've really just got to confront this d^mn thing, haven't I? I'm gonna wait until my one cup of coffee wears off, and then take a 10mg Paxil and force myself to push through to the end of it...

      For real, I'm going to do it today, and I'll shoot you a line or two about it later on. ( If I don't make it back...It's been a lot of fun, man!.. lol.)

    8. @Pysymthe

      Did you think I meant women? Yes you do have to confront it. Facing up to any problem immediately reduces fear and puts you on the path to getting stuff fixed. Avoidance only makes things worse. I don’t know what Paxil is but I hope it works for you. Try this, “Amor Fati” and believe that you can overcome anything.

    9. @ Atheist13

      Paxil is an anti-depressant often used in the treatment of Panic-Disorder, something I inherited from my mother. 10mg of it is an extremely low dosage, really a child's dosage, but this -taken once a day- is working very well for me, so that I don't have to refer to stronger medications with much more potential for abuse and addiction... (I'm fine, really, and there's nothing to worry about; I know what this thing is, and, more importantly, what its limitations are, and that's more than half the battle. Long walks in the green woods, in the spring and summer sunlight, also help this out a great deal.)

      Yes, I did think you were talking about women! I thought that maybe in this book of Sartre's he deals with the subject a little bit, or that he may even have had something to say, if only indirectly, about the... dynamics?... of the long-term, rather strange affair he had with Simone de Beauvoir... Obviously, though, I guess that generally would be considered more suitable for a biography, and not a philosophical work...though I have to say, in my opinion, the role, or lack thereof, and view of, however juvenile (or worse) or mature, of women, is crucial to greater understanding of nearly every subject you can imagine, irrespective of sexual orientation, including any philosophy of existence whatsoever. What Sartre's views may be about this, I have no idea, at the moment.

      Amor fati?
      Beauty in all things, is what I would choose! lol.
      And this predisposition to gravitate towards that does help me overcome things, on darker days.

    10. @Pysmthe

      There’s a doc here called “A guide to Happiness” it deals with love and heartache. Well worth a watch or a gold clock even.

      "Amor Fati"....look it up, you'll enjoy it more.

    11. @ Atheist13

      I'll do it,'re giving me a lot of homework, man! lol.
      The "hooky gene" is gonna reactivate at some point, if I'm not careful.

      Read the Wikipedia on Amor Fati...I'm a little surprised I didn't remember this from Aurelius, since I've read the 'Meditations' twice. But it isn't called by that name there, as the article mentions. And I've got a "mind like a lumberyard: Thing wanted, always buried."

    12. @Pysmthe

      Homework lol, you really are a schoolboy! My "nooky gene" has activated so I'm off, catch you later.

    13. @ Atheist13

      Mine would have, too, but she's m... Well, never mind! lol.

    14. @Pysymthe

      The women thing is my fault. I reread my post and saw how easy it would be to get it the wrong way round. By way of apology I offer you this little summation of what Sartre said about anxiety. I hope it helps in your facing up to the problem. He said although fear and anxiety are similar and linked they are very different. You might pause here and think about how you personally would define the difference between fear and anxiety, especially when applied to your own experiences of both. Are there common factors, patterns, is there a goal being achieved?

      The crucial difference he states is fear is perfectly natural, it’s part of man’s defence mechanism that’s kept him alive all these years. Fear is about the world not you, fear is always other. Anxiety however is always self directed and performance related, it comes with the morality and ethics of others. (Not yours, though some are shared). I whole lot of “shoulds” and “oughts”.

      A little anxiety is not such a bad thing; it can help you empathise with others. It shows a sensitivity to the world around you, “being in the world” as he put it. Too much anxiety can lead to it becoming a “modus operandi” and is not healthy at all. Be happy in your own skin, fear not of the world and others. Be confident in the fact that you’re a good person by your own standards and I’m sure you’ll do well in the world. I hope this helps.

    15. @ Atheist 13

      A fresh perspective does help. Thanks! I'm aware, too, that I wouldn't be who I am without my anxiety, as annoying as living with it is sometimes... And the only really stress-free state is death, after all.

    16. I like this expression I heard once: Don't try to control other people until you are able to control your own self. Once you can control your own anxiety and not just subdue that, then you might attempt to become a leader or persuade others to do things organized fashion. Otherwise, this other funny expression applies to you: stress is caused by the desire to choke the living poop out of somebody who seriously needs it. Again, you want to control them. Don't you see? And, for what reason? You want efficiency of your own agenda. You think you know what's best for them. We get anxiety because we have selfish wants and needs not being met. If you live for another and not for yourself you either feel better or you get anxiety when the other persons needs are not being met. So you still have to learn to control yourself and focus on positive emotions. Really it's your own level of discipline on yourself. Even satan has more discipline than you do. He is patient when he does his own recruiting. And, he wishes you don't believe in him so he can trick you so much the better. It doesn't matter what you believe in god or no god. You are living in reality and you are a small pawn to be used. Who cares if you feel anxiety? Only you or somebody that loves you. How can somebody love you if there is no spirit to love?

    17. Death is not stress free. Some say that hell is worse than life here on earth. But fear of hell is not enough to save you. Caring about other people is the only true one motivation. If you only care about avoiding suffering for yourself, it won't save you from any peril in this life or after. You will take the risk. But some say and it is written by prophets in many books that we are still self-aware after our body dies. So nothing goes "all black" but instead our conscience floats around like a mist and sometimes hovers over living people until we find our destination. And, that life is much longer than the one here on earth thanks to diseases and old age. Men used to live 900 years or 600 years old and that is written down places also. Women lives shorter lives like 300 to 600 years due to child birth and other things. So because you have a conscience after death, you still have stress about what you are thinking about or watching or experiencing in that form of life. Can you deny that you have a cognitive self awareness now in your body right now? What makes you draw a conclusion that it stops when your heart stops? Is that based on some scientific theory or test? I might be wrong but I think some people experimented with near death or death and coming back to record what they saw and feel.

  19. @ Pysmythe
    Just to make sure you know who you're talking with : In my country, the people have pushed away religion decades ago. So there is no God debate here at all, or if there is, it's more about religious extremists, like islamists. We don't teach religion in school any more, or if we do, it's in a historical way.

    So it makes me laugh that you used these quotes at the end :

    "To the artist, the Book of Genesis is an account of six days in which God suggested some really good ideas. -Robert Brault

    Beware the man of a single book. -Bertrand Russell"

    Trinh Xuan Thuan, Henri Laborit, Ilya Prigogine, Albert Jacquard, Edgar Morin, Bruno Jarosson, Thomas Kunh... Those are my readings. And from each, there are several books.

    There is a huge world outside of the United States. :)

    1. @ fl260

      They weren't so much intended for you, personally, as they were for anyone who might need to make some use out of them!

      It might interest you to know, too, that from the age of 16 (I'm 46 now) my favorite writer has been Voltaire, far above any other. For many reasons, I consider him one of the genuinely greatest men who ever lived; not least of all because of the accessibility of his thinking to ordinary people. His early influence opened up a whole new way of looking at things for me, and helped pave the way to many other ideas and interests over the years that have only been to my benefit, saving me from the religious fundamentalism I had the bad luck to be born into. The 42 volumes of his collected works holds pride of place in my library.

      I have also done a lot of travelling in my time, both in this country and abroad, though I haven't seen France yet, as much as I'd like to.

      Finally, had I known you were from France (you are from there, right?), I probably would have made an effort to address you with a little more sophistication on this particular subject matter... Excuse me, if I offended you in any way!

    2. I didn't mean to be rude, and in fact I quoted you to vlatko with the mention "brilliant".

      I should definitely revisit Voltaire's work. Reading him early at school, with an immature brain, I can't say I was at my best to appreciate him.

      Personally, the way that interest me the most is epistemology, or philosophy of science, as you may know. And obviously with that comes history of science, which is the most interesting part. All this to say that I can easily relate to Kepler or Galileo, but I have a bad time with philosophers, although I read them and can appreciate them. But like Woody Allen says : " When a philosopher answer me, I don't understand my question any more... "

      Saying all this, I may also add that I'm only a graphist/3d modeler whose working hard to become a writer. And I haven't, like you, travelled very much; but I'm a weird one, and my first travel ever was the crossing of Canada by bicycle last summer.
      I work my best to understand myself; only then I can look at the world honestly.

      It sure is refreshing to see that I was wrong about you : I'm not better then anyone else, and I also have prejudices towards americans.

      In conclusion, I will correct you on the country : I'm from Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Montreal is really multicultural, and Quebec really different from the ROC (rest of Canada). I mention this because too much often we think as Quebec just as a continuation of Canada, but it's really not.

      But yes, we do study Voltaire here too. ;)

    3. @Pysmythe

      My God, Adams, Russell and now Voltaire!

      "The 42 volumes of his collected works holds pride of place in my library".

      I’m green with envy. Have you read it all? (no small task) Is that all of it? Lol

      Just a coincidence? I started reading a biography of Diderot today.

    4. @ fl260

      I was afraid I might have gotten the country wrong, lol.
      I'm also afraid I don't clearly understand some of the wording of your post, and hence what you must actually intend, either.

    5. @ Atheist13

      I tried to read the plays, but they're just too stilted and formal for me to stomach. Too classical and unadventurous... Boring, in a word, although it pains me to say it. I've read a few of the histories, but these are very much outdated, although they're packed with interesting anecdotes (some unreliable...) it's hard to find anywhere else. The poems are merely superb examples of craftsmanship, and pretty much leave you as cold as the plays. But the stories (Zadig, Candide, Micromegas, etc.), essays, and his letters, are where he really comes into his own, and those I've all read at least once, most more than that. Well, not all the letters, since the man wrote over 30,000, lol...

      Voltaire and Diderot used to fight on occasion! I wouldn't be surprised if there's something about that in your biography. You'll find this funny: Voltaire was a deist and Diderot an atheist, and it was a point of contention between them...

      Sound familiar?!

    6. @Pysmythe

      Sure does,

      Voltaire "If you wish to converse with me first define your terms".

      Diderot "Man shall not be free until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last Priest".

      Russell "Man cannot find happiness until he realizes the world is a horrible place."

      Sounds like a party!

    7. @ Atheist13

      Incidentally, Immanuel Kant?! You actually read him and understood him? Fighting to get my head around the 'Critique' is a battle I failed pretty miserably. In my defense, I guess I must have only been 19 or 20 when I attempted it, but, if memory serves, I don't think I'd fare much better now... That book sent me packing like a little puppy, tail between my legs. Great Big Deep German Philosophy, right?

      Maybe if I'd been a dolphin...

    8. @ Atheist14

      It just dawned on me:

      "The 42 volumes..."

      There's a happy little coincidence! (I love this sort of thing, lol.)

    9. @Pysmythe

      “Maybe if I'd been a dolphin…” or a soaring Golden Eagle….

      Kant? You kant dive straight into Kant. Lots of groundwork required, akin to learning a new language, and much of it is deadly dull. To fully understand it you have to read critiques of the “Critique”. Even duller. Have I put you off yet? Incidentally did I see elsewhere you had concerns about a mid life crisis?

    10. That explains it! I was familiar with very little of the terminology... and the style, at least in that translation, was pretty plodding, when maybe it didn't have to be, I'm not sure... I've got a volume of Hegel here, too, I picked up cheap on a whim: Same thing!

      Ugh! I'm too lazy to do any homework, so I guess I'm forever lost to German Philosophy, especially. If they could wedge a little levity in there somewhere, too, that would also help me, personally!

      (nice puns you've got there, lol.)
      [yeah, but it's almost over, thankfully. I'm looking forward with some trepidation to the days when I can look back on my mid-life crisis with fond nostalgia...]

    11. @ Pysmythe!

      You are two years ahead of me! I thought you were younger (that's probably because of your sparky spirit :))! Aaaaah, were we both not married, I'd ask for your e-mail address :)!

      P.S. I know this is far off topic, but.... :), & I hope you don't feel offended, I just had to say it!

    12. @ WTC7
      I'm not offended at all! In fact, I'm hugely flattered, and a little stumped for words right now... :)
      [feeling's mutual, by the way... though I wasn't going to dare say it!]

    13. That's ok, leave the talking to women :), as long as it's mutual, no more words are needed :)!

  20. @Vlatko

    I’d like to thank both of you for your recent debate. It’s been passionate, it’s been reasoned, it’s been downright interesting. Having read all of both your posts on this thread I would just like to add an observation and perhaps a different slant on things for you both to consider. Some food for thought, take it as you will, I hope it doesn’t give you indigestion.

    Your debate seems to have two themes. (1) How do we know the truth in this world about us? (2) How do we prove these truths (they have to stand the test of time after all) and just as importantly, who do we prove them to?

    Plato (Christianity nicked, borrowed and corrupted much from him) demonstrated in the “Allegory of the Cave” that given the right environment people can come with up ludicrous notions and believe it to be a rational truth even when “the truth” is right before their eyes. He later went on to say “I Plato am the truth” (sound familiar?)

    Descartes said start at the very beginning and doubt everything, and I mean everything, the whole world about you, even your own existence. This leads to a conclusion that can’t be doubted. You exist, you’re a thinking thing. You’ve demonstrated and proved it to yourself. “Cogito Ergo shuvitup your bummo”

    So we how do we prove what’s in the world around us? Your debate was a bit like the empiricism versus rationalism arguments of amongst others Locke, Berkley and Hume. Immanuel Kant (a man who I admire greatly) (a Christian in disguise, as described by Nietzsche) locked himself away for ten years so he could concentrate on the problem of how do we know stuff in the world. His answer was his magnum opus “The Critique of Pure Reason”. It was a monumental piece of work. In it he built a vast structure of how man thinks which culminated in his “categorical imperative”. He said man describes the world through a combination of all cognitive resources which includes sensory empirical data and rationality and crucially a priori knowledge. Stuff we can know without experiencing it. (Vlatko 1... DonDon1 nil).

    200 years later he is still regarded as a Giant of the philosophical world. (Stood the test of time). My little slant on the argument is, having taken the positions you have; do you think you had any choice in what you believe?
    You might have noticed I made a slight alteration to Descartes’ original “Cogito Ergo Sum” quotation, this is because he failed to tell us what an “I” was.

    In closing, your debate was enjoyable, I don’t think it’s over yet, we may never be free of this mythos over logos type question.

    "Sapere Aude"

    Unkeep the faith

  21. Well, it's been awhile since I've been here, but I'm glad to see the site still up and running with some people who's views I enjoy reading. (Vlatko, Achem's Razor, Epicureus, Yvanna, & Hate_Machine to name a few.)

    As for the DISQUS, personally I think whatever makes it easier for Vlatko to run the site is fine. He's not charging us any money to be here, and I know from personal experience that running large a website like this is expensive, not to mention annoying from having to deal with modding posts and such. So thanks for that Vlatko. I'm sure it's a pain, but this place is great.

  22. What if the weirdness of quantum mechanics is weird because we can't see all of it. Is it possible that the weirdness is the shadow of other dimensions?

  23. At first, I was very skeptical about those Morgan Freeman series, but after watching several of them I kinda started to like them.
    Now I know we are living i a giant simulation. Moreover, I know from the computer games that every smart simulation programmer tries to save computing resources by not drawing graphics and run physics outside the camera view frustum :)))
    I must admit, this simulation we are living in has outstanding graphics, but the gameplay kinda sucks :)

  24. Physics....How do they work?

  25. Allan of course I do not believe in "god" the fact that we are here and not in hell burning or in heaven playing our trumpets is 100% proof there in not a "god" that the quran or bible push period. maybe god is the wrong word to describe what I am talking about. I am talking about some kind of cohesive unity like the philosophy of Buddhism. example you kill Joe and you feel complete empathy for his parents.

    1. It's all good John, you are entitled to believe what ever you want however you want as long as you don't harm or wish harm on anyone in the process.

      You can believe in something other than what the religions descibe, but when it comes to that type of belief I would suggest you keep it to yourself because if it's hard to articulate it will be hard to defend, and here, you WILL have to defend lol.

      P.S - I am Allan Young.

    2. God or not. Isn't the real beauty of the bible or any other religion is in some of the teachings. For example Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Isn't that a beautiful concept regardless of gods existence or not?

    3. @Steve

      Only if what you want is equal to what the other wants.

      Let's say for example I want to be treated like a sexual object by all hot women. Should I then treat all of them as such and nothing more?

      And plus, beautiful concept or not, you don't need to the bible to teach it, the bible didn't create that concept, it's authors were not original in any of their ideas. They were hijackers of the moral good and pushers of the immoral.

    4. I don't believe in God/Allah/Buddha/etc. That said, you should have some respect for people that do believe in them. Let others have beliefs without telling people their religion is "WRONG." Peace everyone.

    5. and that feeling of guilt for doing bad things you did, is what we call a conscience and it's written on the heart of all mankind. having a theory of 1 god in the universe, who cares if that is budah, god, alah or whatever you call him. some people have no guilt to kill or hurt others and they enjoy it because their conscience has been seared like with a hot iron to make them hardened to feelings. they feel free to do those things harming other people when it was not justified in defense or any other reasonable need.

  26. I personally would like it if God existed, then we would know there is something more, then this existence of brutality and indifference we show to our neighbors. I personally do believe in "God" but not the type of God religion pushes on us. Something like a consciousness that we all share with the Universe. That sounds weird when written downlol. Anyway I was just going to say makes me laugh when someone says " Rebel Scientist" just never sounds right, like saying "blue cat" have a nice day

    1. I would like it if there was a God too. It would be great, I would be able to blame all my problems on him rather than taking responsibility for them and responsibilty for my own actions.

      Or wait, isn't it that you should thank god for all your fortune and yourself for all your misfortune?

      Damn it's a lose/lose situation.

      BTW, Vlatko, this disqis crap is BS man.

    2. Why disqus is crap @Allan Young?

    3. because it requires you to sign in with facebook or google or other things which links them together giving out private information and keeps a record of everything you said for quick reference for anyone who may like to snoop.

    4. No you don't have to link your FB, Twitter, Google account, You can just make only a disqus account if you don't want to share anything. Having said that your account can be with a pseudonym then.

    5. I think we both know, as well as the makers of disqus, that people will sign in with something else because noone wants another thing which they have to remember the password for and another thing which is sending junk to their e-mails.

      I'm just saying, I preferred the way it was before. And studies have shown, by allowing people to make a comment or purchase without making an account, you get much more traffic.

    6. @avd420,

      We're getting off topic here, but you're right. There is more traffic when people are not required to sign up and there are much more comments too. However maintaining that kind of system is very difficult.

      Flaming, people commenting with two-three identities just to build up support to their argument, spam, etc. are very likely to skyrocket. Also that system will lack many features that we have now as edit, posting without page refresh, like, follow, sorting, etc.

      There are pros and cons on the both sides. For me as a webmaster if I switch to the old system I'll have to spend much more time moderating the comments per day... nothing more, but the visitors will lose the features.

      Who knows... maybe I should run a survey and see what others think?

    7. Well I'm in support of whatever is easier for you Vlatko, it must be tough running this site all by yourself and we all get to benefit from it, so thanks for doing that and thanks for taking the time to clarify.

      And I like the option to edit lol.

    8. @Vlatko:

      I've made my peace with disqus, and like the way the site is running now, I for one would like to stay with the current system.

    9. Here's how it works when you have problems. It's either your fault alone and the situation and you are not special. Or, there was divine intervention. Satan usually asks permission from God like in the book of Job to torture good people like you may have been before you got jaded. But now you are pushed farther from god or you can't handle the challenges. You caved in and you did not hang tough, did you? Hoo rah! And, now you want to blame god. He only gave permission to satan who wanted to test you. And, you think you are just some animal here going to hunt and eat and have sex with females? That's your own purpose on this earth? And, what about eternity after your body dies? What will you do all that time? Don't you want to qualify for your real bigger mission for a longer life after death? I'll bet we all have some role to fulfill in the future after we leave earth. But satan is trying to recruit you for his wasted death squad who is thrown out later like an old shoe. That's the wide road you pick if you don't believe. Why is it so hard to just believe and not carry anger around every day with you? It's really a win/win situation. You can't lose a darn thing by believing in god. You are still a man here. And, there might be a future then. This way, as atheist you just have about 70 years and then "lights out". But you will not really die. Then you will be amazed and shocked to see you are still conscience someplace. It's always going to be irritating for you then?

    10. Don't blame god for pushing religion. That's the fault of a greedy leader who wants to recruit members faster. God used parables and stories to interest people. If the did not respond he moved along smartly and dusted his feet to find somebody who was interested. Read it and weep. Men are the problem here and not gods example that irritates you. And, you can't blame god for anything except testing you. Blame your teacher in school for testing you also when it's your fault for not studying or being prepared for the test. Do you think this short 70 year life is the only purpose was for your pleasure and to make children and to eat and hunt and work? That's rediculous. There is some greater purpose otherwise why bother to give us a self awareness and a consciousness? Again my spell checker can't spell rediculous. So I guess that word doesn't exist anymore.

  27. @DonDon1,

    Yes that was my point and you've just confirmed it.

    ...I believe in the possibility that a God could exist. Why? Because a god hasn't been proven to exist or to not exist definitively to me personally.

    You just took arbitrary stance, nothing more. Neither parallel universe and string theory are definitively proven to exist or not to exist, but you trash them.

    I'm not an ID proponant nor do I belong to any religious group. But if I did that's my right.

    No one denied your right. As far as I'm concerned you may believe in anything you want.

    It was also Einstien's right. Who said "science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." and some other pretty significant other things about religion.

    HAHAHA... Again the famous Einstein misquotation. This out-of-context misquoting of Einstein appears nearly every time into a debate with creationist. Read the whole letter and then discuss. There you may find this quote too: "For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions." It doesn't matter either way, it's an Ad Hominem logical fallacy. Einstein could say that 2 + 2 = 5, but he'd still be wrong unless he had supporting evidence.

    Unless I see it proven definitively with my own eyes, I don't accept it as true.

    This line of yours contradicts with the 7 points I've mentioned to you earlier. And that's why I've mentioned them. Also @dave.eggermont might want to check his stance on what @DonDon1 means when he says the truth is only what you can prove to be true by observing it in nature..

    You also didn't answer one important question: What do you think about the Evolution and the Big Bang?

    So what's next? Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot argument.

    1. Nice, I feel like crying everytime a believer mentions Einstein in support of their point, they don't realize how mentioning that to someone who is educated on Einstien's stance just makes them look like uneducated fools.

      What I also find humours about that, is they hold Einstein in such high regards when they think he was a believer, but once they find out he wasn't he becomes just like the rest of us (athiests), in there eyes. Even those he's the exact same brilliant person he always was.

      And for the record, my reverance for Einstien wouldn't change if he was or wasn't a believer.

    2. Well put, the same goes for Newton.

    3. I may present arguments about something I see that has no observed evidence to support it but does have irrefutable evidence that condradicts it. I feel necessarily obliged to do this. I'll have to refrain from using the word "poppycock" anymore to describe these. Seems some are very sensitive to this term.

      But I don't really trash anything that's only unproven. I only state my concern when unproven is conveyed as fact. Whether it's specifics in theoretical math science or religion or baking cakes or whatever. As I said I'm an equal opportunist.

      This isn't an arbitrary stance. This is the way I live. It's how I learn. It's a defence mechanism to keep out B.S. in my life. It's also an honest answer. I could elaborate more on my beliefs but they are only beliefs. Is it my opinion you want?

      So as to your seven points. They have all been demonstrated with observable evidence in nature to a reasonable degree. At least to a reasonable degree to me and most of the people in the world. We don't know the exact nature of gravity but we can see and understand its effects. So with my own eyes I can see the effects. I know it exists. It's true. The same is true for the rest of the seven. These are demonstratably provable in nature.

      This isn't the same as saying Parallel universes exist or the big bang started from something the size of an electron or that if you travel far enough you find an exact copy of yourself. These things are unproven. With a growing number of arguments against them. Serious scientific arguments. With observations in nature that possibly contradict them. That doesn't necessarily make them incorrect. In all cases like this you need more proof. It's still cool to present them as possibilities. But to present them as fact? Hmm. The verdict isn't in yet. No matter how angry someone gets supporting it.

      I believe in evolution. Aspects of big bang theory I have issue with.

      Clearly this is an issue that seems to evoke strong emotional responses. I have no desire to exchange unpleasantries with any of you. But this is how I feel. Don't hate me for it.

    4. As you mentioned, I guess I was hoping he meant it the way I interpreted it. I stand corrected.

  28. @Psymythe

    “Stephen Hawking himself also used that exact phrase at the very end of 'A Brief History of Time,' and I'm pretty sure it was poetic in that case, as well. I believe that may even have been an intended allusion in Freeman's statement, knowing many of his audience would be familiar with this book”

    I agree entirely. His and Einstein’s innocent words were twisted by religees everywhere. That’s my point.

    The producers (MF is one) know this I’m sure and that makes it even worse. It’s supposed to be a science program.

    “A glimpse into the mind of god”

    It’s like manna from heaven for the religees if you’ll excuse the pun.

    I understand your and others arguments about poetic license but if that’s the case then it’s very bad poetry. Worse than Vogon.

    I think Hawking was a bit more ambitious than MF, he didn’t want a glimpse, he wanted to know the mind of god.

    Please don’t feed the religees

    Unkeep the faith

    P.S. Just caught your amended post below which I like very much.
    it's ok to be a lazy bast*rd when you know the secret of life, the universe and everything. Lol.

    1. ROTFLMFAO!!!

      Man really, Douglas would be proud of you.

      The tidbit thing, (ssshush) don't tell everyone!

      The question thing? I think we should ask Marvin?

      The farting thing, I wonder where he gets it from? Thrash him at Guitar Hero, that should cure it.

      The god ref thing.
      "If it hadn't been there, who would've ever noticed? " What a gem!

      Now then there is a restaurant I know I think you might like.....

    2. If the little bugger weren't so proficient on that 'Psychobilly Freakout' track, I believe I could take him down, man... But he's like a court stenographer on that friggin' thing (we use the reg controllers, not the guitars), lol.

      Suggesting Adams might've found me funny is extremely high praise, indeed... Please don't ever tell me that again, or I'm gonna die of shame!

    3. Lovely to hear of you spending quality time with your son, it reminds me of times I spent playing games with my boy (he's 25 now). We're still very close and talk of those days fondly. We play Wii golf now, we even have our own trophy, it's modestly called "The Champion of the Universe Cup". Not that we're competitive though, or take it toooo seriously. Lol.

      Chat with you soon my fellow hitchhiker.

  29. A glass of milk, my kid's leftover peanut butter sandwich (mutilated but not eaten), cornnuts, a monsoon downpour, house geckos, and a wormhole! It's how the universe works for me! Ya gotta love it.

    Thanks Vlatko!

    1. I gotta give you a like on that one! Thumbs up!

  30. @fl260,

    My point with the Cargo Cults was to illustrate the likelihood of birth of a religious belief system due to unexplainable event.

    True, 20,000 years ago there were no cargoes, but there where lightnings, thunders, tsunamis, solar eclipses, rain and many more "unexplainable" events.

    Having said that, coupled with the fear of death, it is very likely that religions sprung out of disability to explain the surrounding.

    Simple example: American Indians performed spiritual/religious ritual to provoke rainfall when needed.

    1. Vlatko: Another way to look at it, rather than mankind making "gods" and "religions" to explain the unexplainable, is to start with God (whom I believe came first), who made Himself known in limited degrees and ways step by step throughout history to various individuals and peoples.

      I get the feeing you think ALL religions were "created' equally superstitiously by cavemen. ;-)

    2. We are all still cavemen, instead of cave wall our walls are made of drywall and superstition still reigns enforce, look at all the religions, and religee's!

    3. @C_and_N

      Well, that would be a really creepy God then. He created everything at first, and latter on started to unleash all the diseases, natural disasters and whatnot towards his living creations. Finally he decided to make himself known to various individuals in a limited degree. That is quite strange if you ask me. Not just strange but horrific too. Ahhh I forgot: God works in mysterious ways.

      ALL religions were "created' equally superstitiously by cavemen.

      Yes I think that is very likely.

    4. Mr. Razor: Drywall? Wouldn't that be nice, but I really am sorta like a trogladite--you have to build everything out of concrete in tropical Asia or you will be molded and termited out of house and home! Glad I have at least a few windows!

      Vlatko: The only other option is no God at all (as so many here propose). For me that would be the ultimate in bleakness and dispair; not sure if I could find any reason to exist at all if such were the case.

    5. A bit late to reply, but I was out of town.
      I liked your comment also, and I didn't see it that way at first. In fact, the argument you invoked (thunder, storms, etc..) is mostly my argument too. (I have to admit that it's hard for me to debate in another language : I am so much more "consistent" when speaking french! but anyway...)

      Pysmythe replied me something very interesting.
      "Just a short observation: If it were possible to be human, but not know we were going to die someday, how much poorer we would have been in the creation of art, maybe, but how much richer and more humane in the treatment of our fellow man..."

      To be honest, I think it's a brilliant way to look at the problem. Just before, he was saying that death could have well been the "enabler" of religions.

      Again, to be honest, I have no real answer. I don't know if there is a GOD or not. All I know, is what makes sense to me. And I think it is honest to say that I can't go any further than that anyway.
      Of course, things make sense in a different way as I acquire knowledge and experience, but that's also part of the sense.

      I really do think that we, human beings, are ready for a fresh start with all of this. I mean the GOD debate and everything. For an example, personally, I naturally write god like this.

      So for a fresh start (we don't reinvent anything, we're just thinking things out), would you agree with this :

      -There are observations;
      -There are observers;
      -Observers make conclusions about their observations;
      -From there observations are redefined;
      -Observers make conclusions about their observations;
      -From there observations are redefined;

      By the way, awesome website, where the webmaster even debates with the visitors about it's content!

  31. @DonDon1,

    No I didn't miss your previous posts. I've read them all.

    I must say I'm beginning to question your honesty. I'm also getting an impression that you're an ID proponent.

    So let go through this again. You say: I believe there may be a god. I believe in science. The only truth i know is what I prove to be true myself.

    When you say you believe there may be God you really have to to define what is God to you, since the initial statement is vague. How do you portray your possible God: a person, intelligent force, energy, matter... If you believe in the possible existence of God (whatever that may be) you're inevitability implying that there is intelligent designer that created and is currently governing everything around us.

    So here comes the paradox. You're ready to believe the possibility of God, which can't be empirically proved nor mathematically theorized, nor has a clear definition on what actually is (since it's subjective entity) BUT at the same time you refuse to believe in parallel universes, quantum mechanics or string theory since they're only theories and those events can't be really observed or proved in nature. Neither your God nor the latest scientific theories can be observed in nature, but you choose God. Double standards or what?

    Having said that the inevitable conclusion is that you will rather believe in deity than to believe in the newest scientific theories being proposed in the last... let say 50-100 years. Everything that came out before is massively supported by mountains of evidence, so obviously you'd not argue that.

    As I've said many times, this pattern is really recognizable through out the human history. All theories that seemed to be crazy at their respective time-line of introduction, where strongly rejected. (mainly by the religious groups). Today is not the exception of that pattern.

    So... to clear this up I would ask you: What do you think about the Evolution and the Big Bang?

    1. HAHA. I'm not sure if you are trying to draw me into the debate or just hurt my feelings. But I'm not dishonest.

      What anyone chooses to believe is their right. I personally only said I believe in the possibility that a God could exist. Why? Because a god hasn't been proven to exist or to not exist definitively to me personally.

      I'm not an ID proponant nor do I belong to any religious group. But if I did that's my right.

      It was also Einstien's right. Who said "science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." and some other pretty significant other things about religion. He seemed to think that both were connected. You needed both to explain everything. That was his right. See "through the wormhole:season2 episode8 part4 in the first minute of the show for an einstien quotes.

      But since you asked :) ....I'm an equal opportunist. If someone tries to tell me a bunch of religious hooey as true saying "this is the way it is", I'd say oh yea? Prove it. Same goes for some unproven math science theories. It especially raises RED FLAGS for me when a person or group attempt to bully or intimidate me into agreeing with their position or try to discredit my position if i don't. This tells me their argument may not be as strong as they think it is. That they need to resort to these things to actually perpetuate their ideas.

      It's really just a belief system with a self diagnostic error check. Unless I see it proven definitively with my own eyes, I don't accept it as true. And furthermore if I see it as incorrect I have the stones to say "hey I don't accept that. And here's why"

      That doesn't mean I don't still believe things are possible and postulate how things might actually be. These are beliefs. My beliefs. My right. But that's all they are untill they are proven true or false. And I never let any belief trump whats been actually proven to be true in nature.

      There you have it. If you want to know how I perceive God, Science and nature.... I'll let you know when the book is out and send you a complimentary copy. How's that :)

  32. It amazes me, how many times "truth" has been proven to be wrong. I've followed both sides of the creation/evolution debate with great interest, over the past several years, and in my humble opinion, both sides require a huge leap of faith, which the Bible says, in Hebrews 11:1, is "the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen". And since there are no witnesses to creation, or the BIG BANG theory, I have chosen to believe in an intelligent designer, rather then evolution, because I feel that for me to believe that everything came from nothing, requires a lot more faith then I now possess. Perhaps that will change with time, but I doubt it. With each new revelation or discovery from the scientific community, my faith in GOD increases.

    This documentary, and many more like it, has increased my faith in a divine Creator, whom I believe, has quite a sense of humor. I chuckle every time I hear Richard Dawkins pronounce "evol-ution" as "evil -ution", and I often wonder if there is more truth to his pronunciation, then he is willing to admit.

    With each new discovery of "erroneous truth", I am drawn back to the Bible time and time again. These verses seem to take on more credibility every day, as the debates continue.

    1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
    1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
    1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

    P.S. I forgive you in advance for the ridicule that I know that this posting will generate. Have a nice day! :)

    1. @netzer,

      Why would you return to the Bible. Why not to Koran, or some Buddhist scriptures, Vedas... or let say Scientology... or some New Age Guru. They all have suitable answers for your quest for truth. You can also quote them you know. Don't tell me they're BS too.

    2. Hi Vlatko

      The answer to your question is quite simple. I have never been one to do a book review on books I've never read. And for the record, the acronym BS is yours, not mine.

    3. Well read them @netzer. They're good. Don't set yourself boundaries around one book. Read more. Maybe they'll increase your faith as this documentary did.

    4. I would never ridicule you for your beliefs but I still think you're wrong. Science is fluid. It is always under scrutiny. As we study, we learn more. As we learn more, we realize that sometimes what we thought was truth, is in actuality, misinterpreted facts. Anyone who studies science knows this and if he doesn't then he doesn't really understand the principles of scientific investigation. The models of evolution or the big bang are held to be true because all observations have, so far, seemed to bear them out. If observations, in the future, prove it wrong then the models will be revised. This is objective truth.

      The belief in a Biblical God is an article of faith. Faith does not require proof. To a spiritual person, proof would be nice but unnecessary, since they have already recognized "truth" without having any evidence for their belief. In other words, you believe something to be true because you believe it to be true. This is subjective truth.

    5. Hi Jack

      I appreciate your reply, and we can agree to disagree without being obnoxious or disagreeable. :) The fact that science treats "misinterpreted facts", or, as I would call them, theories, which my dictionary defines as "explanations based on thoughts or speculations" as empirical truth, and teaches them in most, if not all, our institutes of higher learning, while denying any discussions on the possibility of intelligent design, leaves this humble man with only a grade eleven education, baffled, to say the least.

      You're right, faith does not require proof, if it did, it would not be faith. It is totally subjective, and although faith does not require proof, there are times when proof is provided in any event. Case in point: a friend of mine was told his baby daughter was born with a rare form of cancer, and that there was nothing that medical science could do for her. Her prognosis was terminal. My friend had faith, that what man could not do, God could, and in faith, had others of faith, pray for his daughter. I would say, as he does say, that God answered his prayers, because his daughter is alive and well today with a family of her own.

      At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'll quote the Biblical definition of faith as found in Hebrews 11:1 again, "faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen."

      It is beyond me to try and explain the supernatural through natural means, but I've seen evidence that it works.

      Praise God! :) Have a nice day! :)

    6. Vlatko (and Netzer): Why not something other than the Bible for "truth" and "answers"? Well, I had a friend that worked in a bank. She had to count money all day when first trained--old money; new money; dirty money; torn money; washed in the laundry money, etc. Never was she shown fake money. Why? Because they wanted her to "know" what real money feels like inside and out under any circumstance, so when a "fake" comes along (of which there could be thousands), she would say, "Hey! This doesn't feel right." She taught me at least 5 ways to tell "real" money. Wow!

      To me, I try to know Christianity inside and out because all else seems like the fraud it is (at least to me) right away. There has to be a "real" in order for there to be counterfeits. When you find "truth" why walk away from it?

    7. @C_and_N:

      Charles.."Truth" and "answers" are only real in the eyes of the beholders, other different religions to people could be as truthful to them as yours seem to be to you. The bank money analogy has nothing to do with religion, the money was real, the religion is not, only beliefs...

      Imagine, all the different gods competing, over 28,000 today, 28,000,000 gods in recorded history. So then will there be a war of the gods themselves? And where will they fight these wars? But wait! I forgot, all the gods are invisible!

      Somehow the whole scenario just does not compute. Seems to be a comedy of errors.

    8. Docs like this increase my faith too. They know "dark matter" exists even though it cannot be perceived in any possible way known to man "just because" it must exist to make things work. Hum. Sounds like "faith in the unseen" to me! As for the Big Bang, I believe it was a real event, but the sigularity and all that followed was the work of God who was/is timelessly eternal. Evolution--I highly doubt macro evolution is even possible let alone probable. When my time comes to meet God face to Face, I'll ask him about that one! ;-)

    9. They do perceive dark matter by the effect it has on known matter. They know little or nothing else about it but they do know something is there that effects gravity.

      Think of it as the end of a rope laying on the floor. You see that the rope goes out the door but you can't see the other end because it is dark out there. You pick up the end of the rope and start to pull it in but it resists and then starts to pull you towards the door. You can't see what it is that is pulling you but you know something has to be out there because it is pulling you. This helps me to understand the idea of dark matter. Something (dark matter) is using the rope (gravity) to pull me (known matter) out the door

      As for evolution...if you don't understand it now, I can't see how you ever will. do understand it and have chosen to ignore the evidence because you are afraid that it conflicts with your religious beliefs. Either way, your mind is made up.

    10. "I have chosen to believe in an intelligent designer, rather then evolution"
      dosn"t require the word rather.
      the fact man thinks he can declare truths with the knowledge less than that of knats is the laughable part ,short sighted, blind and mindless a creation of our own ignorance incapable of viewing any thing out side our own environment, minds filled with the teaching of fools who have come before us claiming knowledge of truth sitting in a black room with the lights out discussing the colour of the walls .
      all our beliefs are based on others ignorance purely by default :) egos choice on belief isn't individuality , out side of that i totally agree :D

    11. You have chosen to believe in an intelligent designer. In science one does not make choices in what to believe. You examine all data and evidence and see where it leads you. The conclusion reached is not one that you chose. That conclusion came about because the evidence on hand says that it can be nothing else. If new evidence is discovered that conflicts with the conclusions you have previously made, you have no choice but to revise those conclusions. There is no choice in this matter. That is why theories change. The scientific method is a system that in the end, tells you what to believe. Darwin, even though he believed in God, had to believe what the evidence told him. He knew that he had no choice in this matter.

      As of yet, there is no evidence that so compelling, that one has no choice but to believe in God.

    12. Hi Jack (by the way, I would never say that to you on an airplane :)

      You said, and I quote: "As of yet, there is no evidence that is so compelling, that one has no choice but to believe in God."

      I see evidence everyday, that to me, is so compelling that I am in awe and rejoice at the beauty and systematic order of the universe. To me, all creation testifies to the glory of God. When I look up into the heavens and see the sun and moon and the myriad of stars and galaxies, and watch the northern lights dance and shimmer in the heavens, I am in awe.

      When I hear the beautiful melodies and harmonies of the many song birds that I wake up to every morning and see the incredible beauty in the many flowers and plants that grow abundantly in my area, I am in awe.

      When I hold a new born baby in my arms and witness the miracle of life, I am in awe.

      When I see the beauty in each passing season, spring, summer, winter & fall, I am in awe.

      When I am playing a wild Atlantic salmon on a beautiful river, and realize that that species of fish, after travelling thousands of mile to places as far away as Greenland, returns to the very place it was born, year after year, without the aid of any external navigation system, I am in awe!

      When I experience my inherent need to be loved, I blossom like a flower and flourish, and when denied, I wilt and dry up, I am in awe.

      When I hear a renown scientist, whose name escapes me now, but who was a leader in breaking and mapping our DNA code, say in an interview on our national radio station, CBC, that this discovery, is so amazing, "that it could not have happened by chance", and then tell the world that this has changed him from being an atheist to believing in intelligent design, I am in awe!

      When I read about polonium halos which are found in granite rocks, which according to the theory of evolution, should not be there, but yet are there, I am in awe! I can go on and on. The evidence for me is overwhelming, and increasing with each passing day.

      Whether our religion or belief system is evolution or creationism, may those who truly desire and thirst for truth have the integrity and honestly, to embrace it when found.

      Have a nice day my friend! :)

    13. Hi netzer (doesn't have the same pop as Hi Jack, does it?)

      I feel all the same wonders that you do and it is an amazing part of the human experience. I just don't feel that presence of God that you talk about and the existence of my perception of beauty does not compel me to believe in a higher power.

      Have a great day.

    14. Thank you Jack, I'm having a wonderful day! Shalom :)

  33. Do they ever have that wrong! Gravity exist on its own; call it the emptiness of space dimension. Not a product of mass.

  34. @ Vlatko.....

    On my Favorites Bar your site is the first listed. This is just to let you know how much I, and many others, if I may be so bold,appreciate the effort you put forth to maintain this website. I do have a couple of other sites for docs like Snag and Doc Heaven but yours is the one I seem to gravitate towards on a daily basis. Thank you again for all you do to keep us informed and questioning with your varied postings....Sometimes I find the comments to be just as entertaining as the Docs you post as on some I can actually see the venom fly when two or more with opposing viewpoints go after each other.
    I have 3 chairs in my house. One for solitude,Two for Friendship and Three for company. As he was dying his Aunt Louisa asked him "If he had made his peace with God". To which Henry replied " Why Auntie. I was never aware that we ever argued!". Henry David Thoreau

    The Truth IS what IS....Not what should be ...For what should be is a damned lie in the first place.. Lenny Bruce

  35. I've never been comfortable with the idea that the quantum world behaved differently than the world we are accustomed to. It may well be true, but it makes things so much harder to understand. I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer and would prefer a dummied down quantum world.

    1. I am of a different mindset than you, the quantum world makes things much more clearer to me regarding existence and much easier to understand the nature of reality and all that is. Devoid of all man made gods or otherwise. To me the quantum world shows that there is much more than just our 5 human senses.

    2. at a minimum..the quantum world is simply awe inspiring.

    3. Don't feel bad, Jack! Even Einstein preferred a simpler -or at least a different- explanation, and he was the sharpest knife in the drawer, lol.

    4. I feel a little better about being a dull knife.

      Thank you!

  36. How to put this into perspective?

    Humanity has made great strides... let alone made 'one small step'...
    ('We choose to go to the Moon...') in becoming aware that only six percent of the perceivable universe is actually made up of atoms!

    The other 94 percent... is made up of...

    ('Blimey..? God only knows?')

    .. by what Scientists refer to as... 'Dark' Energy and Matter.

    Yes... We may positively assert what we do know!

    Yet there's a lot that we do not know.

    1. Hi John, I believe you're right, we may and should positively assert what we do know, that the other 94 percent is made up of what only God knows! :) Shalom!

  37. I believe there may be a god. I believe in science. But I never allow belief to trump truth. The only truth i know is what I prove to be true myself. Not what others tell me is the truth. That goes for unproven theoretical science aswell as religion. And in many cases both try to do the same thing. Tell me something unproven is the way it is(when I can see in nature it isn't). I think we all know every human is proven to be wrong on a regular basis.

    The truth is only what you can prove to be true by observing it in nature. period. Everything else is speculation, opinion or straight up bull.

    Anyone who tries to tell you different, scares me and needs to have a muzzle put on them so they don't corrupt the weak of mind.

    Having said that, there isn't much if any of that in this episode. Morgan and the rest of the scientists are pretty good at indicating a lot of the stuff in here is unproven theory. That was refreshing

    1. Sounds good to me

    2. @DonDon1,

      The truth is only what you can prove to be true by observing it in nature. period. Everything else is speculation, opinion or straight up bull.

      Few things to ponder on:

      1. You can't observe the gravity, but it's there.
      2. You can't observe an electron, but it's there.
      2. You can't observe the "dark side of the moon", but it's there.
      3. You can't observe the full spectrum of the light, but it's there.
      4. You can't observe the week and the strong nuclear forces, but they are there.
      5. You can't observe the ones and zeros rushing through your computer at this very moment, but they are there.
      6. You can't observe a core of a giant dying star in phase 3, and see how Iron and Gold are produced, but that's what is actually happening moments before that stars dies.
      7. You couldn't possibly observe that 250 million years ago on Earth there was a super-continent (that we now call Pangaea), but it was there.

      There are so many other "things" we can't actually "observe" but that doesn't mean that they are/were not there.

      Further more you can't observe dark matter and energy but careful calculations tell us that there is not enough mass into the universe to hold it in this shape, thus there must be something else out there that we can't see.

      Also you can't observe a black hole but the effects of it and their behavior is demonstrated.

      Any theory starts with asking really crazy questions. When a bold scientist proposes crazy hypothesis for sure he'll be laughed at.

      Put it this way: String theory and parallel universes are the craziest ideas proposed but no one said they're definitive theories with strong evidence on their side. There are many scientists that oppose those theories and refuse to believe in them.

      Anyone who tries to tell you different, scares me and needs to have a muzzle put on them so they don't corrupt the weak of mind.

      And this sounds really fundamentalist.

    3. I understand what you are saying but the fact is that all of the 7 points can be proven one way or another. I think that's what DonDon1 meant with "observing it in nature".

      It's always nice to see people nuance statements though. :)

    4. Hmm actually all those points can and have been proven in nature Vlatko to a reasonable degree.

      It's the theories that can't be proven by evidence observed in nature or actually contradict what's observed. The ones that are completely mathematical constructs. And of those the ones that aren't qualified as unproven theory or that are actually conveyed as fact. I've seen several cases of this. And it was disturbing. I'm seeing less of it now which is good. I think enough of us raised the concern. Because it was getting out of hand.

      I think my other concern with this kind of thing was that many in the scientific community were portraying their particular theoretical science as the only viable alternative in order to get the lions share of funding. And A lot of good science didn't get what it deserved as a result. A lot of scientists will tell you the same thing. Kind of like influencing the market with rumors.

      I think theoretical science is very important. It's produced many provable results and increased our understanding vastly. I have no issue with any of it unless it's conveyed as fact before it's proven in nature. Not sure if that clarifies what I was trying to say, but I think I've been clear about this before.

      If you talk about something without indicating its just theory or speculation, inevitably some will assume it as fact. Especially considering who they hear it from. I've said this clearly before. You must have missed those posts.

      So no. I'm not a fundamentalist. Just a guy that doesn't like B.S. deception. And I want to keep people aware.

      People like to play games though huh?

    5. I cant help but reply to some of your ad hominem attacks, namely, "Anyone who tries to tell you different, scares me and needs to have a muzzle put on them so they don't corrupt the weak of mind."

      Reminds me of the wonderful Inquisition, they had basically the same mindset, or the famous witch trials.

      So you figure you are going to control these posts now by putting muzzles on people are you?? Well not me buddy, unless you want to try and pull me out of the rabbit hole.

      You say, "The truth is only what you can prove to be true by observing it in nature. (SIC)period. Everything else is speculation, opinion or straight up bull."

      Says who?? If I recall they said the same to Einstein about his theories.

      I may be jumping the gun, but I believe that you are ID proponent trying to come through the back door, everything seems to point to that, don't forget we have a lot of religee busters here on TDF!

    6. Read my reply to Vladko,

      and please stop being presumptuous. And stop being so aggressive to people. Seems you are always looking for a fight.

    7. @DonDon 1:

      Brand of hate?? I do not have any hate to anyone, you are the one with ad hominem attacks, and as any one can plainly see, I was merely quoting you.

      You also are now resorting to threats on the internet, as in. "Ill advise you to use caution"..?? what do you mean by that?

    8. @DonDon:

      I see you have edited your threats to me. But they are still on my e-mail notifications, as probably on others also, and no doubt Vlatko has copies.

  38. We pretty muc unserstand how our universe works, but understanding how the place our universe came from may not so simple.
    BTW,there is a "god" for every person that has ever lived...each one distinct and seperate as we all are thanks to how amazingly inventive our brains work.

  39. @ Achems_Razor
    Funny how something can be jumping in the face in people, and yet they simply ignore it.

    You said it : there are 28 482 Gods on this planet!
    EVERY people that ever existed, even on a remote island of the pacific ocean, have developed a "saint story".

    A bit like maths.

    1. @fl260,

      There was a documentary at TDF called God is American (the link is dead, I can't find a new one) so I can't point you there. Instead could you please perform a quick Google search on "Cargo Cults".

      I believe that would be a satisfactory answer for your question: Why EVERY people that ever existed, even on a remote island of the pacific ocean, have developed a "saint story".

    2. (sorry in advance for the potential bad english..)
      I would more point out another documentary (seen here also, pretty sure) where a scientist do test where he stimulates the temporal lobe, and then the volunteers feel a "God presence"... Richard Dawkins also does the 'test' in the docu; he didn't feel God, but describes some sort of similar experience... anyway, all this to say that I really don't think that the example of the "Cargo Cult" is relevant when it comes to try to explain the "spirituality" or "religiosity" of human beings. Cargo Cult is simply an example that it Can happen this way, but as far as I know, there where no Cargo 20 000 years ago, or whenever it started.

    3. @ fl260

      That's the "God Helmet," that generates weakly fluctuating magnetic fields, that causes that effect in the experiment you mention. The doc about it is a particularly good one, and was on here and working at one time.

      As far as when the religious sense began in mankind, there may not have been cargo cults back then, but there certainly was the knowledge and fear of our own mortality, which I've always agreed with many must have been the most fundamental thing about its genesis, leaving aside such things as that it grew out of a need for explanations for natural phenomena, etc.

      Just a short observation: If it were possible to be human, but not know we were going to die someday, how much poorer we would have been in the creation of art, maybe, but how much richer and more humane in the treatment of our fellow man...

      To the artist, the Book of Genesis is an account of six days in which God suggested some really good ideas. -Robert Brault

      Beware the man of a single book. -Bertrand Russell

  40. I think the description of possibilities in the quantum realm as "a capricious, volatile, artistic woman who is everywhere at once" is far and away the best analogy about it I've ever heard. Whoever came up with that one should get an immediate paid vacation. They did, however, leave out that old saw about "a woman's prerogative," which seems to fit equally well, even if it isn't as pretty.

  41. Always good stuff! In answer to @Ian Halpin: the universe was a random event, and according to strict scientific laws as to why it came into existence from absolutely nothing, according to Stephen Hawking.

    And as to why we are here and can survive is because the human race has adapted to the universe and especially the Earth as it is through Evolution. Not the other way around.

    I have no hate to any of the 28,000,000 gods in recorded history, because none of them are real!

    1. The problem might be the personification of the "Deity"?, how many or who would not make a difference in that case. This does in no way eradicate the "Deity" or proves the "Deity" doesn't exist; just the personification of the "Deity" doesn't exist. Cognition does not manifest form, love does not manifest form in and of it's self; though form might be the result/offspring.

      If i am in your presence and we are embracing. then in the next moment I am on the ground "dead", is not my form the same dead or alive, at this moment in time? If this is so then the only reality is the Life Force; for the form is the same in any case at this moment in time, dead or alive. Can the dead form embrace? can the dead form feel love, NO, only the life force can do this utilizing form; AS A FORM OF EXPRESSION!

      Life never dies it manifest! love never dies it manifest!, if it dies it wasn't love but dependency and the absence of the deity/the life force! If this isn't God then what the fu#k is it?

    2. you missed my point completely. i am not arguing for or against a "god" i am saying you dont know... neither do i neither does anyone. you cant say the universe was anything cause it is all theory not fact that can be proven.

      Thank you.

    3. Right, I for one will always stick to science even though a lot of theories abound, that means science is constantly working to find solutions about the universe that of course will be proven, only a matter of time. Science is not stagnant like the fairy tale religions. Science does not really care about proving or disproving any gods.

      Your welcome.

    4. Some of us understand physics more naturally such as a lever is obvious to me and a sling shot would be an easy invention to me and I can just imagine it myself. Also some of us can feel our own conscience and we are aware of right and wrong written in our heart. So the answer is that yes I do know and yes I am sure 100%

  42. WTF!

    What is Morgan Freeman up to making that god comment at the end? I'm stunned and very disappointed. It has spoilt an otherwise good documentary and devalued the whole series. MF stands for something else in my mind now.

    Unkeep the faith

    1. Your hate towards a "god" is doing you no favors. instead shake your head at the idiocy of religious people and their whacky traditions. It is entirely possible (and most physicists believe this) that some kind of conscious being created all that we see, because the fact that their are any rules at all is the most amazing thing. I am agnostic which is in a short term a smart atheist. Meaning i dont know, neither do you neither does anyone. Being completely adamant that there is no creator is silly... as is being adamant that there is one. religious people believe some stupid things and i feel sorry for them as im sure you do that they cant think for themselves and will never understand the true beauty of what we see around us, nevertheless i think their idea of thinking is dangerous for our advancement. I have no tolerance for them either but Morgan Freeman was merely saying that because these rules are so precise and amazing that perhaps it is a glimpse into the mind of the being that created them. I find it hard to believe that this universe with its precise laws and incredibly complex structure could have been a random event. Open your mind a little bit.

    2. Thank you for saying exactly what I had in mind.

    3. OK, I see this over and over and hopefully I won't have to repeat myself again and again. It is NOT random. On an infinite time line the Universe will come into existence as it is right now EVERYTIME.

      Imagine existence as a roulette table, and for the Universe to become how it is today it has to hit the number 3. Now the odds are against it hitting 3. But on an infinite number of tries, it will hit 3 an infinite amount of times.

      Get it now?

    4. it wont let me reply to avd420 but i hope he sees this. You talk like you know all about it. please tell me how you know this. exactly you dont its just a theory like everything else. stop talking like you know how the universe works... because news flash nobody does.

    5. @Ian

      I would have loved to explain to you how that works and showed you how I learned it, if, you didn't dismiss it before you even gave me a chance to by saying "it's just a theory like everything else" and "nobody knows how it works".

      You basically said you won't trust anything being said and arn't here to learn, rather just push your own version of bullshit which is easily defeated.

      You lost son. Go home.

    6. wrong, you claimed to have an answer as to how the universe was created which completely nullifies any point you have. you have no clue dont act like you do.

    7. Where did I claim that? Is your reading comprehension really that poor? The evidence says "Yes", not like that's good enough for you though.

    8. "It is entirely possible (and most physicists believe this) that some kind of conscious being created all that we see, because the fact that their are any rules " I think you are making that up... Please post your proof for that statement because it has been shown time and again that 99% of physicists and well over 90% of all serious scientists are atheists and do not believe what you claim.

    9. furthermore morgan freeman has told cnn and other networks that he is not a "man of god" so dont take things so literally and learn to look at things in more than just one close minded way.

    10. Ian, thanks for your comments. How you can make so many so many assumptions from so few lines of text and still miss the point is really quite amazing.

      First, I don’t hate god, there is no god to hate. But I do hate that monster that is religion, that monster that kills and maims people all over the world on a daily basis, that monster that MF just gave sanction to. And by your reply so have you.

      Second, it is that really stupid turtles all the way down kind of answer. This I thought was a science program.
      Third, who are these most physicists you speak of?

      Fourth "(and most physicists believe this) that some kind of conscious being created all that we see, because the fact that their are any rules at all is the most amazing thing".
      What are you talking about?
      You’re amazed that there are rules? Well whoopee doo I’m very pleased for you!

      Fifth, you say you’re a smart atheist and can’t spell there.

      Sixth, what kind of smart person needs to say he’s smart? A vain and conceited one perhaps?

      Seventh, agnostic, ambiguous more like, I hesitate to call you an atheist at all.

      Eighth why is being adamant about my position silly when all the evidence supports it?

      Ninth, "I find it hard to believe that this universe with its precise laws and incredibly complex structure could have been a random event." There you go again, so smart you have to use other people’s quotes, not very honorable either.

      Tenth, you say I should open my mind; it’s completely open, if any proof of god’s existence were provided I might change it.

      Eleventh, free one.

      Twelfth, just a suggestion, try taking a position once in awhile, be definitive, don't be a scaredy cat hiding behind other peoples words, be original.

      Thirteenth, have a nice day.

      Unkeep the faith

    11. 84% of the people on this planet belong to a religious organization. Of the remaining 16%, half claim to be theist but do not belong to any formal religion. That is a lot of people that are disappointing you. At least I'm not one of them.

      I never took Freeman's statement as a commentary on his personal belief system. It seemed to me that he was using a literary expression and was meant in a poetic sense rather than one of scientific fact. The arts tend to use metaphors and abstract ideas to convey their message. It may not be wise to conclude what MF stands for by the use of one sentence. To much trouble has started in the world because of hastily drawn conclusions.

    12. Hi Jack, (sorry I couldn't resist it, I'm still a schoolboy at heart!)

      Please don't misunderstand me I didn’t take his statement to be his personal belief either. It wouldn’t matter what it was anyway. It was just plain wrong for him to say what he did.
      Please see my reply to The Buachaill above for my reasons

      Bye Jack

    13. This is probably only a problem for people who do not believe in religious teachings about God, and yet have the same primitive childish conception of God as "a being"; along the same lines as a lot of religious believers. So anytime you hear someone personifying the concept of the unknowable, or the concept of a prime mover, such as 'The mind of God', you immediately jump to your own concept of God (e.g. the supernatural entity in the sky...looks a bit like one of the BeeGees).

      The term God can mean a lot of different things to different people, and doesn't at all need to be in conflict with the realm of science.

      There are lots of personal ideas and questions that seem to me to be intrinsic to all of us and inherent in consciousness, such as pondering the meaning of my life, trying to comprehend your own non-existence, where does everything ultimately come from, and why, etc. I believe these are unknowable questions that are not within the realm of Science, but they still arise naturally in all our minds. This for me is part of the essence of spirituality, and it does not need to encroach on the realm of Science, and vice versa. Having said that, Science is fantastic at pealing away the misconceptions and ignorance around spirituality, effectively pushing spirituality back into it's legitimate confines.

      Understanding more about the laws of the universe gives us a glimpse into the "Mind of God', is a poetic way of suggesting that the more we know about way things work can help to focus our spiritual conceptions of why things are they way they are.

    14. Thanks for your comment

      "The term God can mean a lot of different things to different people, and doesn't at all need to be in conflict with the realm of science."

      For me the term god has no place in science at all.

      “Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”
      Douglas Adams

      Even if only used as a metaphor, it’s an extremely poor one, it belittles science. I wonder how many people would have been comfortable if he had said “a glimpse into the mind of Jehovah or Allah” Einstein and Hawking caused controversy through their use of the term god, MF and the program makers I’m sure are aware of this and did it anyway.

      The statement perpetuates, promotes even, a circular argument going nowhere.

      The thing that upsets me most is that it is food and drink for all the crazies.

      This from a popular science program with massive influence is just not acceptable to me.

      Unkeep the faith

    15. Stephen Hawking himself also used that exact phrase at the very end of 'A Brief History of Time,' and I'm pretty sure it was poetic in that case, as well. I believe that may even have been an intended allusion in Freeman's statement, knowing many of his audience would be familiar with this book.

      Unkeeping the faith


      [ 10 mins later- @ Atheist13- Oops! I just read your full post instead of only scanning it, and I see you beat me to the punch, lol. Ah, well, they don't call me a lazy b^stard for nothin'... ]

    16. @Atheist13 - From your comment below you still continue to focus solely on your own conception of god, and your posts suggest you're unable to see past this narrow view.

      In particular this comment of yours: "Even if only used as a metaphor, it’s an extremely poor one, it belittles science", might be worth giving some thought to. It strikes me as the type of sentiment echoed by religious people who rally against Science as belittling their Religion, without any real insight into what they are talking about.

    17. @The Buachaill

      "In particular this comment of yours: "Even if only used as a metaphor, it’s an extremely poor one, it belittles science", might be worth giving some thought to. It strikes me as the type of sentiment echoed by religious people who rally against Science as belittling their Religion, without any real insight into what they are talking about.

      I've given it some thought, I stand by it.

      Religion is nonsense.

      Unkeep the faith

    18. My whole paragraph bashed religion yet you think i stand for it. All i said was that you dont know, neither do I. I have no idea what you are talking about me using others quotes because i wrote that off the top of my head. I dont need to argue with a narrow minded person like you who insults me by saying im stealing quotes, that is what i have observed having watched these shows and reading about these topics my entire life. entirely possible that i may have repeated some information i have obtained (thats how people learn you know) but you sir are a dick and you missed the point of what morgan freeman was saying. he is not a man of god all he said was that it is a glimpse into the mind of god, and you think hes preaching religion or something. its pretty obvious to me that you missed something. and yes most physicists are confronted with mind boggling things that make them question whether the universe was a random event or not, therefore many of them do believe in some kind of creator. the fact that you need to bash my opinions so thoroughly and also morgan freeman for saying one thing (which you misunderstood) proves how much of an over opinionated gung ho atheist you are. and honestly atheists like you are just as bad as religious people if you ask me, i used to be like you but then i wised up and realized that atheists dont know if there isnt a god just like the pope doesnt know if there is a god. Both ends of your spectrum believe things too strongly and it causes problems. if the rest of the world was agnostic (and yes i know what i am thank you very much) and it realized that NOBODY KNOWS, then you could all stop arguing about it and focus on important things. just based on the fact of how literally you take the word god proves how narrow minded you are. i dont like the term either but he doesnt mean a specific god.

    19. “My whole paragraph bashed religion yet you think i stand for it”

      I don’t think you stand for anything except fakery and fraud.

      You claim that you made this up off the top of your head

      "I find it hard to believe that this universe with its precise laws and incredibly complex structure could have been a random event”

      I claim I’ve seen or heard it before, verbatim, possibly on this site. The trouble is I read and watch so much I can’t remember where. It may have come from Hitchens or Dawkins but it didn’t come from you. Rest assured that when I do find it, I’ll post it for you. In the meantime you have a chance to come clean, do the honorable thing.

      I see you chose not to answer my question but respond with more gibberish.

      "and yes most physicists are confronted with mind boggling things that make them question whether the universe was a random event or not, therefore many of them do believe in some kind of creator."

      Please name just one respected scientist and one peer reviewed paper that supports that view.

      You keep saying I misunderstood MF, there’s nothing to misunderstand. He shouldn’t have said it! I have given numerous reasons why elsewhere on this on this page.

      Stop giving sanction to religious nonsense.

      Unkeep the faith

    20. First of all something in cells might appear random to us but in fact it might be a very complex and long math series or a math sequence, way over our human heads. I also agree I saw this theory before on some type of biology show where fancy designs were then printed on T shirts. But the fact that somebody used randomness as evidence against god shows me they know in their hearts that god is a god of order and orderly processes. I am not pushing religion or saying that I am the only one right about god. But i feel that god used his own physics and by learning things about the earth and science only shows again that we try to imitate god and we are in his image, a god of order and reasoning with super skills to create things, just like humans who create things... except our things are not always good for the environment, are they? And who will pay the price for it? Our children who we love must suffer because we were greedy? And who said to not be greedy? So was it all that bad to have some rules and beliefs? And, for what reason are you so against god even if he did or didn't exist? That's scary to be against this power in the universe. Personally if there is a god I want this powerful entity on my side much more than I think you might harm me. Who might be the much stronger ally? Him or You? See how atheists are so self centered and narrow minded? You better have faith in somebody.

    21. why dont you just copy and paste that into google then genius. those words are an ensemble of the knowledge i have collected over the years, its not my fault if it sounds close or EXACTLY like what dawkins or hitchens say. They are the people i have grown up listening to. Like i said thats how people learn, hearing facts and memorizing them. I did not take someones quote word for word and claim it as my own. I give no sanction to religion only the fact that things are too perfect and orderly with rules to be random. keep arguing semantics if you like but over opinionated people like you are just as bad as religious kooks.

    22. I wouldn't want to be you because you are so negative and alone. without any belief in your own self awareness, which is your soul. What makes you care about any other people then? Just because they have a different belief than you do, it makes them kooks? Definition of a kook is somebody who continues doing the same things which are not working for them. Is what you are doing working for you? Then your mood would be more joyful in this lifetime.

    23. @Ian Halpin

      This is not semantics.

      ”its not my fault if it sounds close or EXACTLY like what dawkins or hitchens say”

      Yes it is, it’s called plagiarism, you should reference the author.
      Even if you're paraphrasing.

      Unkeep the faith

    24. Even on line I get "hi Jacked". lol.

  43. One theory on why larger objects appear to not act according to the rules of quantum mechanics- because each particle is sharing information with other particles and forces at all times, i.e. always being measured. So in reality it is acting according to the laws of quantum mechanics. This also calls into question the role of consciousness though, if a particle can be measured by another inanimate particle and the same effect is achieved as if a person had of measured it, did consciousness have anything to do with it? In the last episode of through the worm hole the guy talked about having to isolate the silicon paddle he was using for his experiment, so it would not be measured by inanimate particles or forces. He said that if a particle was laying on a table, the table would be pushing against the particle and as a result measuring it, which would collapse the wave form and define the particle in our reality. So here the observer effect is attributed to a unconscious, inanimate, object- the table. This makes me wonder about the whole "human consciousness collapses the wave function and creates reality" theory.

    Maybe I am missing something though, I have yet to study quantum theory. Classical mechanics went quickly and easily, but relativity can be a real b*tch. I start quantum theory the quarter after next, I think. I am not sure what all the prerequisites will be. The only science class I have this quarter is human anatomy and physiology. Why would they make a physics major take that? I mean I am sure it will be interesting but I just don't see the need. I have been made to take all kinds of seemingly useless stuff, "knowledge is power" they tell me. No, lets be real, in this country money, good looks, leverage- that's power. I'll be lucky to get a job when I graduate with thousands of dollars of debt and a lion's share of this countries tax burden already hung securely around my neck. But, yeah we really value our mathematicians and scientists don't we?

    Who me?? No, I'm not jaded at all. (LOL)