What was God doing before he created the universe?

[Guest Someone]

I've tried that philosophy too, once upon a time, when I was a younger age.

And now, in the twilight of my life, I'm finding it harder and harder to

believe that life was meaningless.

 

I'm not espousing, by the way, any particular faith (or un-faith). But here

are some thoughts...

 

If our consciousness ends when we die (e.g., all our ability to observe,

feel, witness, etc. vanishes when we close our eyes that final time), then

what is the point of planning for being responsible for anything during our

lives? If we DO the responsible thing (i.e., take care of the environment,

feed the poor, etc.) and we die, we wouldn't be able to feel the elation of

a life well-lived, would we? If we go ahead and just "live our lives"

running amok if we feel like it, then after we die, we wouldn't have the

capability of feeling remorse (or pride "man, that was fun!"). It'd be

over, wouldn't it?

 

And if we can't feel the consequences of our lives after death and we're

just here to enjoy the moment, then why not take HUGE risks now (i.e. Armed

bank robbery, or kidnapping Bill Gates)--and just make sure that if we're

caught, the SWAT team gets us... Because if we die, well it's over--but if

we succeed, then we can live our remaining years in comfort. Why feel sorry

for children being raped and murdered--after all, they're not around anymore

to feel the pain or even remember that it happened. And if life sucks for

someone, then why doesn't he just blow his brains out--it isn't like he'll

feel remorse or anything afterward would he? What's the use of "propgating

the species" if your consciousness isn't there to know that it's been

propagated? WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC INCENTIVE TO GO ON LIVING IF THERE IS

NOTHING AFTER DEATH?

 

You see, my interest in all this religion stuff is that life doesn't

scientifically make sense.

 

I can hear the clamoring arguments now--and I concur. There is a

possibility that I could be wrong and there ISN'T anything after I die...

But then I won't be around to realize my error, would I? So while I am

living my life, I prefer to believe that there is something afterward and

that my life does have meaning.

 

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress

and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed

creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a

spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of

religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real

happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the

demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel

[Guest Neil Kelsey]

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.

 

As you can tell, I'm just a fascinated layman. Here's a dumb question

for you. Would I be correct in saying that a vacuum is the absence of

matter? And that time and space are only relevant if you have matter,

because without matter then there are no reference points for time or

space? Time/space (spacetime?) seems relative to matter, am I wrong?

[Guest Jim07D6]

Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> said:

>I've tried that philosophy too, once upon a time, when I was a younger age.

>And now, in the twilight of my life, I'm finding it harder and harder to

>believe that life was meaningless.

>

Well, I didn't say it was meaningless. But I don't think we find its

meaning, I think we produce it.

>I'm not espousing, by the way, any particular faith (or un-faith). But here

>are some thoughts...

 

My replies are intended in the same spirit.

>

>If our consciousness ends when we die (e.g., all our ability to observe,

>feel, witness, etc. vanishes when we close our eyes that final time), then

>what is the point of planning for being responsible for anything during our

>lives?

 

IMO we have no choice but to be responsible for our lives, even if we

don't believe this.

> If we DO the responsible thing (i.e., take care of the environment,

>feed the poor, etc.) and we die, we wouldn't be able to feel the elation of

>a life well-lived, would we?

 

Do you mean you can't feel it now, or that feeling it now is

insufficient?

>If we go ahead and just "live our lives"

>running amok if we feel like it, then after we die, we wouldn't have the

>capability of feeling remorse (or pride "man, that was fun!"). It'd be

>over, wouldn't it?

 

Running amok is unacceptable to me, too. Let's not do it.

>

>And if we can't feel the consequences of our lives after death and we're

>just here to enjoy the moment, then why not take HUGE risks now (i.e. Armed

>bank robbery, or kidnapping Bill Gates)--and just make sure that if we're

>caught, the SWAT team gets us...

 

If belief in an afterward is all that keeps you from doing those

things, then I hope you don't lose that belief!

>...Because if we die, well it's over--but if

>we succeed, then we can live our remaining years in comfort. Why feel sorry

>for children being raped and murdered--after all, they're not around anymore

>to feel the pain or even remember that it happened. And if life sucks for

>someone, then why doesn't he just blow his brains out--it isn't like he'll

>feel remorse or anything afterward would he? What's the use of "propgating

>the species" if your consciousness isn't there to know that it's been

>propagated? WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC INCENTIVE TO GO ON LIVING IF THERE IS

>NOTHING AFTER DEATH?

 

Right now, I want to finish this reply. Later, it will be lunch.

>

>You see, my interest in all this religion stuff is that life doesn't

>scientifically make sense.

 

Whatever floats your boat, as long as it doesn't involve sinking mine.

>

>I can hear the clamoring arguments now--and I concur. There is a

>possibility that I could be wrong and there ISN'T anything after I die...

>But then I won't be around to realize my error, would I? So while I am

>living my life, I prefer to believe that there is something afterward and

>that my life does have meaning.

> Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress

>and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed

>creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a

>spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of

>religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real

>happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the

>demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

> Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel

[Guest John D Newport]

"josh" <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:k_mdnUJkoIF4fODYnZ2dnUVZ8qm3nZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...

> 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.

>

 

In my view of God, he created the universe and in doing so, he also

created time, in addition to space, height, width, depth, all dimensions

(known, theorized, or as yet unknown), all forms of matter (known,

theorized, or as yet unknown), and etc. (anything else we can think of). As

far as our ability to define or in anyway describe in worldly terms, he is

totally outside our realm of knowledge. In short, God transcends our

knowledge base.

 

So, seeing him as I do, I am unable to address your questions. I can

only write of those things that have been revealed in his word.

 

Check out http://www.reasons.org/

 

Have a good day,

[Guest Samuel W. Heywood]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>

> Chris wrote:

>> Christopher A.Lee wrote:

>>> 5On 12 Dec 2006 00:20:57 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote:

 

<snip>

> 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.

 

<snip>

 

For reason of your being so awed by the works of nature, some people

would call you a nature worshipper, and that your being a nature

worshipper qualifies you as being a theist.

 

Sam Heywood

-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62

[Guest Neil Kelsey]

Samuel W. Heywood wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>

> >

> > Chris wrote:

> >> Christopher A.Lee wrote:

> >>> 5On 12 Dec 2006 00:20:57 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> <snip>

>

> > 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.

>

> <snip>

>

> For reason of your being so awed by the works of nature, some people

> would call you a nature worshipper, and that your being a nature

> worshipper qualifies you as being a theist.

 

Then those people would be wrong, because I don't worship anything. Not

in the religious sense. Nice try at a strawman, though.

[Guest tereshka@gmail.com]

Neil Kelsey 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.

>

> As you can tell, I'm just a fascinated layman. Here's a dumb question

> for you. Would I be correct in saying that a vacuum is the absence of

> matter? And that time and space are only relevant if you have matter,

> because without matter then there are no reference points for time or

> space? Time/space (spacetime?) seems relative to matter, am I wrong?

 

Nothing wrong with being a layman; after all we all are in the vast

majority of matters. Whether you should speak of space and time

separately or as spacetime depends on what perspective you're taking.

If you're talking about something where neither special nor general

relativity are involved, space and time are separate. Spacetime is

introduced in special relativity, which of course is the low-curvature

case of general relativity, and comes about in that when you calculate

distances in what you thought was space, you still have a time variable

in there (the square of which subtracts from the squared space

coordinates, giving the result that photons traverse the universe in an

instant). If the speed of light is to be constant for all observers,

both space and time end up varying for different observers traveling at

different relative speeds, but they must be interrelated for the whole

thing to make any sense. So there you have spacetime. Cosmology must

use GR, since the approximation that there are no gravitational fields

in the universe is obviously not right. If you're just considering

particle-pair creation, you may of course do that non-relativistically

and then you can separate space and time.

 

Whether you would be right in saying that vacuum is the absence of

matter depends a little on context and to what extent listeners can

fill in the assumed blanks. This relates to whether space is relative

to matter as well. There's a gap between common sense and the math

here, and it's hard not to speak more informally than the rigorous

statements would be when you're not in a scientific forum making an

argument. It's just faster. When we talk about spacetime, what we

rigorously mean are mathematical models which I think most people

conceptualize as a rubber sheet curving a certain way, or expanding, or

doing whatever the model is doing. Drawings of spacetime use planes or

manifolds. It's hard not to try to visualize, but it's important to

remember that just because our minds can't imagine something that isn't

matter expanding or having a certain topology doesn't mean that

spacetime is matter. Mathematically, you can very well have spacetime

without any matter. The whole thing is described by equations that keep

track of space and time variables. (Kind of like you can draw all kinds

of curves as functions of all kinds of variables without the curves

necessarily representing real material objects.) I'm honestly not sure

if one can speak of a vacuum in such universes; I've never heard it

done, and because an empty universe doesn't contain any energy it's not

really useful to distinguish between matter and vacuum in the first

place, but it seems that if you apply the vacuum idea to such an

universe that's all you've got in there. Perhaps that's more of a

semantic question. Anyway, when we speak of spacetime(s) we really mean

the mathematical model(s). How well you wish to equate the models with

reality depends a little on your philosophical stance. I'm somewhat of

a positivist myself. If the models that say we have a compact Euclidean

metric predict what we see, then that's reality.

 

In our universe with both matter and spacetime, the vacuum is, as you

know, teeming with virtual particles that hop in and out of existence.

If we didn't let those be part of our definition of vacuum we'd have a

serious lack of meaning for the word (I mean, then it means something

that doesn't exist in this universe, why bother?), so we just cut out

the real particles and call what's left the vacuum. So, it's not really

wrong to say that the vacuum is the absence of matter, but it's using

two implied statements; one, that spacetime exists, and two, the

presence of virtual particles is still there. If people don't know to

fill those in on their own it's a somewhat incomplete statement, hence

why I filled it in in the debate above to circumvent a long discussion

about the technicalities. Your basic point was right and that's what we

should focus on.

 

You may be thinking of general relativity's "space tells matter how to

move; matter tells space how to curve". Spacetime and matter are linked

together like that. However, matter cannot change the topology of

space, merely the geometry. (Matter cannot 'cut' the fabric of

spacetime.) So you can have a spacetime with a certain topology (I buy

Hawking's argument that it's a closed Euclidean space) that adjusts

locally to any gravitational fields present in it.

[Guest Samuel W. Heywood]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

> Samuel W. Heywood wrote:

>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>>>

>>> Chris wrote:

>>>> Christopher A.Lee wrote:

>>>>> 5On 12 Dec 2006 00:20:57 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote:

>>

>> <snip>

>>

>>> 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.

>>

>> <snip>

>>

>> For reason of your being so awed by the works of nature, some people

>> would call you a nature worshipper, and that your being a nature

>> worshipper qualifies you as being a theist.

>

> Then those people would be wrong, because I don't worship anything.

> Not in the religious sense. Nice try at a strawman, though.

 

It is not a straw man. Theism does not require worship in the

religious sense, such as the practicing of rituals, like praying

or chanting. Worship may include simply regarding or beholding

something in awe.

 

Sam Heywood

-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62

[Guest tereshka@gmail.com]

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. According to this,

> it is a form

> of finding your own god through mathematical formula?

 

What makes you think I'm looking for a god?

> "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

 

I was referring to the old chestnut about that if religion is believing

in things that cannot be proven, mathematics is the only religion that

can prove that it is one. I'm assuming you haven't heard it, or you

would have gotten the joke. Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem shows that

for every system of self-consistent axioms, there are true statements

that cannot be shown to be true within the given system of axioms. If

you attempt to remedy this by adding more axioms, it's still true of

the enlarged system. Of course, my trust in mathematics to deliver

answers is rather different from your faith in a historically and

sociatally constructed deity. But I guess we can discuss this when we

we have eternity to spend in hell together, right? After all, that's

where you condemn me to (with what power, one might ask?) and where you

are condemned to by other religions. I guess I'll see you there!

>

>

>

>

>

>

> >

> > >Thanks for sharing.

> > >Chris

> >

> > Check the headers and don't be so fucking stupid.

[Guest tereshka@gmail.com]

Samuel W. Heywood wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>

> > Samuel W. Heywood wrote:

> >> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

> >>>

> >>> Chris wrote:

> >>>> Christopher A.Lee wrote:

> >>>>> 5On 12 Dec 2006 00:20:57 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>

> >> <snip>

> >>

> >>> 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.

> >>

> >> <snip>

> >>

> >> For reason of your being so awed by the works of nature, some people

> >> would call you a nature worshipper, and that your being a nature

> >> worshipper qualifies you as being a theist.

> >

> > Then those people would be wrong, because I don't worship anything.

> > Not in the religious sense. Nice try at a strawman, though.

>

> It is not a straw man. Theism does not require worship in the

> religious sense, such as the practicing of rituals, like praying

> or chanting. Worship may include simply regarding or beholding

> something in awe.

>

> Sam Heywood

> -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62

 

Last time I checked, theism requires belief in some deity or another.

Unless the person in awe considers their object of awe to be a deity (I

certainly do not consider science a deity), that's just not theism. I

am also in awe of that the EU has managed to build so many bridges

across old conflicts. I do not consider the EU to be a deity either.

[Guest Neil Kelsey]

tereshka@gmail.com wrote:

> Neil Kelsey 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.

> >

> > As you can tell, I'm just a fascinated layman. Here's a dumb question

> > for you. Would I be correct in saying that a vacuum is the absence of

> > matter? And that time and space are only relevant if you have matter,

> > because without matter then there are no reference points for time or

> > space? Time/space (spacetime?) seems relative to matter, am I wrong?

>

> Nothing wrong with being a layman; after all we all are in the vast

> majority of matters. Whether you should speak of space and time

> separately or as spacetime depends on what perspective you're taking.

> If you're talking about something where neither special nor general

> relativity are involved, space and time are separate. Spacetime is

> introduced in special relativity, which of course is the low-curvature

> case of general relativity, and comes about in that when you calculate

> distances in what you thought was space, you still have a time variable

> in there (the square of which subtracts from the squared space

> coordinates, giving the result that photons traverse the universe in an

> instant). If the speed of light is to be constant for all observers,

> both space and time end up varying for different observers traveling at

> different relative speeds, but they must be interrelated for the whole

> thing to make any sense. So there you have spacetime. Cosmology must

> use GR, since the approximation that there are no gravitational fields

> in the universe is obviously not right. If you're just considering

> particle-pair creation, you may of course do that non-relativistically

> and then you can separate space and time.

>

> Whether you would be right in saying that vacuum is the absence of

> matter depends a little on context and to what extent listeners can

> fill in the assumed blanks. This relates to whether space is relative

> to matter as well. There's a gap between common sense and the math

> here, and it's hard not to speak more informally than the rigorous

> statements would be when you're not in a scientific forum making an

> argument. It's just faster. When we talk about spacetime, what we

> rigorously mean are mathematical models which I think most people

> conceptualize as a rubber sheet curving a certain way, or expanding, or

> doing whatever the model is doing. Drawings of spacetime use planes or

> manifolds. It's hard not to try to visualize, but it's important to

> remember that just because our minds can't imagine something that isn't

> matter expanding or having a certain topology doesn't mean that

> spacetime is matter. Mathematically, you can very well have spacetime

> without any matter. The whole thing is described by equations that keep

> track of space and time variables. (Kind of like you can draw all kinds

> of curves as functions of all kinds of variables without the curves

> necessarily representing real material objects.) I'm honestly not sure

> if one can speak of a vacuum in such universes; I've never heard it

> done, and because an empty universe doesn't contain any energy it's not

> really useful to distinguish between matter and vacuum in the first

> place, but it seems that if you apply the vacuum idea to such an

> universe that's all you've got in there. Perhaps that's more of a

> semantic question. Anyway, when we speak of spacetime(s) we really mean

> the mathematical model(s). How well you wish to equate the models with

> reality depends a little on your philosophical stance. I'm somewhat of

> a positivist myself. If the models that say we have a compact Euclidean

> metric predict what we see, then that's reality.

>

> In our universe with both matter and spacetime, the vacuum is, as you

> know, teeming with virtual particles that hop in and out of existence.

> If we didn't let those be part of our definition of vacuum we'd have a

> serious lack of meaning for the word (I mean, then it means something

> that doesn't exist in this universe, why bother?), so we just cut out

> the real particles and call what's left the vacuum. So, it's not really

> wrong to say that the vacuum is the absence of matter, but it's using

> two implied statements; one, that spacetime exists, and two, the

> presence of virtual particles is still there.

> If people don't know to

> fill those in on their own it's a somewhat incomplete statement, hence

> why I filled it in in the debate above to circumvent a long discussion

> about the technicalities. Your basic point was right and that's what we

> should focus on.

>

> You may be thinking of general relativity's "space tells matter how to

> move; matter tells space how to curve". Spacetime and matter are linked

> together like that. However, matter cannot change the topology of

> space, merely the geometry. (Matter cannot 'cut' the fabric of

> spacetime.) So you can have a spacetime with a certain topology (I buy

> Hawking's argument that it's a closed Euclidean space) that adjusts

> locally to any gravitational fields present in it.

 

Thank YOU! Strangely enough (that's a comment on me, not you), that

made sense to me. Well, the last paragraph I'll have to re-read a few

times. I still haven't read Hawking's book yet, maybe that should be

next. But I think I'm ready for the mathematics finally. Do you know of

any introductory book for the mathematics of particle physics that you

might recommend? Or should I just go get any old first year textbook?

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On 12 Dec 2006 12:22:12 -0800, tereshka@gmail.com wrote:

>

>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. According to this,

>> it is a form

>> of finding your own god through mathematical formula?

 

Anybody who calls atheism a religion is doing it to be deliberately

nasty.

 

It's the simple demographic absence of the defining property of most

Western religions.

 

And if they bothered to use their allegedly god-given minds they

already know that it has none of the the things that make their

religion one.

 

No prayer. No hymns. No worship. No doctrine. No church. No ritual.

Etc.

>What makes you think I'm looking for a god?

 

Those who are "searching for the truth" etc can't grasp that the reat

of us aren't.

>> "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

>

>I was referring to the old chestnut about that if religion is believing

>in things that cannot be proven, mathematics is the only religion that

>can prove that it is one. I'm assuming you haven't heard it, or you

>would have gotten the joke. Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem shows that

>for every system of self-consistent axioms, there are true statements

>that cannot be shown to be true within the given system of axioms. If

>you attempt to remedy this by adding more axioms, it's still true of

>the enlarged system. Of course, my trust in mathematics to deliver

>answers is rather different from your faith in a historically and

>sociatally constructed deity. But I guess we can discuss this when we

>we have eternity to spend in hell together, right? After all, that's

>where you condemn me to (with what power, one might ask?) and where you

>are condemned to by other religions. I guess I'll see you there!

 

I've never understood why these liars tell us things are gods to us,

which are as important to them as they are to us. But they don't treat

them as gods. So why the heck should they rudely and stupidly insist

that they're gods to us?

>> >

>> > >Thanks for sharing.

>> > >Chris

>> >

>> > Check the headers and don't be so fucking stupid.

[Guest Jim07D6]

"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> said:

>On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>

>> Samuel W. Heywood wrote:

>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>>>>

>>>> Chris wrote:

>>>>> Christopher A.Lee wrote:

>>>>>> 5On 12 Dec 2006 00:20:57 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>

>>> <snip>

>>>

>>>> 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.

>>>

>>> <snip>

>>>

>>> For reason of your being so awed by the works of nature, some people

>>> would call you a nature worshipper, and that your being a nature

>>> worshipper qualifies you as being a theist.

>>

>> Then those people would be wrong, because I don't worship anything.

>> Not in the religious sense. Nice try at a strawman, though.

>

>It is not a straw man. Theism does not require worship in the

>religious sense, such as the practicing of rituals, like praying

>or chanting. Worship may include simply regarding or beholding

>something in awe.

 

I think you should instruct "some people" in the conventional use of

language.

-- Jim07D6

[Guest Someone]

On 12/12/06 10:49 AM, in article jnotn29vof6nbevg98uc5tlicb8n2ft13d@4ax.com,

"Jim07D6" <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote:

> Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> said:

>

>> I've tried that philosophy too, once upon a time, when I was a younger age.

>> And now, in the twilight of my life, I'm finding it harder and harder to

>> believe that life was meaningless.

>>

> Well, I didn't say it was meaningless. But I don't think we find its

> meaning, I think we produce it.

>

 

I concede that this may be the case. For some, they produce that meaning

through the belief that something greater will hold them somehow accountable

for what they do now. For others, they produce meaning from the concept

that the universe continues after their death (when they are no longer able

to observe--or care). Either case is unprovable, of course, so IMO religion

and atheism are both belief systems (I do concur, though, that atheists tend

not to resort to circular arguments as much as religious proponents in

order to bash my head in ala "God exists! How do you know? Such and such a

book tells me so! And how do you know that book isn't a crock? Because it

was written by God!").

 

..

.. <<SNIP>>

..

>> If we DO the responsible thing (i.e., take care of the environment,

>> feed the poor, etc.) and we die, we wouldn't be able to feel the elation of

>> a life well-lived, would we?

>

> Do you mean you can't feel it now, or that feeling it now is

> insufficient?

 

What I mean is that if all subjectivity ends when I die, then (as far as I

am concerned... Or unconcerned) the universe never existed. I never

existed. The people for which I did good for never existed. That I felt

good "then" never existed. In other words, it's all meaningless.

 

If I -truly- believed that that was the case, then my behavior would change

to increase my perceived advantage to myself now... Just as in the case of

if I knew my company was going out of business next week and I would NEVER

get paid my paycheck, I wouldn't continue working there.

 

The solution to this dilemma is that even atheists probably believe that the

universe continues after they cease to have any perspective in it... And

they therefore care -now- what their actions are, even though it is

meaningless after they cease to exist. This is, of course,

untestable--hence even atheism is a belief system.

 

..

..

>

>> ...Because if we die, well it's over--but if

>> we succeed, then we can live our remaining years in comfort. Why feel sorry

>> for children being raped and murdered--after all, they're not around anymore

>> to feel the pain or even remember that it happened. And if life sucks for

>> someone, then why doesn't he just blow his brains out--it isn't like he'll

>> feel remorse or anything afterward would he? What's the use of "propgating

>> the species" if your consciousness isn't there to know that it's been

>> propagated? WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC INCENTIVE TO GO ON LIVING IF THERE IS

>> NOTHING AFTER DEATH?

>

> Right now, I want to finish this reply. Later, it will be lunch.

>

 

>>

>> You see, my interest in all this religion stuff is that life doesn't

>> scientifically make sense.

>

> Whatever floats your boat, as long as it doesn't involve sinking mine.

 

 

In my personal universe, we are each individually accountable to the

hereafter (even if we don't believe there is a hereafter at all). Who am I

to sink your boat since your death will be YOUR personal experience, just as

mine will be only MY personal experience. Since I don't have any of the

answers to life, the universe, and anything else.... I concur that whatever

YOU believe may be right and it certainly -is- right--for you.

 

 

Afternote: regarding the "untestable" nature of our perspective after we

die, Harry Houdini had one: he allegedly promised his wife that if there

were a hereafter, he would send her a code that only SHE knew to confirm it.

Allegedly, a medium named Arthur Ford finally did deliver the proper code.

Of course, this can all be hooey (there are lots of theories how fraud may

have tainted this test)... But it is interesting reading:

http://www.prairieghosts.com/houdini.html

[Guest tereshka@gmail.com]

Neil Kelsey wrote:

> tereshka@gmail.com wrote:

> > Neil Kelsey 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.

> > >

> > > As you can tell, I'm just a fascinated layman. Here's a dumb question

> > > for you. Would I be correct in saying that a vacuum is the absence of

> > > matter? And that time and space are only relevant if you have matter,

> > > because without matter then there are no reference points for time or

> > > space? Time/space (spacetime?) seems relative to matter, am I wrong?

> >

> > Nothing wrong with being a layman; after all we all are in the vast

> > majority of matters. Whether you should speak of space and time

> > separately or as spacetime depends on what perspective you're taking.

> > If you're talking about something where neither special nor general

> > relativity are involved, space and time are separate. Spacetime is

> > introduced in special relativity, which of course is the low-curvature

> > case of general relativity, and comes about in that when you calculate

> > distances in what you thought was space, you still have a time variable

> > in there (the square of which subtracts from the squared space

> > coordinates, giving the result that photons traverse the universe in an

> > instant). If the speed of light is to be constant for all observers,

> > both space and time end up varying for different observers traveling at

> > different relative speeds, but they must be interrelated for the whole

> > thing to make any sense. So there you have spacetime. Cosmology must

> > use GR, since the approximation that there are no gravitational fields

> > in the universe is obviously not right. If you're just considering

> > particle-pair creation, you may of course do that non-relativistically

> > and then you can separate space and time.

> >

> > Whether you would be right in saying that vacuum is the absence of

> > matter depends a little on context and to what extent listeners can

> > fill in the assumed blanks. This relates to whether space is relative

> > to matter as well. There's a gap between common sense and the math

> > here, and it's hard not to speak more informally than the rigorous

> > statements would be when you're not in a scientific forum making an

> > argument. It's just faster. When we talk about spacetime, what we

> > rigorously mean are mathematical models which I think most people

> > conceptualize as a rubber sheet curving a certain way, or expanding, or

> > doing whatever the model is doing. Drawings of spacetime use planes or

> > manifolds. It's hard not to try to visualize, but it's important to

> > remember that just because our minds can't imagine something that isn't

> > matter expanding or having a certain topology doesn't mean that

> > spacetime is matter. Mathematically, you can very well have spacetime

> > without any matter. The whole thing is described by equations that keep

> > track of space and time variables. (Kind of like you can draw all kinds

> > of curves as functions of all kinds of variables without the curves

> > necessarily representing real material objects.) I'm honestly not sure

> > if one can speak of a vacuum in such universes; I've never heard it

> > done, and because an empty universe doesn't contain any energy it's not

> > really useful to distinguish between matter and vacuum in the first

> > place, but it seems that if you apply the vacuum idea to such an

> > universe that's all you've got in there. Perhaps that's more of a

> > semantic question. Anyway, when we speak of spacetime(s) we really mean

> > the mathematical model(s). How well you wish to equate the models with

> > reality depends a little on your philosophical stance. I'm somewhat of

> > a positivist myself. If the models that say we have a compact Euclidean

> > metric predict what we see, then that's reality.

> >

> > In our universe with both matter and spacetime, the vacuum is, as you

> > know, teeming with virtual particles that hop in and out of existence.

> > If we didn't let those be part of our definition of vacuum we'd have a

> > serious lack of meaning for the word (I mean, then it means something

> > that doesn't exist in this universe, why bother?), so we just cut out

> > the real particles and call what's left the vacuum. So, it's not really

> > wrong to say that the vacuum is the absence of matter, but it's using

> > two implied statements; one, that spacetime exists, and two, the

> > presence of virtual particles is still there.

> > If people don't know to

> > fill those in on their own it's a somewhat incomplete statement, hence

> > why I filled it in in the debate above to circumvent a long discussion

> > about the technicalities. Your basic point was right and that's what we

> > should focus on.

> >

> > You may be thinking of general relativity's "space tells matter how to

> > move; matter tells space how to curve". Spacetime and matter are linked

> > together like that. However, matter cannot change the topology of

> > space, merely the geometry. (Matter cannot 'cut' the fabric of

> > spacetime.) So you can have a spacetime with a certain topology (I buy

> > Hawking's argument that it's a closed Euclidean space) that adjusts

> > locally to any gravitational fields present in it.

>

> Thank YOU! Strangely enough (that's a comment on me, not you), that

> made sense to me. Well, the last paragraph I'll have to re-read a few

> times. I still haven't read Hawking's book yet, maybe that should be

> next. But I think I'm ready for the mathematics finally. Do you know of

> any introductory book for the mathematics of particle physics that you

> might recommend? Or should I just go get any old first year textbook?

 

I'm not actually in particle physics, so I haven't used a textbook

specifically centered on that subject. However, I just found <a

href="http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Elementary-Particles-David-Griffiths/dp/0471603864/sr=8-3/qid=1165957188/ref=pd_bbs_3/102-3587579-0913709?ie=UTF8&s=books">a

new book by my favorite textbook author David Griffiths on particle

physics,</a> so if I was going to pick a book I'd go with that.

Griffiths is a good writer and his books make sense to read on your

own. You may have to re-read them to really appreciate the subtleties

of what he's saying, but it's all there. (I remember realizing that

after more than a few exams - oh, look, it's exactly as he says!)

 

I'm not quite sure what you already know and what you'd like to learn,

so to save time I'll just give the recommendations that relate to

cosmology I can so you can pick what you need out of that. The

necessary math to do the physics I learnt in math classes.

 

Newtonian mechanics and calculus are an obvious match and so common you

can probably dig out a textbook that you like on your own for both if

you are interested, but it sounds like you're more curious about less

commonplace physics anyway.

 

For quantum mechanics, <a

href="http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantum-Mechanics-David-Griffiths/dp/0131118927/sr=8-2/qid=1165957188/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/102-3587579-0913709?ie=UTF8&s=books">Griffiths</a>

is a great and widely used book in introductory undergraduate classes.

A more advanced book, but harder to work from on your own, is <a

href="http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Quantum-Mechanics-Ramamurti-Shankar/dp/0306447908/sr=1-1/qid=1165957513/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-3587579-0913709?ie=UTF8&s=books">Shankar's

Principles of Quantum Mechanics</a>. It takes a higher-level view than

Griffiths, including a nice section on the path integral formulation.

However, for both, you need to know some elementary linear algebra.

Griffiths includes a primer, but I don't know how easily you can learn

what you need from just that. Any introductory linear algebra book

should be fine.

 

Special relativity is a scalar theory, so you can find it in any modern

physics textbook. You don't need much math for that. Unfortunately,

general relativity is a field theory, so you need a lot of math for

that. I haven't taken it myself, one of the things I regret about my

education. A lot of my connecting bits and pieces I've picked up from

here and there as well as popular science books on cosmology. The

Nature of Space and Time is a favorite of mine, even though I can't

rigorously follow everything. If you can read it, that's a great read.

 

Have fun!

[Guest Father Haskell]

duke wrote:

> 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?

 

Complex cause arg #99,999,543,123

[Guest Cary Kittrell]

In article <1165958247.881084.11350@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> "Father Haskell" <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> writes:

>

> duke wrote:

> > 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?

>

> Complex cause arg #99,999,543,123

 

If It Was God, It Was My God fallacy #493,481,442,988

 

 

 

-- cary

[Guest Father Haskell]

duke wrote:

> 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"?

 

Why? What will happen?

[Guest duke]

On 12 Dec 2006 13:17:27 -0800, "Father Haskell" <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> 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?

>Complex cause arg #99,999,543,123

 

Well, if not the supreme creator, then matter and energy created themselves.

 

Now that's a fine how-do-you-do.

 

duke, American-American

 

"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."

Pope Paul VI

[Guest duke]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:42:12 -0600, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote:

>>>Just maybe it always was and always will be!

>> It always.......................was??????????

>> And you're foolish enough to vote against "God did it"?

>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'.

 

Then "why is up"?

 

duke, American-American

 

"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."

Pope Paul VI

[Guest duke]

On 12 Dec 2006 13:20:09 -0800, "Father Haskell" <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >Just maybe it always was and always will be!

>> It always.......................was??????????

>> And you're foolish enough to vote against "God did it"?

>Why? What will happen?

 

Meat spoils.

 

duke, American-American

 

"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."

Pope Paul VI

[Guest duke]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 08:01:44 -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,

>No surprise there...

>> for God is the Supreme Creator.

>Bzzzzzttt. Wrong answer...

 

Then you come up with a better one.

 

duke, American-American

 

"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."

Pope Paul VI

[Guest Father Haskell]

duke wrote:

> On 12 Dec 2006 13:17:27 -0800, "Father Haskell" <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

> >> 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?

> >Complex cause arg #99,999,543,123

>

> Well, if not the supreme creator, then matter and energy created themselves.

 

Straw man.

[Guest Father Haskell]

duke wrote:

> On 12 Dec 2006 13:20:09 -0800, "Father Haskell" <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

> >> >Just maybe it always was and always will be!

> >> It always.......................was??????????

> >> And you're foolish enough to vote against "God did it"?

> >Why? What will happen?

>

> Meat spoils.

 

Not if you freeze it. But what's that got to do with god's

existance?

[Guest Samuel W. Heywood]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 tereshka@gmail.com wrote:

>

> Samuel W. Heywood wrote:

>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>>

>>> Samuel W. Heywood wrote:

>>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>> Chris wrote:

>>>>>> Christopher A.Lee wrote:

>>>>>>> 5On 12 Dec 2006 00:20:57 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>

>>>> <snip>

>>>>

>>>>> 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.

>>>>

>>>> <snip>

>>>>

>>>> For reason of your being so awed by the works of nature, some people

>>>> would call you a nature worshipper, and that your being a nature

>>>> worshipper qualifies you as being a theist.

>>>

>>> Then those people would be wrong, because I don't worship anything.

>>> Not in the religious sense. Nice try at a strawman, though.

>>

>> It is not a straw man. Theism does not require worship in the

>> religious sense, such as the practicing of rituals, like praying

>> or chanting. Worship may include simply regarding or beholding

>> something in awe.

>

> Last time I checked, theism requires belief in some deity or another.

> Unless the person in awe considers their object of awe to be a deity (I

> certainly do not consider science a deity), that's just not theism. I

> am also in awe of that the EU has managed to build so many bridges

> across old conflicts. I do not consider the EU to be a deity either.

 

Many people regard Nature as a deity.

 

Sam Heywood

-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62