Guest Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Jim07D6 <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in news:5gcun25llb88ge08g6a45n01lfqm49a089@4ax.com: > "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? Not if well cooked. Tastes a bit like chicken ;-). Klazmon. > -- Jim07D6 Quote
Guest Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote in news:1165901185.755707.252160@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > 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! 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. Laws of physics are just our descriptions of how nature is observed to work. You are making the same fundamental error as the primtive savage who proposed the existence of an angry god to explain thunder and lightning. You don't know/understand phenomena X therfore god Y. It is the most idiotic of all non sequiturs known as the appeal to ignorance error. The primitive savage had the excuse of not having access to a modern education. You on the other hand have no such excuse and show yourself to be a brain dead moron. Klazmon <SNIP nonsense> Quote
Guest Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote in news:1165914174.522924.327490 @n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com: > > Christopher A.Lee wrote: >> 5On 12 Dec 2006 00:20:57 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >Thank you for your lengthy answer. I'm actually very relieved that >> >these >> >are the best simple arguments you both can come up with. They seem >> >pretty >> >out there to me. I can only urge you to take a deeper look inside your >> > >> >soal. At the end of your life, you are going to end up feeling pretty >> >empty and still left with many questions... This life offers so much >> >more through a trusting relationship with Christ. >> >> The moronoic empty threat of part of your mythology for not believing >> the rest of it. What is it with you lunatics? > > Lets see, I just checked the headers. They span groups with religion > and > atheism. Atheism is just another religion anyhow. Just as being bald is a color of hair. Klazmon. <SNIP> Quote
Guest Chris Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Neil Kelsey wrote: > 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? > I'm sorry, this statement was actually directed towards Mr. Lee. > > 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? > I think if you do a careful study you will find some very intellectual people who support the view that God created the universe. I do have curiousity for these things. I just think you should think carefully about basing your eternity on something that is intellectually curious without substantial proof and have an open mind to something beyond your mathematical theorems which seem to be way out there... Particularly when it is conceivable that a supernatural being who transends the laws of physics could have created the universe. > > 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 Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Azaliah <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote in news:9bqtn2p5bnh264cmmgpvmblk5qqlthrhll@4ax.com: > On 11 Dec 2006 23:37:53 -0800, while bungee jumping, > tereshka@gmail.com shouted thusly: > > >>> > What preceded the known universe? A vacuum sounds reasonable. A >>> > vacuum is an absence of matter. >>> >>> I assume by a vacuum you mean nothing? Or is a vacuum a special kind >>> of nothing? >> >>By vacuum we mean spacetime in the absence of so-called real matter >>particles. As a consequence of the uncertaintly principle, the energy >>of spacetime cannot be exactly zero. (If it's zero, then it's not very >>uncertain, is it?) Spacetime is not nothing, but is implied at least to >>me in Neil's post. > > This is fantasy that you are applying to a so called, > "space/time" before the universe existed, even though > before the universe existed, there supposedly wouldn't > be any laws of physics, Laws of physics are just human descriptions of how nature works. We know that our descriptions don't work for the early epoch of the universe around the Planck time. That doesn't mean that nature doesn't work just that we don't have an adequate description. Going from we don't know/understand to goddidit is the appeal to ignorance fallacy. > which the Big Bangers are >> forced to acknowledge, since they know it couldn't > have happened given the laws of physics and thus, > there wouldn't have been any "space/time" anyway. Thanks for telling us about your ignorance of science. It is kind of entertaining in a trivial sort of way but sad to consider a wasted mind. Klazmon. <SNIP> Quote
Guest Douglas Berry Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 On 12 Dec 2006 05:55:18 -0800 "codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> said the following in alt.atheism and I was immediately reminded of 1,000 Chinchillas singing Handel's "Messiah" for some reason... > Moses told us not to investigate what God in his wisdom did not > reveal. Since God did not reveal how he spent his time before > creation, the rest will be just speculation. We don't want to >speculate as Darwinian do about the big bang and all other lies that they make >up. Evolution has nothing to do with Cosmology. And you ( are free not to ask questions. Those of us with brains will continue to do so. -- Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5 Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011 "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein Quote
Guest John D Newport Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 <tereshka@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1165962627.069420.36940@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > 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. > I was trying to communicate to this person with the assumption that they may deny spiritually provided information, including the information provided in the Bible. I was also focusing on the subjects that he wants to discuss or argue about. As I wrote before, I can only write of those things that have been revealed in his word. Have a good night Quote
Guest The Chief Instigator Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes: >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. ....or it could be another process that created matter and energy, without the intervention of your alleged god. (Not that you've got the spine to own up to that possibility.) >Now that's a fine how-do-you-do. If there's a more perfect illustration of that than you, Earl Weber, it hasn't yet been discerned. -- Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) LAST GAME: Omaha 4, Houston 3 (SO) (December 9) NEXT GAME: Wednesday, December 13 vs. Manitoba, 7:05 Quote
Guest Scott Richter Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote: > >> >> Then what created the universe? > >> >Presuming the answer you're hoping for is "God", then what created God? > >> >Aren't these Sunday school games fun? > >> Yes they are, > >No surprise there... > > >> for God is the Supreme Creator. > >Bzzzzzttt. Wrong answer... > > Then you come up with a better one. Here's a far, far better one for two reasons, (1) it avoids all religious nonsense, and (2) it's true: Nobody knows. > duke, American-American Idiot-Idiot > > "The Ass is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul LXIX > Quote
Guest Scott Richter Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 duke <duckgumbo32@cox.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"? And you're foolish enough to vote against "Thor did it"? "Zeus did it"? "Flying Spaghetti Monster did it"? etc., etc., etc... It's been said countless times, but you really are an idiot's idiot... > duke, American-American Idiot-Idiot > > "The Ass is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul LXIX > Quote
Guest Scott Richter Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> 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. Idiot arg #486,233,229,504... > duke, American-American Idiot-Idiot > > "The Ass is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul LXIX > Quote
Guest justme Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 duke wrote: > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 19:35:11 -0800, scottrichter422@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) > wrote: > > >>>Then what created the universe? >> >>Presuming the answer you're hoping for is "God", then what created God? >>Aren't these Sunday school games fun? > > > Yes they are, for God is the Supreme Creator. > > You did not answer the first question. Repeating: if God created the universe then what (or who) created God? Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Chris wrote: > Neil Kelsey wrote: > > 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? > > > > I'm sorry, this statement was actually directed towards Mr. Lee. > > > > 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? > > > > I think if you do a careful study you will find some very intellectual > people who support the view that God created the universe. See now, that's a fallacy. Do you understand that? That is an appeal to authority, only in this case your authorities are some unnamed "intellectuals." What field are they in? And most importantly, DO THEY HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE? You can be as intellectual as you want, but without evidence to support your claims, their claims are irrelevant. > I do have > curiousity for these things. I just think you should think carefully > about basing your eternity on something that is intellectually curious > without substantial proof There is substantial proof. There is no doubt the Earth will end. It's the second law of thermodynamics. In a closed system (the Earth), entropy (chaos) increases. That is the laws of physics, and they are universal. The Sun WILL die out, the Earth along with it. Don't worry, it won't happen anytime soon. > and have an open mind to something beyond > your mathematical theorems which seem to be > way out there... They are not way out there. They are real and true. Pick up a textbook, learn something, the real world is much more fascinating than the make believe one. > Particularly when it is conceivable that a > supernatural being who transends the laws of physics could have created > the universe. That is conceivable only in the human imagination. In the real world, the supernatural violates the laws of physics, and the laws of physics cannot be violated. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 On 11 Dec 2006 23:09:16 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: >Neil Kelsey wrote: >> Chris wrote: >> > Bill M wrote: >> 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? It wasn't a vacuum. A vacuum is a volume of space with nothing in it. Before the universe formed there was no space for a vacuum to be in. The Big Bank wasn't an explosion, it was the beginning of "place". >> However, there are particles that are called >> virtual particles, and these particles are found in vacuums. >So there is something inside of nothing? Virtual particles form spontaneously. They have nothing to do with vacuum. >> > Now consider a God who _created_ a closed system which has time, space, >> > and all the laws of physics that accompany what we observe. Where would this God have been, before there was any "place" to be in? Before there was everything (what we call "the universe"), there was no "place" to be in. >> HIlarious. You just dismissed the laws of physics in one paragraph and >> resurrect it with God in charge in the next. >Absolutely, you don't agree? Of course not. Before there was anything there was something? That's meaningless word salad. >> There is no evidence whatsoever for your God. Besides that, What are >> the chances that the first thing to form would be a super intelligent >> super powerful super evolved being? Well, the chances are zero. >Why does he have to form? I just said that God is outside of this >closed system where everything has to form. If it's a closed system nothing outside it can have any effect on what's inside it. That's what "closed system" means. But if the universe is "all that exists" (and that's what the word means), where is this god if he's not in the universe? He's somewhere other than everywhere? Where's that? >> > Think about it. If you have a eternal, infinite God, why couldn't he created >> > a closed system that contains time and space and operates according to >> > certain laws.. >> First you have to provide evidence this omnipresent yet reclusive super >> being exists. You'd think it would be easy, him being so ever present >> and all. >In this thread, I'm not trying to prove through evidence that God >exists, only that it is more plausible to believe the God exists. More plausible to believe that a god exists in a place that doesn't exist (some place other than everywhere) than that nothing, including gods, exists in a non-existent place? It's not only not plausible - it's logical nonsense. Your god exists in a place that doesn't exist? That would mean that the god you're defining also doesn't exist. >[although I would like to convince you that God exists.] Claiming that it exists in a place that doesn't exist isn't going to do that. >> > Since God is outside this closed this, He doesn't have >> > to operate under these same laws; after all, he created the laws. No, people created the laws. But you don't understand what "physical law" means. >> > Thus he doesn't really need a beginning. There you go, totally destroying the claim that the universe is too complex to not have been created. If that's true then an even more complex god is much too complex to exist without being created. If God is less complex than the universe, he couldn't have created it. So either the universe didn't need a creator, or the creator needed one too. >> > After all, he created the law as part of this closed system BZZT! WRONG! The laws aren't prescriptive laws that were created, they're descriptive theories that were observed - by people. >> > that requires that everything has a beginning In the no place in which the universe was formed? How could you possibly know that? You were in that noplace? Claiming that the laws of this universe were in effect in that no place is just making things up. >> > (cause/effect), but only in this closed system that we live. Since the universe didn't form in itself, the laws of the universe don't apply to the formation of the universe. Your "logic" leaves a lot to be desired. Like some actual logic. >> If he bothered to exist, God would have to be a closed system and >> subject to the laws of physics. >Not true, as I stated above... He would be eternal and infinite and not subject to >any laws of physics. If he were inside the universe he would be subject to the laws of the universe, because that's the nature of reality. If he wasn't subject to the laws of the universe, because he was outside it (and that's the only way he could be "not subject to" them), he couldn't interact with the inside if it's a closed system. If it's not a closed system your entire "closed system" theory is void. >He created these laws of physics in our closed system of >time and space. Again, there are two problems with that. 1) Something outside a closed system can't affect the inside of that system. 2) The laws of the universe aren't created, they're observed. >> You learned a phrase, "closed system," >> but don't grasp what it means. Kinda reminds me of when my New Age >> ex-wife and her gang of luddites discovered computers. Suddenly they >> were "networking" and talking about "interfacing." Get a real education >> instead of trying to impress people with jargon. >Why you don't like my terminology? Because you're using it without understanding anything about it. The same with the phrase "laws of the universe". You have no idea what they are. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith." - Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest tereshka@gmail.com Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Neil Kelsey kirjoitti: > 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. I can try. As you say, so much to know and so little time. I may not know everything about physics, but perhaps someone else can correct my mistakes. (And by correct, I don't mean reject because they don't like it, of course.) I thought of a few other books you might want to read - one relevant and easy to read, two textbooks on subjects unrelated to the discussions here but related in the large scale to cosmology. If you haven't already read it, John Gribbin's In Search of Schroedinger's Cat is a great history of quantum mechanics that introduces you to key concepts as it goes. While it's not rigorous, it's the kind of book I loved as a kid. Well written, informative, but doesn't require a working off-the-top-of-your-head knowledge of mathematics. Some hard-core professors may disagree with me here, but I think it's a nice complement to rigorous study. Helps you keep your head above all the computation. (Which, if you're working on your own, is far from trivial. I admire you for trying - not many people would.) Hawking's two pop science books are nice too, they make great bedside reading. The two textbooks are Kittel's books on thermodynamics and statistical mechanics (http://www.amazon.com/Thermal-Physics-2nd-Charles-Kittel/dp/0716710889/sr=8-3/qid=1165989352/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/102-7977088-7008147?ie=UTF8&s=books) and then solid state physics (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Solid-Physics-Charles-Kittel/dp/0471111813/sr=8-4/qid=1165989352/ref=pd_bbs_4/102-7977088-7008147?ie=UTF8&s=books). I don't know if you are interested in thermo and stat mech, but if you are, those are books I loved working from Quote
Guest Chris Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Neil Kelsey wrote: > Chris wrote: > > Neil Kelsey wrote: > > > 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? > > > > > > > I'm sorry, this statement was actually directed towards Mr. Lee. > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > I think if you do a careful study you will find some very intellectual > > people who support the view that God created the universe. > > See now, that's a fallacy. Do you understand that? That is an appeal to > authority, only in this case your authorities are some unnamed > "intellectuals." What field are they in? And most importantly, DO THEY > HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE? You can be as > intellectual as you want, but without evidence to support your claims, > their claims are irrelevant. > No, it is an appeal to open your mind up to other explanations to what happen prior to 10 ^-43 seconds after the Big Bang and find a plausible theory. > > I do have > > curiousity for these things. I just think you should think carefully > > about basing your eternity on something that is intellectually curious > > without substantial proof > > There is substantial proof. There is no doubt the Earth will end. It's > the second law of thermodynamics. In a closed system (the Earth), > entropy (chaos) increases. That is the laws of physics, and they are > universal. The Sun WILL die out, the Earth along with it. Don't worry, > it won't happen anytime soon. > Agree,all your laws of physics do work in this closed system. My contention is that God is outside of this system and created these laws, like the second law of thermodynamics... You contend that there is some vacuum of nothing which contains something... Come on, listen to yourself. Maybe the first step to you finding God is for you to realize that these theorems of yours won't work, so keep studying... Maybe then, you'll begin your search for God. Until then, have a good night. Chris > > and have an open mind to something beyond > > your mathematical theorems which seem to be > > way out there... > > They are not way out there. They are real and true. Pick up a textbook, > learn something, the real world is much more fascinating than the make > believe one. > > > Particularly when it is conceivable that a > > supernatural being who transends the laws of physics could have created > > the universe. > > That is conceivable only in the human imagination. In the real world, > the supernatural violates the laws of physics, and the laws of physics > cannot be violated. Quote
Guest Ron Baker, Pluralitas! Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 "John D Newport" <johndnewport@valornet.com> wrote in message news:b63a4$457f6da3$d861bc26$6086@ALLTEL.NET... > > <tereshka@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1165962627.069420.36940@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >> John D Newport wrote: >>> "josh" <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message >>> news:k_mdnUJkoIF4fODYnZ2dnUVZ8qm3nZ2d@eclipse.net.uk... <snip> >> >> 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. >> > > I was trying to communicate to this person with the assumption that they > may deny spiritually provided information, including the information > provided in the Bible. I was also focusing on the subjects that he wants > to discuss or argue about. What is spiritually provided information? How is the Bible spiritually provided information? What value is spiritually provided information? -- rb Quote
Guest Chris Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Al Klein wrote: > On 11 Dec 2006 23:09:16 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: > > >Neil Kelsey wrote: > >> Chris wrote: > >> > Bill M wrote: > > >> 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? > > It wasn't a vacuum. A vacuum is a volume of space with nothing in it. > Before the universe formed there was no space for a vacuum to be in. > The Big Bank wasn't an explosion, it was the beginning of "place". > > >> However, there are particles that are called > >> virtual particles, and these particles are found in vacuums. > > >So there is something inside of nothing? > > Virtual particles form spontaneously. They have nothing to do with > vacuum. > > >> > Now consider a God who _created_ a closed system which has time, space, > >> > and all the laws of physics that accompany what we observe. > > Where would this God have been, before there was any "place" to be in? > Before there was everything (what we call "the universe"), there was > no "place" to be in. First, who says this supernatural being has to be part of any time and space. If you can assume that a virtual particle goes in and out of existence, why can I assume that God can't be seen in existence, yet He is there... It actually builds a stronger argument for God. And for your argument, it still seems far fetches to think that these virtual particles came from nothing. > > >> HIlarious. You just dismissed the laws of physics in one paragraph and > >> resurrect it with God in charge in the next. > > >Absolutely, you don't agree? > > Of course not. Before there was anything there was something? That's > meaningless word salad. > > >> There is no evidence whatsoever for your God. Besides that, What are > >> the chances that the first thing to form would be a super intelligent > >> super powerful super evolved being? Well, the chances are zero. > > >Why does he have to form? I just said that God is outside of this > >closed system where everything has to form. > > If it's a closed system nothing outside it can have any effect on > what's inside it. That's what "closed system" means. In your mind only. If God can create/time and space inside of a closed system, why can't he reach into it? It is still a closed system in all other respects. > > But if the universe is "all that exists" (and that's what the word > means), where is this god if he's not in the universe? He's somewhere > other than everywhere? Where's that? > > >> > Think about it. If you have a eternal, infinite God, why couldn't he created > >> > a closed system that contains time and space and operates according to > >> > certain laws.. > > >> First you have to provide evidence this omnipresent yet reclusive super > >> being exists. You'd think it would be easy, him being so ever present > >> and all. > > >In this thread, I'm not trying to prove through evidence that God > >exists, only that it is more plausible to believe the God exists. > > More plausible to believe that a god exists in a place that doesn't > exist (some place other than everywhere) than that nothing, including > gods, exists in a non-existent place? It's not only not plausible - > it's logical nonsense. Your god exists in a place that doesn't exist? > That would mean that the god you're defining also doesn't exist. > > >[although I would like to convince you that God exists.] > > Claiming that it exists in a place that doesn't exist isn't going to > do that. > > >> > Since God is outside this closed this, He doesn't have > >> > to operate under these same laws; after all, he created the laws. > > No, people created the laws. But you don't understand what "physical > law" means. > > >> > Thus he doesn't really need a beginning. > > There you go, totally destroying the claim that the universe is too > complex to not have been created. If that's true then an even more > complex god is much too complex to exist without being created. If > God is less complex than the universe, he couldn't have created it. > > So either the universe didn't need a creator, or the creator needed > one too. > > >> > After all, he created the law as part of this closed system > > BZZT! WRONG! The laws aren't prescriptive laws that were created, > they're descriptive theories that were observed - by people. > > >> > that requires that everything has a beginning > > In the no place in which the universe was formed? How could you > possibly know that? You were in that noplace? Claiming that the laws > of this universe were in effect in that no place is just making things > up. > > >> > (cause/effect), but only in this closed system that we live. > > Since the universe didn't form in itself, the laws of the universe > don't apply to the formation of the universe. > > Your "logic" leaves a lot to be desired. Like some actual logic. > > >> If he bothered to exist, God would have to be a closed system and > >> subject to the laws of physics. > > >Not true, as I stated above... He would be eternal and infinite and not subject to > >any laws of physics. > > If he were inside the universe he would be subject to the laws of the > universe, because that's the nature of reality. If he wasn't subject > to the laws of the universe, because he was outside it (and that's the > only way he could be "not subject to" them), he couldn't interact with > the inside if it's a closed system. If it's not a closed system your > entire "closed system" theory is void. > > >He created these laws of physics in our closed system of > >time and space. > > Again, there are two problems with that. > > 1) Something outside a closed system can't affect the inside of that > system. > > 2) The laws of the universe aren't created, they're observed. > > >> You learned a phrase, "closed system," > >> but don't grasp what it means. Kinda reminds me of when my New Age > >> ex-wife and her gang of luddites discovered computers. Suddenly they > >> were "networking" and talking about "interfacing." Get a real education > >> instead of trying to impress people with jargon. > > >Why you don't like my terminology? > > Because you're using it without understanding anything about it. The > same with the phrase "laws of the universe". You have no idea what > they are. > -- > rukbat at optonline dot net > "The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but > moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically > false, and at the least an error of faith." > - Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei > (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 06:34:16 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote: - Refer: <I9Nfh.62840$Fg.19866@tornado.socal.rr.com> > >"John D Newport" <johndnewport@valornet.com> wrote in message >news:b63a4$457f6da3$d861bc26$6086@ALLTEL.NET... >> >> <tereshka@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1165962627.069420.36940@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> John D Newport wrote: >>>> "josh" <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message >>>> news:k_mdnUJkoIF4fODYnZ2dnUVZ8qm3nZ2d@eclipse.net.uk... > ><snip> > >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> I was trying to communicate to this person with the assumption that they >> may deny spiritually provided information, including the information >> provided in the Bible. I was also focusing on the subjects that he wants >> to discuss or argue about. > >What is spiritually provided information? Ex Dues Johnny Walker. >How is the Bible spiritually provided information? They were obviously drink. >What value is spiritually provided information? As a cautionary tale of the negative effects of delusion, quite a lot. -- Quote
Guest rjbjr Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Dear Josh, I don't understand why you are asking these questions. Creating universes and setting up laws to govern those universes are things man is doing now. We are just starting, but we've just been at it for a few decades now. Programmers are creating digital universes inside computers, universes that exist in virtual space. These universes have a starting time. But, their space and time is completely different from what we experience. Creatures in these virtual universes evolve and develop a form of intelligence. This work is in the early stages, but it gives us an idea how a God can create a universe. For those inside such a virtual universe, there will be some who believe their universe is a totally natural phenomenon. Will they ever be able to understand how their universe started? Others in these universes will believe they were created by a God. Which group will be able to convince the other their theory is correct? Can their science ever discover how they came into existence? Can their science ever "prove" a Human Being, a creature totally different, did not created them? Food for thought? "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. > > > > > Quote
Guest BG Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 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? [Putting on full pirate regalia] What is this? Some kind of ultimate chicken/egg argument? I believe that the universe was created by The Flying Spaghetti Monster. What was he doing before creation? Probably carbo-loading on some fine linguini ... Maybe doing some reps to firm up his noodly appendage. But I'm just guessing ... It's not like I have any observable evidence to support my claim. [shrug] BG Quote
Guest Tim Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 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. you are a moron Josh, and you don't exist, please argue. Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Chris wrote: > Neil Kelsey wrote: > > Chris wrote: > > > Neil Kelsey wrote: > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, this statement was actually directed towards Mr. Lee. > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > > I think if you do a careful study you will find some very intellectual > > > people who support the view that God created the universe. > > > > See now, that's a fallacy. Do you understand that? That is an appeal to > > authority, only in this case your authorities are some unnamed > > "intellectuals." What field are they in? And most importantly, DO THEY > > HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE? You can be as > > intellectual as you want, but without evidence to support your claims, > > their claims are irrelevant. > > > > No, it is an appeal to open your mind up to other explanations to what > happen > prior to 10 ^-43 seconds after the Big Bang and find a plausible > theory. Not much I can do if you don't regard evidence as important. As for me opening up my mind, why do you think I've read your Bible (and other "holy" books) and listened (and am still listening) to all the arguments you have as to why I should believe you. It ain't that difficult a concept. Super fantastic supernatural being(s) created the universe. This being wants me to behave in certain ways, depending on the religion, like not killing anybody, never cutting my hair, not eating pork, keeping my coat zipped. Theist arguments have never been satisfying, like yours aren't (you care less about evidence than most I've come across), and they get less satisfying the more I know about the natural world. You know, physics and evolution and biology, the fields that provide evidence to support their claims. > > > I do have > > > curiousity for these things. > I just think you should think carefully > > > about basing your eternity on something that is intellectually curious > > > without substantial proof > > > > There is substantial proof. There is no doubt the Earth will end. It's > > the second law of thermodynamics. In a closed system (the Earth), > > entropy (chaos) increases. That is the laws of physics, and they are > > universal. The Sun WILL die out, the Earth along with it. Don't worry, > > it won't happen anytime soon. > > > > Agree,all your laws of physics do work in this closed system. My > contention > is that God is outside of this system and created these laws, like the > second > law of thermodynamics... GIve me some evidence that god (or anything!) is outside this closed system that is our universe. Because if you can't, I can, but it ain't god. > You contend that there is some vacuum of > nothing > which contains something... Come on, listen to yourself. It's not ME, it is physicists, and they are very convincing. You know, what with all the evidence they provide. If you were a lawyer defending your client, god, for non-existence, he would be sentenced to life (!) in jail. > Maybe the > first > step to you finding God is for you to realize that these theorems of > yours > won't work, so keep studying... Maybe then, you'll begin your search > for God. Until > then, have a good night. I already know that math and physics DO work, so that "theorem" ship sailed a long time ago. The search for god begins and ends with people like you who claim it exists. If you can't provide evidence for your claims, and you have a particularly hard task providing evidence for something outside of our universe, then I'm concluding that you haven't got anything to provide evidence for. Instead, I'll look at you and your motives for making such a wild claim. Quote
Guest Christopher A.Lee Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 On 13 Dec 2006 07:23:50 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Chris wrote: >> Neil Kelsey wrote: >> > Chris wrote: >> > > Neil Kelsey wrote: >> > > > 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? >> > > > >> > > >> > > I'm sorry, this statement was actually directed towards Mr. Lee. >> > > >> > > > > 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? >> > > > >> > > >> > > I think if you do a careful study you will find some very intellectual >> > > people who support the view that God created the universe. >> > >> > See now, that's a fallacy. Do you understand that? That is an appeal to >> > authority, only in this case your authorities are some unnamed >> > "intellectuals." What field are they in? And most importantly, DO THEY >> > HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE? You can be as >> > intellectual as you want, but without evidence to support your claims, >> > their claims are irrelevant. >> > >> >> No, it is an appeal to open your mind up to other explanations to what >> happen >> prior to 10 ^-43 seconds after the Big Bang and find a plausible >> theory. > >Not much I can do if you don't regard evidence as important. What these guys don't seem to understand that if _anybody_ offers _anything_ as an explanation for the big bang, they have to justify it. Whether they are Hawking or anybody else. And that these are always provisional until confirmed or refuted by real world evidence, observation, etc. And that nobody makes an arbitrary pick of different explanations and decides that one of them is correct and all the others wrong. Which is what "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> seems to imagine. He doesn't understand that he has to do the same instead of lying about people not "opening up their mind". Let him provide the evidence he refuses to give, and it will be subject to the same methods as Hawking's would be. Which is probably why he refuses. It won't stand up to the least scrutiny. He can't grasp that if he invokes a god he first has to prove that. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 On 12 Dec 2006 23:59:56 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: >Al Klein wrote: >> Where would this God have been, before there was any "place" to be in? >> Before there was everything (what we call "the universe"), there was >> no "place" to be in. >First, who says this supernatural being has to be part of any time and >space. If something doesn't exist anywhere it doesn't exist, god or no god. So he's HAVE TO exist in some place. > If you can assume that a virtual particle goes in and out of existence, why can I assume >that God can't be seen in existence, yet He is there. Virtual particles don't exist in "not place". You're confusing two totally different things. Nothing can objectively exist in a "not place". >It actually builds a stronger argument for God. Like the god that's so powerful he can do things even if he doesn't exist? That's a nice word salad, but it doesn't actually mean anything. >And for your argument, it still seems far fetches to think that these >virtual particles came from nothing. They didn't come from nothing, they began to exist. It's not the same thing. >> If it's a closed system nothing outside it can have any effect on >> what's inside it. That's what "closed system" means. >In your mind only. No, due to what "closed system" means. >If God can create/time and space inside of a closed system Nothing can affect the inside of a closed system from outside the system. If it can the system isn't closed. "Closed system" means "can't be affected from outside". >why can't he reach into it? For the same reason your right hand can't be the one on your left side - definition. The one on your left side is your left hand. A closed system is one that can't be affected from the outside. If it can be affected from the outside it's an open system. > It is still a closed system in all other respects. The hand on your left side isn't "your right hand in all other aspects", it's your left hand. The ONLY thing "closed system" means is "can't be affected from the outside". All other aspects are "none". That's why Neil had a problem with your use of the term - you're saying "an open system that's closed". Same thing as "the right hand on your left side". Meaningless. The universe IS a closed system. It's also (by definition) everything that exists. So no god can exist "outside the universe", since that place, if it exists, is still inside the universe. By definition. -- rukbat at optonline dot net Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another. - Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832) (random sig, produced by SigChanger) 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.