Guest Budikka666 Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 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. It's impossible for a truly perfect god to create anything. The act of creation involves a change. How could complete and transcendent perfection ever change without becoming imperfect? There's no evdence whatsoever that anyone - divine or otherwise - had anything to do with the start of this universe. Some people illogically try to extrapolate physical laws which seem to hold within this universe and apply them to before the universe began by claiming that there's no effect without a cause and that a god was the cause of the universe. This is not a sign of intelligence, rationale, or logic, it's a sign of monumental stupidity. If a god created the universe, and if there can be no effect without a cause, then who or what caused the god? If the god can exist without a cause, then why, cannot the universe in some form or another? The only way to demonstrate that this universe was designed would be to compare it with two similar universes - one which we know to have been designed by a god, and the other which we know to be caused by unintelligent means and see which one it most resembled. Even that wouldn't be conclusive, but not a single theist, that I know of, has ever done this. But the fact is that we determine whether something is designed by comparing or contrasting it with things we know to have been designed. If we walk across a moor and find a watch, we don't marvel at the fine movement of its inner workings! Instead, we say, "Oh, it's a watch. Humans make watches, therefore a human most likely made this and another idiot human lost it. On the other hand, if we find a rock, we assume it's natural - no one designed it. In short, the measure of what's designed is whether or not it's natural! Anything natural is not designed. Since the universe is natural, it quite clearly isn't designed. Or it was designed by a very powerful moron. Budikka Quote
Guest tereshka@gmail.com Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 John D Newport wrote: > "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, If God is outside the realm of human knowledge, how can She reveal anything to us? Anything that She reveals to us is in the realm of human knowledge, and therefore Her will is too.. which means She is as well. Quote
Guest Chris Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 The problem isn't a presumption to know more than science, rather the presumption is what you claim is undeniable fact. You leave no room for the supernatural. You can't handle the idea of interjecting a supernatural element into your equations because then it doesn't follow the rigors of science that you so love. You also can't handle the idea of a supernatural being because then he doesn't follow your man-made definition. You know the common arguments -- if God is so loving, why would he... If he is real, then why doesn't he just show himself? Since he may decide to reveal himself in a different way than your mere mind can comprehend (in which you disagree with) you simply don't believe... And come up with this propoganda with a labyrinth of theories and pass it off as something more believable.. What happens? These lies cause people to live their entire lives without thinking a bit about God, eternity, their relationship with this God who created them, or anything of the sort. Instead they are content to follow their dreams, live life as they please, even find their own ultimate satisfaction in life in something that could very well be contrary to the very will of God. Why? Because some brilliant scientist who rejects God stated that their mathematical theorems can explain the existence of world without God and again passed it off as the whole truth, rejecting a simpler yet more profound truth, a supernatural being spoke and the universe came into existence. Admit it, this is the primary mission of your beloved Richard Dawkins are you are his followers. Chris Uncle Vic wrote: > Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Azaliah > (_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this: > > > 5) The fact is, the universe did not exist. Then it did. > > Where is your evidence to back this "fact"? Do you presume to know more > than science? > > > -- > Uncle Vic > aa Atheist #2011 > Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped > chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department. > Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 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. It is. You're projecting a god onto me, and I don't have one. You're putting words in my mouth I don't have. That's a strawman. > 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. No, holding something in awe is different, that's why it contains different words. Do you want me to rephrase it? I think nature is really really keen and I spend a lot of time being outdoors and studying it. Theism DOES require worship in the religious sense, or else it's not theism. Your worship may only go so far as to say "I believe in god," but it is religious in nature. Being in awe isn't religious worship, or else every single North AMerican in their 20's are constantly in a state of religious fervour, because every single thing is "awesome" to them. Quote
Guest Uncle Vic Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Chris (look2god@gmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this: <TOP POST FIXED - You're welcome> > Uncle Vic wrote: >> Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Azaliah >> (_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this: >> >> > 5) The fact is, the universe did not exist. Then it did. >> >> Where is your evidence to back this "fact"? Do you presume to know >> more than science? >> > The problem isn't a presumption to know more than science, rather the > presumption is what you claim is undeniable fact. You leave no room > for the supernatural. There is no supernatural. > You can't handle the idea of interjecting a > supernatural element into your equations because then it doesn't follow > the rigors of science that you so love. No, the science that is . Face it, sparky, science backs its claims with evidence. Where is your evidence for the supernatural? If you have some, you could win Randi's million. > You also can't handle the idea > of a supernatural being because then he doesn't follow your man-made > definition. You know the common arguments -- if God is so loving, why > would he... If he is real, then why doesn't he just show himself? > Since he may decide to reveal himself in a different way than your mere > mind can comprehend (in which you disagree with) you simply don't > believe... And come up with this propoganda with a labyrinth of > theories and pass it off as something more believable.. What happens? > These lies cause people to live their entire lives without thinking a > bit about God, eternity, their relationship with this God who created > them, or anything of the sort. Instead they are content to follow > their dreams, live life as they please, even find their own ultimate > satisfaction in life in something that could very well be contrary to > the very will of God. Why? Because some brilliant scientist who > rejects God stated that their mathematical theorems can explain the > existence of world without God and again passed it off as the whole > truth, rejecting a simpler yet more profound truth, a supernatural > being spoke and the universe came into existence. Admit it, this is > the primary mission of your beloved Richard Dawkins are you are his > followers. > Delusional gibberish. -- Uncle Vic aa Atheist #2011 Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department. Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > 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. Just because many people think something doesn't mean they are correct. The truth is not a popularity contest. Quote
Guest Jim07D6 Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> said: > > > >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 <...> That's bound to get somebody to object, if there are any other readers. > >>> 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. In other words? I don't follow the logic. > >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. If you are sure that you would become a sociopath, then, keep the faith, baby. ;-) > >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. > It doesn't matter to me whether the universe continues. I have standards. <...> >> 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. Have you ever considered the possibility that when you were a kid you were riding your bike and were killed by a Buick, but at that instant you were transported to an afterlife in which you survive, and everything else is the same as it would have been? Having been knocked a ways down the road by a Buick when I was nine, and survived (or so I think) might explain this notion. So, in my world, the hereafter starts now, at every instant. This is my afterlife, and I find that am reaping what I have sown. Isn't that the same as you are saying? Or isn't it the apparent injustice in the world that inspires 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 > I will withhold judgement until after I meet my next Buick. ;-) -- Jim07D6 Quote
Guest Jim07D6 Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 "Father Haskell" <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> said: > >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? God-meat doesn't spoil? -- Jim07D6 Quote
Guest Christopher A.Lee Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 On 12 Dec 2006 14:30:31 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: >The problem isn't a presumption to know more than science, rather the >presumption is what you claim is undeniable fact. Liar. > You leave no room >for the supernatural. Liar. > You can't handle the idea of interjecting a >supernatural element into your equations because then it doesn't follow >the rigors of science that you so love. Liar. > You also can't handle the idea >of a supernatural being because then he doesn't follow your man-made >definition. Liar. > You know the common arguments -- if God is so loving, why >would he... If he is real, then why doesn't he just show himself? No, moron, those are your caricatures. >Since he may decide to reveal himself in a different way than your mere Prove it exists to do that, moron. >mind can comprehend (in which you disagree with) you simply don't Liar. >believe... And come up with this propoganda with a labyrinth of >theories and pass it off as something more believable.. What happens? Liar. > These lies cause people to live their entire lives without thinking a The only lies are yours, liar. >bit about God, eternity, their relationship with this God who created >them, or anything of the sort. Liar. > Instead they are content to follow >their dreams, live life as they please, even find their own ultimate >satisfaction in life in something that could very well be contrary to >the very will of God. Liar. > Why? Because some brilliant scientist who >rejects God stated that their mathematical theorems can explain the >existence of world without God and again passed it off as the whole >truth, rejecting a simpler yet more profound truth, a supernatural >being spoke and the universe came into existence. Liar. > Admit it, this is >the primary mission of your beloved Richard Dawkins are you are his >followers. Liar. >Chris Have you no honesty, liar? Quote
Guest farentilmaren@gmail.com Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 josh skrev: > 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. And how long was he sitting idle before he started? Fatter'n Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Neil Kelsey 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. > > It is. You're projecting a god onto me, and I don't have one. You're > putting words in my mouth I don't have. That's a strawman. Nobody is projecting a god onto you. I am just telling you that some people regard nature as being some kind of deity. If you don't think of nature as a deity, then that's OK. Nobody can order you to think of nature as a deity. >> 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. > > No, holding something in awe is different, that's why it contains > different words. Do you want me to rephrase it? I think nature is > really really keen and I spend a lot of time being outdoors and > studying it. > > Theism DOES require worship in the religious sense, or else it's not > theism. Your worship may only go so far as to say "I believe in god," > but it is religious in nature. Being in awe isn't religious worship, or > else every single North AMerican in their 20's are constantly in a > state of religious fervour, because every single thing is "awesome" to > them. Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest AcesLucky Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 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? > > duke, American-American > > "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI > You are confusing existence with the universe. The universe came from the expansion called the big bang. The matter / energy has ALWAYS existed. Existence is eternal. The universe is temporal. Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Chris wrote: > The problem isn't a presumption to know more than science, rather the > presumption is what you claim is undeniable fact. You leave no room > for the supernatural. You can't handle the idea of interjecting a > supernatural element into your equations because then it doesn't follow > the rigors of science that you so love. Wrong. It has nothing to do with emotions like love. The reason the supernatural is not included in science is because there is no evidence for it. What exactly are the equations for the supernatural? > You also can't handle the idea of a supernatural being because then he doesn't follow your man-made definition. The atheist defintion of god is "imaginary super being." All we are doing is pointing out logical holes in god as defined by theists. Perhaps you have your own definition of god, let's examine that. > You know the common arguments -- if God is so loving, why > would he... If he is real, then why doesn't he just show himself? > Since he may decide to reveal himself in a different way than your mere > mind can comprehend (in which you disagree with) you simply don't > believe... And come up with this propoganda with a labyrinth of > theories and pass it off as something more believable.. Man, you just string one fallacy after the other, don't you? > What happens? > These lies cause people to live their entire lives without thinking a > bit about God, eternity, their relationship with this God who created > them, or anything of the sort. You're on a bleeding atheist newsgroup where that's exactly what we talk about. You just don't like our answers. > Instead they are content to follow > their dreams, live life as they please, even find their own ultimate > satisfaction in life I know I snipped the end of your sentence, but this is the best sentence you've written so far! Don't spoil it! > in something that could very well be contrary to > the very will of God. Awwwww. Oh well, nice try. > Why? Because some brilliant scientist who > rejects God stated that their mathematical theorems can explain the > existence of world without God and again passed it off as the whole > truth, rejecting a simpler yet more profound truth, a supernatural > being spoke and the universe came into existence. Admit it, this is > the primary mission of your beloved Richard Dawkins are you are his > followers. Richard Dawkins has the shit scared out of you, doesn't he? Look. Dawkins is just a regular human being. He eats, drinks, shits, and fucks just like the rest of us. What is it with people like you who think you can't agree with someone without becoming their sheep? Quote
Guest Chris Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 I'm sorry you disagree. It is good that your fallacies are exposed through this dialogue though, if any good comes of it... The best you can do it call me a liar and yet provide no conclusive evidence to support your claims which doesn't make one jump through many many hoops. Have a good day. Chris Neil Kelsey wrote: > Chris wrote: > > The problem isn't a presumption to know more than science, rather the > > presumption is what you claim is undeniable fact. You leave no room > > for the supernatural. You can't handle the idea of interjecting a > > supernatural element into your equations because then it doesn't follow > > the rigors of science that you so love. > > Wrong. It has nothing to do with emotions like love. The reason the > supernatural is not included in science is because there is no evidence > for it. What exactly are the equations for the supernatural? > > > You also can't handle the idea of a supernatural being because then he doesn't follow your > man-made definition. > > The atheist defintion of god is "imaginary super being." All we are > doing is pointing out logical holes in god as defined by theists. > Perhaps you have your own definition of god, let's examine that. > > > You know the common arguments -- if God is so loving, why > > would he... If he is real, then why doesn't he just show himself? > > Since he may decide to reveal himself in a different way than your mere > > mind can comprehend (in which you disagree with) you simply don't > > believe... And come up with this propoganda with a labyrinth of > > theories and pass it off as something more believable.. > > Man, you just string one fallacy after the other, don't you? > > > What happens? > > These lies cause people to live their entire lives without thinking a > > bit about God, eternity, their relationship with this God who created > > them, or anything of the sort. > > You're on a bleeding atheist newsgroup where that's exactly what we > talk about. You just don't like our answers. > > > Instead they are content to follow > > their dreams, live life as they please, even find their own ultimate > > satisfaction in life > > I know I snipped the end of your sentence, but this is the best > sentence you've written so far! Don't spoil it! > > > in something that could very well be contrary to > > the very will of God. > > Awwwww. Oh well, nice try. > > > Why? Because some brilliant scientist who > > rejects God stated that their mathematical theorems can explain the > > existence of world without God and again passed it off as the whole > > truth, rejecting a simpler yet more profound truth, a supernatural > > being spoke and the universe came into existence. Admit it, this is > > the primary mission of your beloved Richard Dawkins are you are his > > followers. > > Richard Dawkins has the shit scared out of you, doesn't he? Look. > Dawkins is just a regular human being. He eats, drinks, shits, and > fucks just like the rest of us. What is it with people like you who > think you can't agree with someone without becoming their sheep? Quote
Guest Christopher A.Lee Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 On 12 Dec 2006 15:34:33 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: >I'm sorry you disagree. It is good that your fallacies are exposed >through >this dialogue though, if any good comes of it... The best you can >do it call me a liar and yet provide no conclusive evidence to support >your claims which doesn't make one jump through many many hoops. You're only called a liar for your lies. If you don't like it, stop whining and stop lying. Every single sentence of your article to which Neil was replying was a lie. So stop pretending. >Have a good day. >Chris > >Neil Kelsey wrote: >> Chris wrote: >> > The problem isn't a presumption to know more than science, rather the >> > presumption is what you claim is undeniable fact. You leave no room >> > for the supernatural. You can't handle the idea of interjecting a >> > supernatural element into your equations because then it doesn't follow >> > the rigors of science that you so love. >> >> Wrong. It has nothing to do with emotions like love. The reason the >> supernatural is not included in science is because there is no evidence >> for it. What exactly are the equations for the supernatural? >> >> > You also can't handle the idea of a supernatural being because then he doesn't follow your >> man-made definition. >> >> The atheist defintion of god is "imaginary super being." All we are >> doing is pointing out logical holes in god as defined by theists. >> Perhaps you have your own definition of god, let's examine that. >> >> > You know the common arguments -- if God is so loving, why >> > would he... If he is real, then why doesn't he just show himself? >> > Since he may decide to reveal himself in a different way than your mere >> > mind can comprehend (in which you disagree with) you simply don't >> > believe... And come up with this propoganda with a labyrinth of >> > theories and pass it off as something more believable.. >> >> Man, you just string one fallacy after the other, don't you? >> >> > What happens? >> > These lies cause people to live their entire lives without thinking a >> > bit about God, eternity, their relationship with this God who created >> > them, or anything of the sort. >> >> You're on a bleeding atheist newsgroup where that's exactly what we >> talk about. You just don't like our answers. >> >> > Instead they are content to follow >> > their dreams, live life as they please, even find their own ultimate >> > satisfaction in life >> >> I know I snipped the end of your sentence, but this is the best >> sentence you've written so far! Don't spoil it! >> >> > in something that could very well be contrary to >> > the very will of God. >> >> Awwwww. Oh well, nice try. >> >> > Why? Because some brilliant scientist who >> > rejects God stated that their mathematical theorems can explain the >> > existence of world without God and again passed it off as the whole >> > truth, rejecting a simpler yet more profound truth, a supernatural >> > being spoke and the universe came into existence. Admit it, this is >> > the primary mission of your beloved Richard Dawkins are you are his >> > followers. >> >> Richard Dawkins has the shit scared out of you, doesn't he? Look. >> Dawkins is just a regular human being. He eats, drinks, shits, and >> fucks just like the rest of us. What is it with people like you who >> think you can't agree with someone without becoming their sheep? Quote
Guest Father Haskell Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Jim07D6 wrote: > "Father Haskell" <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> said: > > > > >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? > > God-meat doesn't spoil? > -- Jim07D6 That, it does. The _real_ first easter should have read like Vault of Horror. Imagine the zombie jesus, trudging through frightened onlookers' front yards, bits and pieces dropping off onto their driveways, everything from dandruff-sized flakes to His entire jawbone when he trips over a hedge, or an unleashed wild local cocker spaniel running home with zombie hayzeuss' twitching ankle held proudly high. Imagine the monster trying to limp along on peg and foot, absolutely unaware of its physical condition. You can't just hose the bits down the nearest storm grating, either. The relics would be way too valuable. Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Chris wrote: > I'm sorry you disagree. It is good that your fallacies are exposed > through > this dialogue though, if any good comes of it... What fallacies? > The best you can > do it call me a liar Where did I ever call you a liar? > and yet provide no conclusive evidence to support > your claims which doesn't make one jump through many many hoops. I'm sorry if you regard cracking open a book and studying as jumping through hoops. I'm beginning to think that theism is another word for intellectuall laziness. We've read your Bible, why can't you show a little curiousity? > Have a good day. > Chris > > Neil Kelsey wrote: > > Chris wrote: > > > The problem isn't a presumption to know more than science, rather the > > > presumption is what you claim is undeniable fact. You leave no room > > > for the supernatural. You can't handle the idea of interjecting a > > > supernatural element into your equations because then it doesn't follow > > > the rigors of science that you so love. > > > > Wrong. It has nothing to do with emotions like love. The reason the > > supernatural is not included in science is because there is no evidence > > for it. What exactly are the equations for the supernatural? > > > > > You also can't handle the idea of a supernatural being because then he doesn't follow your > > man-made definition. > > > > The atheist defintion of god is "imaginary super being." All we are > > doing is pointing out logical holes in god as defined by theists. > > Perhaps you have your own definition of god, let's examine that. > > > > > You know the common arguments -- if God is so loving, why > > > would he... If he is real, then why doesn't he just show himself? > > > Since he may decide to reveal himself in a different way than your mere > > > mind can comprehend (in which you disagree with) you simply don't > > > believe... And come up with this propoganda with a labyrinth of > > > theories and pass it off as something more believable.. > > > > Man, you just string one fallacy after the other, don't you? > > > > > What happens? > > > These lies cause people to live their entire lives without thinking a > > > bit about God, eternity, their relationship with this God who created > > > them, or anything of the sort. > > > > You're on a bleeding atheist newsgroup where that's exactly what we > > talk about. You just don't like our answers. > > > > > Instead they are content to follow > > > their dreams, live life as they please, even find their own ultimate > > > satisfaction in life > > > > I know I snipped the end of your sentence, but this is the best > > sentence you've written so far! Don't spoil it! > > > > > in something that could very well be contrary to > > > the very will of God. > > > > Awwwww. Oh well, nice try. > > > > > Why? Because some brilliant scientist who > > > rejects God stated that their mathematical theorems can explain the > > > existence of world without God and again passed it off as the whole > > > truth, rejecting a simpler yet more profound truth, a supernatural > > > being spoke and the universe came into existence. Admit it, this is > > > the primary mission of your beloved Richard Dawkins are you are his > > > followers. > > > > Richard Dawkins has the shit scared out of you, doesn't he? Look. > > Dawkins is just a regular human being. He eats, drinks, shits, and > > fucks just like the rest of us. What is it with people like you who > > think you can't agree with someone without becoming their sheep? Quote
Guest tereshka@gmail.com Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Bill M kirjoitti: > "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! That's not really compatibe with observation. If the universe had always existed, the night sky would be bright, as all lines of sight would end on a star whose light had had time to reach us. Furthermore, the universe would be much closer to thermal equilibrium - stars do not burn forever. The fact that they are still burning tells us the universe hasn't existed forever. Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar tried to argue for a steady-state theory of the universe, by introducing the idea that some matter is created all the time to keep the universe approximately in the state it's in, but not only is violation of energy conservation dodgy++ scientifically, observations have nailed the last nail in that coffin. Quote
Guest tereshka@gmail.com Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Samuel W. Heywood kirjoitti: > 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 But I never said I did. I just said I think nature is awesome. That's not a statement of ascribing divinity to it. Quote
Guest Uncle Vic Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Chris (look2god@gmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this: > I'm sorry you disagree. It is good that your fallacies are exposed > through > this dialogue though, if any good comes of it... It would be even better if you could point them out. > The best you can > do it call me a liar and yet provide no conclusive evidence to support > your claims which doesn't make one jump through many many hoops. Fallacy: Shifting the burden of proof. Look it up some time. > > Have a good day. > Chris Stop top-posting. -- Uncle Vic aa Atheist #2011 Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department. Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page Quote
Guest tereshka@gmail.com Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Chris kirjoitti: > The problem isn't a presumption to know more than science, rather the > presumption is what you claim is undeniable fact. You mean as opposed to Christians, who do not feel that they know undeniable facts about the world? You leave no room > for the supernatural. You can't handle the idea of interjecting a > supernatural element into your equations because then it doesn't follow > the rigors of science that you so love. You do realize that per definition, something supernatural breaks the laws of science? Perhaps you meant 'irrational'. Very, very few scientists (I've never met any) think that science can answer all questions any more than political scientists believe that politics can answer all questions, or linguists think that understanding language will answer all questions. If you don't like science, then perhaps you can suggest a better way of gathering understanding about the natural world. (I'd like to remind you that the computer you're typing on wasn't brought to you by religion.) You also can't handle the idea > of a supernatural being because then he doesn't follow your man-made > definition. You know the common arguments -- if God is so loving, why > would he... If he is real, then why doesn't he just show himself? > Since he may decide to reveal himself in a different way than your mere > mind can comprehend (in which you disagree with) you simply don't > believe... And come up with this propoganda with a labyrinth of > theories and pass it off as something more believable.. What happens? > These lies cause people to live their entire lives without thinking a > bit about God, eternity, their relationship with this God who created > them, or anything of the sort. Instead they are content to follow > their dreams, live life as they please, even find their own ultimate > satisfaction in life in something that could very well be contrary to > the very will of God. Why? Because some brilliant scientist who > rejects God stated that their mathematical theorems can explain the > existence of world without God and again passed it off as the whole > truth, rejecting a simpler yet more profound truth, a supernatural > being spoke and the universe came into existence. Admit it, this is > the primary mission of your beloved Richard Dawkins are you are his > followers. This is probably a stupid question, but did Dawkins write a book or something? Here's a less stupid question: How does one measure degree of profoundness of truths? How do you know which truths are more profound than others? > Chris > > Uncle Vic wrote: > > Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Azaliah > > (_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this: > > > > > 5) The fact is, the universe did not exist. Then it did. > > > > Where is your evidence to back this "fact"? Do you presume to know more > > than science? > > > > > > -- > > Uncle Vic > > aa Atheist #2011 > > Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped > > chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department. > > Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page Quote
Guest Uncle Vic Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Chris (look2god@gmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this: > > 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. Them's fightin' words. What do we believe? What do we worship? Atheism is no more a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby. How can you be so fucking stupid? -- Uncle Vic aa Atheist #2011 Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department. Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 tereshka@gmail.com wrote: > 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! I will, and I can't thank you enough. I'm currently on a biology kick, but I think I'll switch back to physics. So much to know, so little time... In the meantime, did you ever see Annie Hall? When some guy was pontificating about Marshall MacLuhan (sp?) in a movie lineup and Woody Allen produces the actual Marshall MacLuhan to set the guy straight? Well, consider yourself drafted for future arguments like these. If you don't mind. Quote
Guest Infinity (TEXT & HTML) Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 tereshka@gmail.com wrote: > Bill M kirjoitti: > > >> "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? (That is an assumption) >>> >>> >> Just maybe it always was and always will be! (That is an observation) >> > > That's not really compatibe with observation. If the universe had > always existed, the night sky would be bright, as all lines of sight > would end on a star whose light had had time to reach us. Furthermore, > the universe would be much closer to thermal equilibrium - stars do not > burn forever. The fact that they are still burning tells us the > universe hasn't existed forever. Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar tried > to argue for a steady-state theory of the universe, by introducing the > idea that some matter is created all the time to keep the universe > approximately in the state it's in, but not only is violation of energy > conservation dodgy++ scientifically, observations have nailed the last > nail in that coffin. > > Thus Spake: G O D S C R E A T O R Your observation are your _own_ sense of reality. Infinity means infinite, something most finite minds have trouble conceiving it's simplicity, because it's too simple... :-D BEGINNING... ENDING, those concepts are human creations. like handles on something that's difficult to grasp. Everything must continually change... including the universe. God's Creator! (I am Life & Death) 8-) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Wise men study the unknown and mysterious things to enhance their wisdom, while frightened men shout, kneel down, close their eyes and mumble... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in news:kk8un29o1orinrhn7gcj4g652qccl0pcqt@4ax.com: > 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. False dichotomy. Implied special pleading. Strawman. Three logical fallacies in one sentence. I'll be impressed if you can manage four. Klazmon. > > Now that's a fine how-do-you-do. > > duke, American-American > > "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI > > 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.