Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- From: "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Apr 2006 17:49:53 -0700
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2006-03-25, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2006-03-21, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2006-03-21, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2006-03-09, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ye Old One wrote:
On 6 Feb 2006 17:05:21 -0800, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:
Ye Old One wrote:
On 23 Jan 2006 20:24:28 -0800, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:
Sure. Aside from a Supreme Being, how else could the singularity of
the Big Bang be created?
It didn't need a cause.
Everything that occurs needs a cause.
And you know this how?
Common sense.
The problem with common sense is that it is not very common.
Don't think so? OK. Show me one thing...just
one...that exists today without having an underlying cause for its
existence. Or...show me one thing that has changed without their being
any cause for its change.
What caused your God?
God exists outside of time, space, matter, and energy. There is no
need for a cause.
Why do you think it is okay to give this answer when you are asked
this question, but that when scientists say that particle creation
or radioactive decay is uncaused, you get your panties in a bunch?
Because particle creation and radioactive decay are parts of this
natural universe and, therefore, demand a cause.
Nothing "demands" a cause. The kind of events you experience in your
everyday life (macroscopic events) seem to have causes. But the universe
is rather more complex than your limited myopic vision tells you. In the
last century, we've discovered that the world is not the mechanistic
pinball machine that physicists originally believed, that randomness is
part and parcel of the universe around us and plays an integral role in
our existence. Things like "causality" are macroscopic, statistical
properties of the universe, and simply aren't what underlies physics.
Are you sure?
Yes, I'm sure. I'm not sure why it's important, but there you are.
When I speak, pressure waves move out from my mouth.
These pressure waves are conglomerations of molecules of air being
pushed together and pushing back. It is each molecule that does the
pushing because of another molecule being pushing into it. That's not
macroscopic.
Yes, it is.
Can you see a molecule without a microscope (a very powerful one)? No?
Well, then the molecule and any physics involved therein are NOT
macroscopic. Unless, of course, you have a different definition for
micro/macroscopic.
Even radioactivity is not macroscopic. Each atom has too much energy
to be stable and throws off a particle. It doesn't throw off a
particle for purely random reasons.
Yes. It does.
I guess you and nuclear physicists are in disagreement.
All physics really is at the molecular, if not subatomic, level.
No. It isn't.
All matter is made up of molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles,
right? Yes, then there you have it. Molecules don't have one set of
physical laws which apply when the molecule is isolated and one set
which apply when it is in contact with other molecules.
Planetary orbits, car crashes, and even the solar wind are all about
particles moving and being moved. When enough of them moved together
with some coherence, then we humans can notice.
*sigh*
The nature of the Supreme Being places Him above and beyond all nature,
all universes, and all restrictions. This aspect of God is admittedly
not testable. It's one of those faith things.
It's one of those "i'm making up words to describe things I don't understand"
things.
I'll remember that when someone mentions "dark matter" and "quantum
particles" in order to explain matter and energy not doing what was
previously expected of them.
Dark matter is falsifiable.
Show me dark matter. Test dark matter. Define dark matter. Is it
matter? Is it energy? Show me the science behind the rationale to
define it as such. There is none. There is only the inference that
such exists because SOMETHING unseen is affecting the motion of various
celestial bodies and radiation. Falsifiable? Yeah, right.
Quantum mechanics is falsifiable.
How so? Let me know when you falsify or show evidence in controlled
conditions for these mysterious and convenient quantum particles
popping in and out existence.
Now, if you want to ascribe this characteristic to the singularity,
then you have officially made the singularity into some form of
supreme being.
No. Uncaused things simply seem to happen. It's a side effect of
quantum mechanics.
As an aside, not that I am pushing religion on anyone...but check out
this Bible verse that just came to mind:
"[people who didn't believe in God] Who changed the truth of God into a
lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who
is blessed for ever." - Romans 1:25
If you are willing to grant an exemption from this law for your God, why
should we take your "common sense" seriously?
I see your point. How can I demand that the singularity have a cause
but let God off the hook?
Because God is the Supreme Being who, by definition, created all things
and has infinite power. How can a Being with infinite capabilities
ever be created?
The singularity is not unlimited and, thus, is capable of being
created. In fact, anything that is limited must have a cause.
You are just stating your preconceptions, prejudices and biases in
different ways.
Yes. But, if you think about it, they are more post-conceptions and
post-judices. They are my conclusions created AFTER an analysis of the
cosmos.
This would appear not to be the case. These appear to be posthoc
rationalizations of your religious faith.
It's not like I woke up one day and decided to just believe
the Bible for no reason.
Actually, I suspect that's very close to what happened. But I'm sure
you think you have reasons. I would make the claim that none of them are,
well, reasonable.
If there is no cause for an
event, then why did the event occur in the first place?
If not, then show me something that occurs anywhere in the universe
today without any cause.
The Big Bang.
Circular reasoning. You have to show that the Big Bang had no cause
for you to then use it as an example as something without a cause.
How can we discern the difference between something which is uncaused
and something which might have a cause too subtle for us to observe?
Hmmm...you couldn't. At least, you couldn't using just science.
What other ways are open to humans?
The capacity to leap beyond logic. Imagination. Prayer. Inference
from scientific evidence. Every way not given to testing under
controlled conditions. Increasing error can creep into the equation,
but so can increasing accurate knowledge.
I think the term you are looking for is "making shit up". It doesn't
work very often.
So much for love, fear, consciousness, imagination, supernatural
events, and extra-sensory perception. I guess all those, including me,
who have experienced such things are just delusional. :-)
In the case of supernatural events and ESP, yep.
No, no. What about love? If science cannot provide direct evidence
that love exists, then every human who says that they have been in love
must be delusional...unless science will admit that there are aspects
to human existence which it is entirely incapable of analyzing.
If you cannot provide evidence for such an assertion, then your idea
is without merit and can be disregarded as wishful thinking.
I would use something a little easier to discern than the Big Bang, say,
radioactive decay.
Good mix of theory and scientific evidence. The laws of radioactive
decay are easier to handle, all the while no one ever knows which
specific atom will decay at any point in time. More importantly, it is
happening today and can be recreated and tested.
What are the odds that the expansion of the universe seems tweaked just
so as to allow matter to coallesce over 14 billion years yet fast
enough to prevent the universe from collapsing back onto itself?
I think you need to study the subject, there are some mistakes in that
paragraph.
I mean, what are the odds that the universe is expanding slow enough to
let once-disassembled matter combine to form stars and planets but fast
enough to prevent gravity from collapsing the universe?
In our universe it happened. That is all we can say.
Again, circular reasoning based on the unsupported assumption that the
universe came into being as you assert, which itself is based on
wishful thinking.
This might be more convincing if you presented evidence for your own
unsupported assumptions. You are basically saying that "your argument is
just as unfounded as my own", which may in fact be true, but it's hardly
a ringing endorsement of your own position.
I know, I know. Nag, nag, nag. :-)
Also, what are the odds that the strong nuclear force is just as we see
it? Too weak and a nucleus with more than one proton would not hold
together and hydrogen would be the only element in existence. Too
strong, as little as 1%, and hydrogen and elements heavier than iron
(formed in stars using hydrogen) would be rare.
Pardon???
The strong nuclear force holds subatomic particles together, right?
Well, if that force were either stronger or weaker by perhaps 1%, then
most, if not all, elements other than hydrogen or helium could not
exist. Just a coincidence, huh?
As has been patiently explained to you before (with little apparent
effect) you might imagine that if you are the sole survivor of a 1000-1
lottery, that there must have been something special about you, because
otherwise you wouldn't have survived. But the simple fact is that
somebody would have, and they would be just as entitled to believing that
they were special. Since everyone thinks they must be special, nobody is.
You are assuming that this universe could have popped into existence
with any set of physical and energy combinations and that we just got
lucky.
I'm not assuming any such thing. It is an idea which is at least reasonable
to consider.
Yes, it is reasonable to add to the mix of possibilities.
And of course, if all 1000 die, nobody is around to argue that they are
special.
Decent point. Yet, the number of permutations for the constants of any
universe is far beyond the trillions, right?
NO JIM. YOU DON'T KNOW THAT.
At a minimum, we should consider it.
Since I can't possibly know whether it is true or false, why should I use
it evidence that convinces me that you are correct?
You shouldn't use anything to convince you that I or anyone else is
correct. You should want to see things for yourself.
Since I can't possibly see it, what's the point?
If you cannot see it or even conceive of it, then never mind.
With only a relative few
allowing life on this planet. And, here we are. Random chance or
design?
It is altogether unsurprising that beings capable of intelligent thought
would find themself on a planet for which they are well adapted.
What are the odds that this matter of this universe formed on its
own along with the gravitational and molecular forces which that
matter would need to form celestial bodies?
Evens, it either did or it didn't. We can see it did in our
universe we can have no knowledge of any other universe if it
exists.
But don't the odds of everything appearing this way and being stable
make you think twice about how it happened?
It doesn't matter what the odds are - it has happened in our
universe.
How could nature randomly place over 600 volumes of information
in every bodily cell?
It didn't. That information evolved.
Of all the possibilities including just dying off, the cell gains in
complexity over time. What are the odds?
Who can say - we just know it happened.
How could the first life form come about naturally and randomly
if science has been incapable of creating, using controlled
conditions, even the simplest life from lifelessness?
Given a world the size of ours, and the conditions of that early
period, reactions were going on millions of times a day. More than
likely, over the millions of years, there were many different
"life from none-life" events - it just happens that all life we
see today is descended from just one common ancestor.
So, given a few billion random attempts, we will create life from
non-life.
-- Bob.
Someday, we will create life from non-life. I don't doubt that.
What I am trying to ascertain is how nature did it and how we know
that nature did it.
We know the conditions, we know there was a long period of time
(maybe 500 million years) and we know there was a result - we are
here to prove that. -- Bob.
Mark
Mark
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Does Evolution teach that might makes right?
- Next by Date: Re: Does Evolution teach that might makes right?
- Previous by thread: Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- Next by thread: Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
