Guest hhyapster@gmail.com Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Hi, Bill, I would alternatively ask: "who/what created cars, who/what invented electricity, who/what founded computer................on and on" Looking at this, we human can go back to look at the questions above as history, or interest.... but not something relevent to change our life or course...... no bearing whatsoever......or you need to re-invent the car.....? Likewise, how/what/who created human and all the living things in this world.... what bearing do you want for our future...........? If your god need pray, praise, or other beautiful words, then he is no god........ And looking at him creating all the poverty, inequality, fighting, war..etc, and you PRAISE him? S...somebody created a god in bible to con all you people and yet with modernity, you get conned..........wasting your parents' effort and money to raise you......pity...or without brain....or brain without cells.....or cells without neurons.....or the neurons are shot.... If you can question human and human effort, why can't you question your god........like, how dare you created all the wars......how dare our fellow Africans are without food.....how dare... on and on for a billion questions........at the end of it, your sensibility will tell you that there is no such thing as god......... Suppose there is a god.... what do you want from him.....sit beside him all day in the cloud, flap your wings, eat nothing, drink nothing? Or given a choice, do what you want to do here on the earth................eat/drink/dancing/working/parenting/care for your children.....? Pls, do not say god behave in a mysterious way........what mysterious can there be..... if he had created us not to understand him, then for what purpose? Like you can't understand your teacher.....what for.........? We as human need physical things, even our love is more or less physical.......... Yap Bill M wrote: > "duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message > news:i2prn2h2n8d8rik4q54upsooscpj5vc9hm@4ax.com... > > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" > > <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > >>I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he > >>could exist, and that was the universe. > > > > Then what created the universe? > > > > Just maybe it always was and always will be! Quote
Guest tereshka@gmail.com Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Chris kirjoitti: > Neil Kelsey wrote: > > Chris wrote: > > > Bill M wrote: > > > > Your uneducated logic is appalling. Science, whether String or Quantum > > > > Physics is of the opinion that the Universe expanded from a very tight > > > > compact ball of energy into the Universe. There is NO data that supports the > > > > creation by your god. > > > > > > > > > 5) The fact is, the universe did not exist. Then it did. > > > > > You think a valid premise is that it created itself, > > > > > no matter how much you try to deny that. And > > > > > frankly son, the fact that you're trying to deny that > > > > > it created itself, shows that you know what an asinine > > > > > idea it is! And why would anyone deny that it created > > > > > itself, while trying to deny that God created it? > > > > You insist that the Universe had to have a creator, your god. Why does your > > > > god not need a creator? Oh! He always was and always will be. > > > > Well so could the Universe! > > > > > > > > > > I just answered this question in another thread, but for the sake or > > > argument, since he repeated his answer, I'll repeat mine. > > > > > > You contend that everything follows certains laws of physics and can be > > > observed, documented, and learned from these laws to determine truths > > > that explain your existence. These laws of physics only go so far in > > > their explanation. You still have to explain where everything came > > > from... Your laws of physics don't work! > > > > My guess is you don't understand physics. > > > > > They can't explain where > > > everything came from! You've come up with a bag of axioms that don't > > > solve the most important equations of all -- where did we come from and > > > why are we here? Don't give me google this or that, can you explain a > > > theory here (don't give me a link) that doesn't take someone through a > > > labyrinth of theories and require a reasonable person to jump through > > > hoops to believe? I've yet to see one. > > > > What preceded the known universe? A vacuum sounds reasonable. A vacuum > > is an absence of matter. > > I assume by a vacuum you mean nothing? Or is a vacuum a special kind > of nothing? By vacuum we mean spacetime in the absence of so-called real matter particles. As a consequence of the uncertaintly principle, the energy of spacetime cannot be exactly zero. (If it's zero, then it's not very uncertain, is it?) Spacetime is not nothing, but is implied at least to me in Neil's post. > > However, there are particles that are called > > virtual particles, and these particles are found in vacuums. > > So there is something inside of nothing? If you want to get picky, something comes out of an uncertainty in energy for a really short while. Yeah, it's counter-intuitive and it's not like anything we see in everyday life. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen that way. To really debate this point, you need to do it within the scientific discourse. You won't be able to make it look suspect by trying to construct a seeming contradiction between nothing and something, this is pretty standard modern physics college fare. If they didn't make you prove the uncertainty principle and talk about its consequences, you should ask for your tuition back. > > They don't have quite enough energy to spring into existence. > > But they don't exist... yet... > > Hmm, that doesn't look ilke you are jumping through hoops, very > plausible... > [smile] The virtual particles are so called because of the very short time they exist. They are real in the sense that while they exist, they are exactly like their real counterparts in all properties. We call them virtual because they come into existence with energy 'borrowed' from the energy version of the uncertainty principle, and so the more energy (mass) a matter-antimatter particle pair has borrowed the shorter the time they may exist before recombining to 'pay back' the energy. It's like they barely exist, hence the name 'virtual'. It may be jumping through hoops to you, but again, this is standard modern physics fare in college and explained in numerous pop science books. When debating science, there comes a point where there just isn't a substitute for working through the math because you can't offer criticism of what you don't know. I don't know if you're at that point or not, but I'm saying that anyway because other readers probably are. > > But given an infinite amount of time, these particles could have fluctuated, causing > > a burst of energy, which is now called the Big Bang. Virtual particles > > are real, vacuums are real, the Big Bang is real, this is one plausible > > explanation for the known universe. > > > > > Now consider a God who _created_ a closed system which has time, > > space, > > > and all the laws of physics that accompany what we observe. > > > > HIlarious. You just dismissed the laws of physics in one paragraph and > > resurrect it with God in charge in the next. > > Absolutely, you don't agree? > > > > > There is no evidence whatsoever for your God. Besides that, What are > > the chances that the first thing to form would be a super intelligent > > super powerful super evolved being? Well, the chances are zero. > > Why does he have to form? I just said that God is outside of this > closed system where everything has to form. > > > > > > Think about it. If you have a eternal, infinite God, why couldn't he created > > > a closed system that contains time and space and operates according to > > > certain laws.. > > > > First you have to provide evidence this omnipresent yet reclusive super > > being exists. You'd think it would be easy, him being so ever present > > and all. > > In this thread, I'm not trying to prove through evidence that God > exists, only that it is > more plausible to believe the God exists. [although I would like to > convince you > that God exists.] > > > > > > Since God is outside this closed this, He doesn't have > > > to operate under these same laws; after all, he created the laws... > > > Thus he doesn't really need a beginning... After all, he created the > > > law as part of this closed system that requires that everything has a > > > beginning (cause/effect), but only in this closed system that we live. > > > > If he bothered to exist, God would have to be a closed system and > > subject to the laws of physics. > > Not true, as I stated above... He would be eternal and infinite and not > subject to > any laws of physics... He created these laws of physics in our closed > system of > time and space. > > > You learned a phrase, "closed system," > > but don't grasp what it means. Kinda reminds me of when my New Age > > ex-wife and her gang of luddites discovered computers. Suddenly they > > were "networking" and talking about "interfacing." Get a real education > > instead of trying to impress people with jargon. > > Why you don't like my terminology? I can assure you that I'm not > trying to impress people > with my jargon. Quote
stayhuman Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 We can only know the universe's history back to the moment of the big bang. Beyond that is conjecture. Always will be. Quote
Guest Chris Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 tereshka@gmail.com wrote: > Chris kirjoitti: > > > Neil Kelsey wrote: > > > Chris wrote: > > > > Bill M wrote: > > > > > Your uneducated logic is appalling. Science, whether String or Quantum > > > > > Physics is of the opinion that the Universe expanded from a very tight > > > > > compact ball of energy into the Universe. There is NO data that supports the > > > > > creation by your god. > > > > > > > > > > > 5) The fact is, the universe did not exist. Then it did. > > > > > > You think a valid premise is that it created itself, > > > > > > no matter how much you try to deny that. And > > > > > > frankly son, the fact that you're trying to deny that > > > > > > it created itself, shows that you know what an asinine > > > > > > idea it is! And why would anyone deny that it created > > > > > > itself, while trying to deny that God created it? > > > > > You insist that the Universe had to have a creator, your god. Why does your > > > > > god not need a creator? Oh! He always was and always will be. > > > > > Well so could the Universe! > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just answered this question in another thread, but for the sake or > > > > argument, since he repeated his answer, I'll repeat mine. > > > > > > > > You contend that everything follows certains laws of physics and can be > > > > observed, documented, and learned from these laws to determine truths > > > > that explain your existence. These laws of physics only go so far in > > > > their explanation. You still have to explain where everything came > > > > from... Your laws of physics don't work! > > > > > > My guess is you don't understand physics. > > > > > > > They can't explain where > > > > everything came from! You've come up with a bag of axioms that don't > > > > solve the most important equations of all -- where did we come from and > > > > why are we here? Don't give me google this or that, can you explain a > > > > theory here (don't give me a link) that doesn't take someone through a > > > > labyrinth of theories and require a reasonable person to jump through > > > > hoops to believe? I've yet to see one. > > > > > > What preceded the known universe? A vacuum sounds reasonable. A vacuum > > > is an absence of matter. > > > > I assume by a vacuum you mean nothing? Or is a vacuum a special kind > > of nothing? > > By vacuum we mean spacetime in the absence of so-called real matter > particles. As a consequence of the uncertaintly principle, the energy > of spacetime cannot be exactly zero. (If it's zero, then it's not very > uncertain, is it?) Spacetime is not nothing, but is implied at least to > me in Neil's post. > > > > However, there are particles that are called > > > virtual particles, and these particles are found in vacuums. > > > > So there is something inside of nothing? > > If you want to get picky, something comes out of an uncertainty in > energy for a really short while. Yeah, it's counter-intuitive and it's > not like anything we see in everyday life. Thank you for your lengthy answer. I'm actually very relieved that these are the best simple arguments you both can come up with. They seem pretty out there to me. I can only urge you to take a deeper look inside your soal. At the end of your life, you are going to end up feeling pretty empty and still left with many questions... This life offers so much more through a trusting relationship with Christ. Thanks for sharing. Chris >That doesn't mean that it > doesn't happen that way. To really debate this point, you need to do it > within the scientific discourse. You won't be able to make it look > suspect by trying to construct a seeming contradiction between nothing > and something, this is pretty standard modern physics college fare. If > they didn't make you prove the uncertainty principle and talk about its > consequences, you should ask for your tuition back. > > > > They don't have quite enough energy to spring into existence. > > > > But they don't exist... yet... > > > > Hmm, that doesn't look ilke you are jumping through hoops, very > > plausible... > > [smile] > > The virtual particles are so called because of the very short time they > exist. They are real in the sense that while they exist, they are > exactly like their real counterparts in all properties. We call them > virtual because they come into existence with energy 'borrowed' from > the energy version of the uncertainty principle, and so the more energy > (mass) a matter-antimatter particle pair has borrowed the shorter the > time they may exist before recombining to 'pay back' the energy. It's > like they barely exist, hence the name 'virtual'. It may be jumping > through hoops to you, but again, this is standard modern physics fare > in college and explained in numerous pop science books. When debating > science, there comes a point where there just isn't a substitute for > working through the math because you can't offer criticism of what you > don't know. I don't know if you're at that point or not, but I'm saying > that anyway because other readers probably are. > > > > But given an infinite amount of time, these particles could have fluctuated, causing > > > a burst of energy, which is now called the Big Bang. Virtual particles > > > are real, vacuums are real, the Big Bang is real, this is one plausible > > > explanation for the known universe. > > > > > > > Now consider a God who _created_ a closed system which has time, > > > space, > > > > and all the laws of physics that accompany what we observe. > > > > > > HIlarious. You just dismissed the laws of physics in one paragraph and > > > resurrect it with God in charge in the next. > > > > Absolutely, you don't agree? > > > > > > > > There is no evidence whatsoever for your God. Besides that, What are > > > the chances that the first thing to form would be a super intelligent > > > super powerful super evolved being? Well, the chances are zero. > > > > Why does he have to form? I just said that God is outside of this > > closed system where everything has to form. > > > > > > > > > Think about it. If you have a eternal, infinite God, why couldn't he created > > > > a closed system that contains time and space and operates according to > > > > certain laws.. > > > > > > First you have to provide evidence this omnipresent yet reclusive super > > > being exists. You'd think it would be easy, him being so ever present > > > and all. > > > > In this thread, I'm not trying to prove through evidence that God > > exists, only that it is > > more plausible to believe the God exists. [although I would like to > > convince you > > that God exists.] > > > > > > > > > Since God is outside this closed this, He doesn't have > > > > to operate under these same laws; after all, he created the laws... > > > > Thus he doesn't really need a beginning... After all, he created the > > > > law as part of this closed system that requires that everything has a > > > > beginning (cause/effect), but only in this closed system that we live. > > > > > > If he bothered to exist, God would have to be a closed system and > > > subject to the laws of physics. > > > > Not true, as I stated above... He would be eternal and infinite and not > > subject to > > any laws of physics... He created these laws of physics in our closed > > system of > > time and space. > > > > > You learned a phrase, "closed system," > > > but don't grasp what it means. Kinda reminds me of when my New Age > > > ex-wife and her gang of luddites discovered computers. Suddenly they > > > were "networking" and talking about "interfacing." Get a real education > > > instead of trying to impress people with jargon. > > > > Why you don't like my terminology? I can assure you that I'm not > > trying to impress people > > with my jargon. Quote
Guest Christopher A.Lee Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 5On 12 Dec 2006 00:20:57 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: >Thank you for your lengthy answer. I'm actually very relieved that >these >are the best simple arguments you both can come up with. They seem >pretty >out there to me. I can only urge you to take a deeper look inside your > >soal. At the end of your life, you are going to end up feeling pretty >empty and still left with many questions... This life offers so much >more through a trusting relationship with Christ. The moronoic empty threat of part of your mythology for not believing the rest of it. What is it with you lunatics? >Thanks for sharing. >Chris Check the headers and don't be so fucking stupid. Quote
Guest Chris Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Christopher A.Lee wrote: > 5On 12 Dec 2006 00:20:57 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >Thank you for your lengthy answer. I'm actually very relieved that > >these > >are the best simple arguments you both can come up with. They seem > >pretty > >out there to me. I can only urge you to take a deeper look inside your > > > >soal. At the end of your life, you are going to end up feeling pretty > >empty and still left with many questions... This life offers so much > >more through a trusting relationship with Christ. > > The moronoic empty threat of part of your mythology for not believing > the rest of it. What is it with you lunatics? Lets see, I just checked the headers. They span groups with religion and atheism. Atheism is just another religion anyhow. According to this, it is a form of finding your own god through mathematical formula? "am certainly religious, in the sense that I believe mathematics is the language of nature and mathematics is the only religion that can prove it's a religion." Your gods are people like Richard Dawkins who you'd follow right to hell rather than give up your theories to lead to the one true God. Chris > > >Thanks for sharing. > >Chris > > Check the headers and don't be so fucking stupid. Quote
Guest Christopher A.Lee Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 On 12 Dec 2006 01:02:54 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: > >Christopher A.Lee wrote: >> 5On 12 Dec 2006 00:20:57 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >Thank you for your lengthy answer. I'm actually very relieved that >> >these >> >are the best simple arguments you both can come up with. They seem >> >pretty >> >out there to me. I can only urge you to take a deeper look inside your >> > >> >soal. At the end of your life, you are going to end up feeling pretty >> >empty and still left with many questions... This life offers so much >> >more through a trusting relationship with Christ. >> >> The moronoic empty threat of part of your mythology for not believing >> the rest of it. What is it with you lunatics? > >Lets see, I just checked the headers. They span groups with religion >and >atheism. Atheism is just another religion anyhow. According to this, Are you really this stupid, or just being an asshole for effect? Is not-collecting-stamps a hobby on your planet, moron? >it is a form >of finding your own god through mathematical formula? > >"am certainly religious, in the sense that I believe mathematics is >the language of nature and mathematics is the only religion that can >prove it's a religion." don't be so fucking stupid. >Your gods are people like Richard Dawkins who you'd follow right to >hell >rather than give up your theories to lead to the one true God. > >Chris > > > > > > > >> >> >Thanks for sharing. >> >Chris >> >> Check the headers and don't be so fucking stupid. Quote
Guest duke Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:52:36 GMT, "Tough Tonto" <Chemo@subby.com> wrote: >"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message >news:i2prn2h2n8d8rik4q54upsooscpj5vc9hm@4ax.com... >> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" >> <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he >>>could exist, and that was the universe. >> >> Then what created the universe? > > Exactly! End of story - nothing created it. There aren't any gods. Nothing created the universe?? Science says it's only 14.5 billion years old? So where did the universe come from except from God, the Supreme Creator? duke, American-American "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI Quote
Guest duke Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 20:45:46 -0500, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote: >Just maybe it always was and always will be! It always.......................was?????????? And you're foolish enough to vote against "God did it"? duke, American-American "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI Quote
Guest duke Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 19:35:11 -0800, scottrichter422@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote: >> Then what created the universe? >Presuming the answer you're hoping for is "God", then what created God? >Aren't these Sunday school games fun? Yes they are, for God is the Supreme Creator. duke, American-American "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI Quote
Guest Greywolf Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1165907356.439777.225860@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Neil Kelsey wrote: >> Chris wrote: >> > Bill M wrote: >> > > Your uneducated logic is appalling. Science, whether String or >> > > Quantum >> > > Physics is of the opinion that the Universe expanded from a very >> > > tight >> > > compact ball of energy into the Universe. There is NO data that >> > > supports the >> > > creation by your god. >> > > >> > > > 5) The fact is, the universe did not exist. Then it did. >> > > > You think a valid premise is that it created itself, >> > > > no matter how much you try to deny that. And >> > > > frankly son, the fact that you're trying to deny that >> > > > it created itself, shows that you know what an asinine >> > > > idea it is! And why would anyone deny that it created >> > > > itself, while trying to deny that God created it? >> > > You insist that the Universe had to have a creator, your god. Why >> > > does your >> > > god not need a creator? Oh! He always was and always will be. >> > > Well so could the Universe! >> > > >> > >> > I just answered this question in another thread, but for the sake or >> > argument, since he repeated his answer, I'll repeat mine. >> > >> > You contend that everything follows certains laws of physics and can be >> > observed, documented, and learned from these laws to determine truths >> > that explain your existence. These laws of physics only go so far in >> > their explanation. You still have to explain where everything came >> > from... Your laws of physics don't work! >> >> My guess is you don't understand physics. >> >> > They can't explain where >> > everything came from! You've come up with a bag of axioms that don't >> > solve the most important equations of all -- where did we come from and >> > why are we here? Don't give me google this or that, can you explain a >> > theory here (don't give me a link) that doesn't take someone through a >> > labyrinth of theories and require a reasonable person to jump through >> > hoops to believe? I've yet to see one. >> >> What preceded the known universe? A vacuum sounds reasonable. A vacuum >> is an absence of matter. > > I assume by a vacuum you mean nothing? Or is a vacuum a special kind > of nothing? > >> However, there are particles that are called >> virtual particles, and these particles are found in vacuums. > > So there is something inside of nothing? > >> They don't have quite enough energy to spring into existence. > > But they don't exist... yet... > > Hmm, that doesn't look ilke you are jumping through hoops, very > plausible... > [smile] > >> But given an infinite amount of time, these particles could have >> fluctuated, causing >> a burst of energy, which is now called the Big Bang. Virtual particles >> are real, vacuums are real, the Big Bang is real, this is one plausible >> explanation for the known universe. >> >> > Now consider a God who _created_ a closed system which has time, >> space, >> > and all the laws of physics that accompany what we observe. >> >> HIlarious. You just dismissed the laws of physics in one paragraph and >> resurrect it with God in charge in the next. > > Absolutely, you don't agree? > >> >> There is no evidence whatsoever for your God. Besides that, What are >> the chances that the first thing to form would be a super intelligent >> super powerful super evolved being? Well, the chances are zero. > > Why does he have to form? I just said that God is outside of this > closed system where everything has to form. > >> >> > Think about it. If you have a eternal, infinite God, why couldn't he >> > created >> > a closed system that contains time and space and operates according to >> > certain laws.. >> >> First you have to provide evidence this omnipresent yet reclusive super >> being exists. You'd think it would be easy, him being so ever present >> and all. > > In this thread, I'm not trying to prove through evidence that God > exists, only that it is > more plausible to believe the God exists. [although I would like to > convince you > that God exists.] > >> >> > Since God is outside this closed this, He doesn't have >> > to operate under these same laws; after all, he created the laws... >> > Thus he doesn't really need a beginning... After all, he created the >> > law as part of this closed system that requires that everything has a >> > beginning (cause/effect), but only in this closed system that we live. >> >> If he bothered to exist, God would have to be a closed system and >> subject to the laws of physics. > > Not true, as I stated above... He would be eternal and infinite and not > subject to > any laws of physics... He created these laws of physics in our closed > system of > time and space. > >> You learned a phrase, "closed system," >> but don't grasp what it means. Kinda reminds me of when my New Age >> ex-wife and her gang of luddites discovered computers. Suddenly they >> were "networking" and talking about "interfacing." Get a real education >> instead of trying to impress people with jargon. > > Why you don't like my terminology? I can assure you that I'm not > trying to impress people > with my jargon. > No. You're throwing out wild speculation as though it were really plausible and as though it might have a basis in fact when it doesn't. The biggest 'stumbling block' you have is trying to come up with an answer as to where 'God' got his supernatural intelligence, imagination, consciousness, the material with which to create the universe, and the ability to 'form' the universe with. How could you even attempt to prove the improvable? And that being the case, why do you cling to a 'God' that is composed of nothing more than idle speculation. Why the 'hard sell'? Why in the hell embrace something you could never prove to be true with such fervor? Why can't you people let an embarrassingly silent and undetectable 'God' 'go' and move on with your lives? Is being a Jesus/God junkie that hard an addiction to break? Greywolf Quote
Guest Greywolf Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1165911657.668973.176590@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > > tereshka@gmail.com wrote: >> Chris kirjoitti: >> >> > Neil Kelsey wrote: >> > > Chris wrote: >> > > > Bill M wrote: >> > > > > Your uneducated logic is appalling. Science, whether String or >> > > > > Quantum >> > > > > Physics is of the opinion that the Universe expanded from a very >> > > > > tight >> > > > > compact ball of energy into the Universe. There is NO data that >> > > > > supports the >> > > > > creation by your god. >> > > > > >> > > > > > 5) The fact is, the universe did not exist. Then it did. >> > > > > > You think a valid premise is that it created itself, >> > > > > > no matter how much you try to deny that. And >> > > > > > frankly son, the fact that you're trying to deny that >> > > > > > it created itself, shows that you know what an asinine >> > > > > > idea it is! And why would anyone deny that it created >> > > > > > itself, while trying to deny that God created it? >> > > > > You insist that the Universe had to have a creator, your god. Why >> > > > > does your >> > > > > god not need a creator? Oh! He always was and always will be. >> > > > > Well so could the Universe! >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > I just answered this question in another thread, but for the sake >> > > > or >> > > > argument, since he repeated his answer, I'll repeat mine. >> > > > >> > > > You contend that everything follows certains laws of physics and >> > > > can be >> > > > observed, documented, and learned from these laws to determine >> > > > truths >> > > > that explain your existence. These laws of physics only go so far >> > > > in >> > > > their explanation. You still have to explain where everything came >> > > > from... Your laws of physics don't work! >> > > >> > > My guess is you don't understand physics. >> > > >> > > > They can't explain where >> > > > everything came from! You've come up with a bag of axioms that >> > > > don't >> > > > solve the most important equations of all -- where did we come from >> > > > and >> > > > why are we here? Don't give me google this or that, can you explain >> > > > a >> > > > theory here (don't give me a link) that doesn't take someone >> > > > through a >> > > > labyrinth of theories and require a reasonable person to jump >> > > > through >> > > > hoops to believe? I've yet to see one. >> > > >> > > What preceded the known universe? A vacuum sounds reasonable. A >> > > vacuum >> > > is an absence of matter. >> > >> > I assume by a vacuum you mean nothing? Or is a vacuum a special kind >> > of nothing? >> >> By vacuum we mean spacetime in the absence of so-called real matter >> particles. As a consequence of the uncertaintly principle, the energy >> of spacetime cannot be exactly zero. (If it's zero, then it's not very >> uncertain, is it?) Spacetime is not nothing, but is implied at least to >> me in Neil's post. >> >> > > However, there are particles that are called >> > > virtual particles, and these particles are found in vacuums. >> > >> > So there is something inside of nothing? >> >> If you want to get picky, something comes out of an uncertainty in >> energy for a really short while. Yeah, it's counter-intuitive and it's >> not like anything we see in everyday life. > > Thank you for your lengthy answer. I'm actually very relieved that > these > are the best simple arguments you both can come up with. They seem > pretty > out there to me. Is that the best you can do now that you have been confronted by someone who clearly knows his science? Did someone just 'choke' here? I can only urge you to take a deeper look inside your > > soal. Would that 'soul' be a 'physical' component of the human body or a 'mental' one? Is it 'real' component, or simply a mental abstraction? At the end of your life, you are going to end up feeling pretty > empty and still left with many questions... Pretty condescending sounding here. And how could you possibly know how someone is going to feel at the 'end' of their life? You aren't pretending to be a 'psychic' here now, are you? And even if what you're saying turns out to be somehow true , what has that to do with the origin of the universe? This life offers so much > more through a trusting relationship with Christ. 'Elizabeth'!!! Break out a barf-bag for me ... pronto! ... if you please. Breakfast is just about ready to meet the computer room floor! Ughhhhhh. Ughhh .... Forget it, snowflake, bring manure shovel instead. We've got a mess on our hands. > > Thanks for sharing. > Chris > Ughhhhh ... ughhh ... whew! <taking deep breaths> ... ughh . Dont' mention it. It was the least I could do. Greywolf Quote
Guest Greywolf Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 "duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:fi4tn2h0vqtugjc04lb0o7v7sucjsoac12@4ax.com... > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:52:36 GMT, "Tough Tonto" <Chemo@subby.com> wrote: > >>"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message >>news:i2prn2h2n8d8rik4q54upsooscpj5vc9hm@4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" >>> <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which >>>>he >>>>could exist, and that was the universe. >>> >>> Then what created the universe? >> >> Exactly! End of story - nothing created it. There aren't any gods. > > Nothing created the universe?? Science says it's only 14.5 billion years > old? > So where did the universe come from except from God, the Supreme Creator? > > duke, American-American > > "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI > 'God's' just as imaginary 'parent's', perhaps? Greywolf Quote
Guest Greywolf Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 "duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:vk4tn257rbd1s5q799vgkm2ge78okhbe3m@4ax.com... > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 20:45:46 -0500, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >>Just maybe it always was and always will be! > > It always.......................was?????????? > > And you're foolish enough to vote against "God did it"? > > duke, American-American > Only a fool would 'vote' for something which no human in the entire history of the universe has ever proven to exist. Be made-up from whole cloth, 'Yes'. To actually exist, 'No'. Greywolf Quote
Guest Greywolf Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 "duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:vm4tn29jlvtjtv4s1f7o9fcrvhm7nl66l7@4ax.com... > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 19:35:11 -0800, scottrichter422@yahoo.com (Scott > Richter) > wrote: > >>> Then what created the universe? >>Presuming the answer you're hoping for is "God", then what created God? >>Aren't these Sunday school games fun? > > Yes they are, for God is the Supreme Creator. > > > duke, American-American > What about 'God', the 'Less than Supreme' Creator? Do you think he (and his parents) find these Sunday school 'games' to be a lot of 'fun', as well? Greywolf Quote
Guest codebreaker@bigsecret.com Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Moses told us not to investigate what God in his wisdom did not reveal. Since God did not reveal how he spent his time before creation, the rest will be just speculation. We don't want to speculate as Darwinian do about the big bang and all other lies that they make up. josh wrote: > Creationists and believers in Intelligent Design are quick to credit God > with the creation and the ongoing supervision of the world, but are not so > hasty to explain the origin of God and the source of the abilities > attributed to him. > > I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he > could exist, and that was the universe. If God has amazing powers of > thought and action, what was he doing with those powers before he used them? > Just daydreaming? > > It seems impossible to account for God's endless power. For example, did he > sit working out the complexity of the human body in some sort of vacuum > somewhere? He could not do that without some sort of thinking mechanism and > memory, which suggests a previous round of creation. > > Short thinkers might just say he was in heaven, but what does that mean? If > it is a place, then it must have been created. And therefore there was a > time when it had not been created, so God could not then have lived there. > So maybe God and heaven had to happen at the same time - but there can be no > word 'happen' in a place outside time! > > This takes us back to my first suggestion that God could not exist before > there was a universe for him to exist in. And still the same problem > arises: the universe exists in time, so God and the universe must have come > into being at the same moment, so God could not have created the universe. > > Please argue. Quote
Guest Azaliah Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 On 11 Dec 2006 23:09:16 -0800, while bungee jumping, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> shouted thusly: >> First you have to provide evidence this omnipresent yet reclusive super >> being exists. You'd think it would be easy, him being so ever present >> and all. > >In this thread, I'm not trying to prove through evidence that God >exists, only that it is more plausible to believe the God exists. >[although I would like to convince you that God exists.] Both atheists and believers believe in the miracle of creation. The only difference is, that atheists believe in a miracle, without a miracle worker. (: -- Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved" <((>< <((>< <((>< "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." - John 17:17 .. Quote
Guest Azaliah Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 On 11 Dec 2006 23:37:53 -0800, while bungee jumping, tereshka@gmail.com shouted thusly: >> > What preceded the known universe? A vacuum sounds reasonable. A vacuum >> > is an absence of matter. >> >> I assume by a vacuum you mean nothing? Or is a vacuum a special kind >> of nothing? > >By vacuum we mean spacetime in the absence of so-called real matter >particles. As a consequence of the uncertaintly principle, the energy >of spacetime cannot be exactly zero. (If it's zero, then it's not very >uncertain, is it?) Spacetime is not nothing, but is implied at least to >me in Neil's post. This is fantasy that you are applying to a so called, "space/time" before the universe existed, even though before the universe existed, there supposedly wouldn't be any laws of physics, which the Big Bangers are forced to acknowledge, since they know it couldn't have happened given the laws of physics and thus, there wouldn't have been any "space/time" anyway. The fact is, now you're trying to have something existing, when it is pointed out how senseless it is to believe in what is promoted as what happened. >> > However, there are particles that are called >> > virtual particles, and these particles are found in vacuums. >> >> So there is something inside of nothing? > >If you want to get picky, something comes out of an uncertainty in >energy for a really short while. Yeah, it's counter-intuitive and it's >not like anything we see in everyday life. That doesn't mean that it >doesn't happen that way. To really debate this point, you need to do it >within the scientific discourse. You won't be able to make it look >suspect by trying to construct a seeming contradiction between nothing >and something, this is pretty standard modern physics college fare. If >they didn't make you prove the uncertainty principle and talk about its >consequences, you should ask for your tuition back. Sounds to me like we are being told to pretend that there is no contradiction between something and nothing being there, at the same point. (: No offense to you of course. I'm just saying... -- Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved" <((>< <((>< <((>< "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." - John 17:17 .. Quote
Guest Scott Richter Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote: > >> Then what created the universe? > >Presuming the answer you're hoping for is "God", then what created God? > >Aren't these Sunday school games fun? > > Yes they are, No surprise there... > for God is the Supreme Creator. Bzzzzzttt. Wrong answer... > duke, American-American Idiot-Idiot > > "The Ass is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul LXIX > Quote
Guest Jim07D6 Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> said: <...> >You've come up with a bag of axioms that don't >solve the most important equations of all -- where did we come from and >why are we here? Don't give me google this or that, can you explain a >theory here (don't give me a link) that doesn't take someone through a >labyrinth of theories and require a reasonable person to jump through >hoops to believe? I've yet to see one. I find the question "where did I come from?" uninteresting unless it might be where I left my wallet. And you are here to live your life. Don't waste it making other plans. -- Jim07D6 Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Chris wrote: > Neil Kelsey wrote: > > Chris wrote: > > > Bill M wrote: > > > > Your uneducated logic is appalling. Science, whether String or Quantum > > > > Physics is of the opinion that the Universe expanded from a very tight > > > > compact ball of energy into the Universe. There is NO data that supports the > > > > creation by your god. > > > > > > > > > 5) The fact is, the universe did not exist. Then it did. > > > > > You think a valid premise is that it created itself, > > > > > no matter how much you try to deny that. And > > > > > frankly son, the fact that you're trying to deny that > > > > > it created itself, shows that you know what an asinine > > > > > idea it is! And why would anyone deny that it created > > > > > itself, while trying to deny that God created it? > > > > You insist that the Universe had to have a creator, your god. Why does your > > > > god not need a creator? Oh! He always was and always will be. > > > > Well so could the Universe! > > > > > > > > > > I just answered this question in another thread, but for the sake or > > > argument, since he repeated his answer, I'll repeat mine. > > > > > > You contend that everything follows certains laws of physics and can be > > > observed, documented, and learned from these laws to determine truths > > > that explain your existence. These laws of physics only go so far in > > > their explanation. You still have to explain where everything came > > > from... Your laws of physics don't work! > > > > My guess is you don't understand physics. > > > > > They can't explain where > > > everything came from! You've come up with a bag of axioms that don't > > > solve the most important equations of all -- where did we come from and > > > why are we here? Don't give me google this or that, can you explain a > > > theory here (don't give me a link) that doesn't take someone through a > > > labyrinth of theories and require a reasonable person to jump through > > > hoops to believe? I've yet to see one. > > > > What preceded the known universe? A vacuum sounds reasonable. A vacuum > > is an absence of matter. > > I assume by a vacuum you mean nothing? Or is a vacuum a special kind > of nothing? > > > However, there are particles that are called > > virtual particles, and these particles are found in vacuums. > > So there is something inside of nothing? Yes. And no. They fluctuate in and out of existence. > > They don't have quite enough energy to spring into existence. > > But they don't exist... yet... And they don't not exist either. See, if you took your nose out of the one book you read over and over, and find out what other people are DISCOVERING (as in, not making up), then you would not be dismissed as being intellectually lazy. > Hmm, that doesn't look ilke you are jumping through hoops, very > plausible... > [smile] That ignorant smile says more about you than anything. I'm not making this up, virtual particles have been found in vaccums. As opposed to your "god," for whom there is no evidence you can show me, except for maybe the sincere testimony of some very questionable people. > > But given an infinite amount of time, these particles could have fluctuated, causing > > a burst of energy, which is now called the Big Bang. Virtual particles > > are real, vacuums are real, the Big Bang is real, this is one plausible > > explanation for the known universe. > > > > > Now consider a God who _created_ a closed system which has time, > > space, > > > and all the laws of physics that accompany what we observe. > > > > HIlarious. You just dismissed the laws of physics in one paragraph and > > resurrect it with God in charge in the next. > > Absolutely, you don't agree? Agree? I think you're an uneducated hypocrite. > > There is no evidence whatsoever for your God. Besides that, What are > > the chances that the first thing to form would be a super intelligent > > super powerful super evolved being? Well, the chances are zero. > > Why does he have to form? I just said that God is outside of this > closed system where everything has to form. Which makes no sense whatsoever. > > > Think about it. If you have a eternal, infinite God, why couldn't he created > > > a closed system that contains time and space and operates according to > > > certain laws.. > > > > First you have to provide evidence this omnipresent yet reclusive super > > being exists. You'd think it would be easy, him being so ever present > > and all. > > In this thread, I'm not trying to prove through evidence that God > exists, only that it is > more plausible to believe the God exists. [although I would like to > convince you > that God exists.] The only thing you're convinceing me of is that you were home schooled by JoHo's. > > > Since God is outside this closed this, He doesn't have > > > to operate under these same laws; after all, he created the laws... > > > Thus he doesn't really need a beginning... After all, he created the > > > law as part of this closed system that requires that everything has a > > > beginning (cause/effect), but only in this closed system that we live. > > > > If he bothered to exist, God would have to be a closed system and > > subject to the laws of physics. > > Not true, as I stated above... You unsubstantiated assertions are not acceptable. You need to back up your wild claims with some evidence. > He would be eternal and infinite and not > subject to > any laws of physics... He created these laws of physics in our closed > system of > time and space. Just because you say that really earnestly does not make it true. > > You learned a phrase, "closed system," > > but don't grasp what it means. Kinda reminds me of when my New Age > > ex-wife and her gang of luddites discovered computers. Suddenly they > > were "networking" and talking about "interfacing." Get a real education > > instead of trying to impress people with jargon. > > Why you don't like my terminology? I can assure you that I'm not > trying to impress people > with my jargon. Then don't use phrases if you don't know what they mean. A 'closed system" is not a religious term. It means a specific thing in physics. You're just demonstrating your ignorance by referriing to god as a closed system. Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Chris wrote: > tereshka@gmail.com wrote: > > Chris kirjoitti: > > > > > Neil Kelsey wrote: > > > > Chris wrote: > > > > > Bill M wrote: > > > > > > Your uneducated logic is appalling. Science, whether String or Quantum > > > > > > Physics is of the opinion that the Universe expanded from a very tight > > > > > > compact ball of energy into the Universe. There is NO data that supports the > > > > > > creation by your god. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) The fact is, the universe did not exist. Then it did. > > > > > > > You think a valid premise is that it created itself, > > > > > > > no matter how much you try to deny that. And > > > > > > > frankly son, the fact that you're trying to deny that > > > > > > > it created itself, shows that you know what an asinine > > > > > > > idea it is! And why would anyone deny that it created > > > > > > > itself, while trying to deny that God created it? > > > > > > You insist that the Universe had to have a creator, your god. Why does your > > > > > > god not need a creator? Oh! He always was and always will be. > > > > > > Well so could the Universe! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just answered this question in another thread, but for the sake or > > > > > argument, since he repeated his answer, I'll repeat mine. > > > > > > > > > > You contend that everything follows certains laws of physics and can be > > > > > observed, documented, and learned from these laws to determine truths > > > > > that explain your existence. These laws of physics only go so far in > > > > > their explanation. You still have to explain where everything came > > > > > from... Your laws of physics don't work! > > > > > > > > My guess is you don't understand physics. > > > > > > > > > They can't explain where > > > > > everything came from! You've come up with a bag of axioms that don't > > > > > solve the most important equations of all -- where did we come from and > > > > > why are we here? Don't give me google this or that, can you explain a > > > > > theory here (don't give me a link) that doesn't take someone through a > > > > > labyrinth of theories and require a reasonable person to jump through > > > > > hoops to believe? I've yet to see one. > > > > > > > > What preceded the known universe? A vacuum sounds reasonable. A vacuum > > > > is an absence of matter. > > > > > > I assume by a vacuum you mean nothing? Or is a vacuum a special kind > > > of nothing? > > > > By vacuum we mean spacetime in the absence of so-called real matter > > particles. As a consequence of the uncertaintly principle, the energy > > of spacetime cannot be exactly zero. (If it's zero, then it's not very > > uncertain, is it?) Spacetime is not nothing, but is implied at least to > > me in Neil's post. > > > > > > However, there are particles that are called > > > > virtual particles, and these particles are found in vacuums. > > > > > > So there is something inside of nothing? > > > > If you want to get picky, something comes out of an uncertainty in > > energy for a really short while. Yeah, it's counter-intuitive and it's > > not like anything we see in everyday life. > > Thank you for your lengthy answer. I'm actually very relieved that > these > are the best simple arguments you both can come up with. They seem > pretty > out there to me. Oh brother. There is evidence for what we're talking about (which we clearly state are plausible theories based on evidence). There is no evidence for what you propose. > I can only urge you to take a deeper look inside your soal. "Soal?" Really? There is as much evidence for the soul as there is for god. Which is none. > At the end of your life, you are going to end up feeling pretty > empty and still left with many questions... This life offers so much > more through a trusting relationship with Christ. I like questions. I trust that whatever questions are unanswered will be pursued by curious minded people long after I'm gone. I'm glad you feel superior in your relationship with your imaginary friend, but I'm perfectly happy having relationships with real people. Thanks anyway. Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Chris wrote: > Christopher A.Lee wrote: > > 5On 12 Dec 2006 00:20:57 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >Thank you for your lengthy answer. I'm actually very relieved that > > >these > > >are the best simple arguments you both can come up with. They seem > > >pretty > > >out there to me. I can only urge you to take a deeper look inside your > > > > > >soal. At the end of your life, you are going to end up feeling pretty > > >empty and still left with many questions... This life offers so much > > >more through a trusting relationship with Christ. > > > > The moronoic empty threat of part of your mythology for not believing > > the rest of it. What is it with you lunatics? > > Lets see, I just checked the headers. They span groups with religion > and > atheism. Atheism is just another religion anyhow. Religion (in the metaphysical sense) involves worshipping a supernatural deity. Atheists don't worship anything, and we lack belief in the supernatural, and we lack belief in deities. Atheism is a lack of religion. > According to this, > it is a form > of finding your own god through mathematical formula? > > "am certainly religious, in the sense that I believe mathematics is > the language of nature and mathematics is the only religion that can > prove it's a religion." I know what she means, but I disagree with it. There are some atheists, like Einstein, who find a religious awe in the beauty of the natural world. The world without supernatural deities like the one you believe in. There's a big difference. I avoid the word religion but I am as awed by the natural world as anybody. > Your gods are people like Richard Dawkins who you'd follow right to > hell rather than give up your theories to lead to the one true God. Richard Dawkins is a human, I do not mistake him for a supernatural being. He is really smart, and I love his books, but I do not worship him. I just agree with him. You're a little confused about what a god is and what a god isn't. And by the way, there's no evidence hell exists either. Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote in message snip > Thank you for your lengthy answer. I'm actually very relieved that > these > are the best simple arguments you both can come up with. They seem > pretty > out there to me. I can only urge you to take a deeper look inside your > > soal. What the heck is a "soal"? At the end of your life, you are going to end up feeling pretty > empty and still left with many questions... Are you claiming to be a mind reader now? This life offers so much > more through a trusting relationship with Christ. Oh please - Life offers so much without a relationship with an imaginary friend. Grow up. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo #1557 I think religion is so popular because even the village idiot can feel like Einstein without any effort. - Denis Loubet Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1165914174.522924.327490@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > Christopher A.Lee wrote: >> 5On 12 Dec 2006 00:20:57 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >Thank you for your lengthy answer. I'm actually very relieved that >> >these >> >are the best simple arguments you both can come up with. They seem >> >pretty >> >out there to me. I can only urge you to take a deeper look inside your >> > >> >soal. At the end of your life, you are going to end up feeling pretty >> >empty and still left with many questions... This life offers so much >> >more through a trusting relationship with Christ. >> >> The moronoic empty threat of part of your mythology for not believing >> the rest of it. What is it with you lunatics? > > Lets see, I just checked the headers. They span groups with religion > and > atheism. Atheism is just another religion anyhow. That's a blatant lie. Is not believe in Santa Claus a religion as well? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo #1557 I think religion is so popular because even the village idiot can feel like Einstein without any effort. - Denis Loubet Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.