Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve on January 19, 2012 at 5:07pm

"Anymore"? He never had interest in the first place

Permalink Reply by Angelo on January 19, 2012 at 6:01pm

it must first be established that P1 is a logical necessity

its fun to see your start of mental gimnastics..kkkk

http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Kalam-Cosmological-Argument-for-t...

The first premise is relatively uncontroversial, and is rooted in the metaphysical principle that out of nothing, nothing comes. The denial of the first premise, although strictly logically possible, is metaphysically unactualizable. By definition, nothing has no potentialities. Thus, it is impossible for something to arise out of nothing, for how can its existence be actualized if the potential is not there? [3] The truth of the causal premise is additionally supported by our everyday experience. If the causal premise were false, then it is quite odd as to why we don't observe things coming into existence uncaused and out of nothing in our everyday experience. Presumably, nobody lives their life worrying about the possibility of an elephant suddenly appearing out of nothing in their living room.

When the Theist asks this question, one should simply reply, “Why is there God instead of no God?". 

Nobody knows. But if you do not like the alternative " God " , do you have a better alternative on hand ???? as you admit through your own reasoning, there was never a time, that nothing existed, since nothing has no potentialities.

Why then, is it not the nature of the Universe to just exist?

because we do have strong philosophical reasons to believe so.

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5231

you will never live for an eternity, because you cannot accomplish an eternity by "counting" moments, adding one event upon another.This point in time we call "now" is actually future with reference to all of the past. We agreed you cannot get to any infinite point in the future by adding as events one to another. Therefore, this present moment in time can't represent an actual infinite number of events added one to another proceeding from the past. Time has proceeded forward from the past as one event is added onto another to get us to today. But we know that whenever you pause in the count as we've done today, that you can't have an infinite number of events. Which means that there is no infinite number of events that goes backward from this point in time, only a finite number of events. 

To apply the principle to God, and not to the alternatives is a form of 'special pleading' which is logically fallacious."

a case of a creator page 76

atheists have long maintained that the universe doesn't need a cause, because it's eternal. How can they possibly maintain that the universe can be eternal and uncaused, yet God cannot be timeless and uncaused?"

here is a great thought!

"This is flawed of coarse. The very first premise is incorrect.
Not everything have a cause for its existence. Might I suggest studing up on virtual particles. They come into existence and out of existence. ALOT. and there is absolutely no cause."

that one has been debunked over and over again, also at this topic. 

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/cosmos172.htm

"The recent use of such vacuum fluctuations is highly misleading. For virtual particles do not literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing. Rather the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum. As John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)" ([1986], p. 440). The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause." 

"In the case of quantum events, there are any number of physically necessary conditions that must obtain for such an event to occur, and yet these conditions are not jointly sufficient for the occurrence of the event. (They are jointly sufficient in the sense that they are all the conditions one needs for the event's occurrence, but they are not sufficient in the sense that they guarantee the occurrence of the event.) The appearance of a particle in a quantum vacuum may thus be said to be spontaneous, but cannot be properly said to be absolutely uncaused, since it has many physically necessary conditions. To be uncaused in the relevant sense of an absolute beginning, an existent must lack any non-logical necessary or sufficient conditions whatsoever." 

"As Barrow and Tipler comment, "It is, of course, somewhat inappropriate to call the origin of a bubble Universe in a fluctuation of the vacuum 'creation ex nihilo,' for the quantum mechanical vacuum state has a rich structure which resides in a previously existing substratum of space-time, either Minkowski or de Sitter space-time. Clearly, a true 'creation ex nihilo' would be the spontaneous generation of everything--space-time, the quantum mechanical vacuum, matter--at some time in the past."([1986], p. 441)."

there are many many places to find REAL science that show your FAKE science to be a joke!

baseless drivel. one more time....

Permalink Reply by Angelo on January 19, 2012 at 6:07pm

There is a theory that the entire universe could well be comprised of one, single, teensy, weensy, little electron - as electrons have no mass, they are not bound by the restriction of the speed of light, therefore, it is just as probable as that your god exists, that one,  single, teensy, weensy, little electron moves through the universe so rapidly that it appears to be everywhere at once, comprising all matter.

and this electron existed eternally ? and was not bound to the second law of thermodynamics ? 

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on January 19, 2012 at 6:48pm

RE: "and this electron existed eternally ? and was not bound to the second law of thermodynamics ? "

To the same degree, on both counts, as your god.

pax vobiscum,
archaeopteryx
www.in-His-own-image.com

Permalink Reply by Steve on January 19, 2012 at 7:28pm

Electrons are elementary particles. So how the frak could it possibly decay? Jeez, for once in your life, think

How about you stop using ideas and words you clearly don't understand?

Permalink Reply by Angelo on January 19, 2012 at 7:37pm

RE: "and this electron existed eternally ? and was not bound to the second law of thermodynamics ? "

To the same degree, on both counts, as your god.

as creator of all physical, god is not bound to physical things. he is above that. according to the big bang theory, matter was created at the big bang, and so were electrons. how a eternal electron should be the cause of our universe, is a mistery to me.......and more, how this should constitute a more compelling explanation, than a powerful creator.

Permalink Reply by james d on January 19, 2012 at 8:11pm

ok, no reply button again, so, away we go!

"as creator of all physical, god is not bound to physical things. he is above that. according to the big bang theory, matter was created at the big bang, and so were electrons. how a eternal electron should be the cause of our universe, is a mistery to me.......and more, how this should constitute a more compelling explanation, than a powerful creator."

ok, first off, you have yet to establish that god is existing at all, and yet you continue to work on the assumption that he does.. bad form!

next, the big bang does NOT describe the creation of all matter which proves once again you have no real idea of what you are talking about or you just chose to provide false concepts and claim them to be correct because you can't actually prove your point! which is it?

just because the universe is 'mistery' to you does not mean god did it! what arrogance on your part to believe that there is NO KNOWLEDGE bigger than yours except your god's! that is delusional and actually quite scary!

as for your ramblings on KCA, there is nothing you can say that can not be explained by the many links i provided for you. the entire 'argument' is based on false premises and lies. We DO see thing come in and out of existance everyday, but you won't accept that as a truth because you don't accept proof, you would rather cling to a myth, your choice, but very narrow in scope.

the links i provided show all the refutations of the entire argument though you refuse to accept any of them is your choice again! the evidence is there, you just won't accept it! there is NO philosophical proof for god that exists as they are mere words! words are man's attempt to explain what he doesn't know about the universe and religion is but one tool in his toolbelt along that path! to believe in a god is not a bad thing in any way, everyone has the right and the choice to do so. to come on a forum of atheists demanding we provide a negative proof for something that only exists in the minds of mystics and theologians while then ignoring all the proof, which you have also stated you reject outright, to that end, then telling us that you have the ONLY answers to questions people much smarter than you and i and most people in the world other than your god is pretty arrogant on your part! your discussion starts with god as your first cause, a premise which can't be proven and from there you continue with god did this and god did that while calling our requests for proof not acceptable as you don't have any.

is your being here supposed to make us fear your god? or your "knowledge"? you have offered nothing to change our minds about your god, so you must be trying to intimidate us into accepting your position! if that is true, that is a very sad thing and a poor example of someone who claims to have the truth!

perhaps you need some time to re-examine why you are even here! you have a website we won't bother to visit and we are obviously not swayed by the 'arguments' you have presented.. so why are you still here?

just a few thoughts and questions.. i hope you actually answer them!

thanks!

cheers!

 

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on January 19, 2012 at 11:49am

RE: "where does beauty come from ?"

The eye of the beholder.

Now about that Primeval Octopus --

pax vobiscum,
archaeopteryx
in-His-own-image.com

Permalink Reply by Steve on January 18, 2012 at 9:22pm

It's a typo. It should say "Earth is not a closed system". So you simply can't apply thermodynamics to the totality of events that goes on on it. Even if you do, it's easily possible for entropy to decrease in a subsystem as long as there is a corresponding increase elsewhere.

Your second fallacy (or rather your first) is to even use the concept in the first place. If entropy is applicable to biology at all, it's in the information theory sense. Same word, different meaning. It has nothing to do with thermodynamics, so its second law doesn't apply. Yet some people seem to think that the the amount of information contained in DNA somehow can't increase

Permalink Reply by Matthew on January 18, 2012 at 10:07pm

Thanks for the correction, I'll try to be a little more airtight

Permalink Reply by Angelo on January 19, 2012 at 5:40am

It's a typo. It should say "Earth is not a closed system". So you simply can't apply thermodynamics to the totality of events that goes on on it. Even if you do, it's easily possible for entropy to decrease in a subsystem as long as there is a corresponding increase elsewhere.

So in case of the universe, do you want to assert, its not a closed system ?

Your second fallacy (or rather your first) is to even use the concept in the first place. 

If our universe is a closed system, the second law applies. If not, please explain, why.

Yet some people seem to think that the the amount of information contained in DNA somehow can't increase

oh, sure, it can ? how do you probably know ?

Permalink Reply by james d on January 19, 2012 at 9:00am

Angelo

you state

"So in case of the universe, do you want to assert, its not a closed system ?

If our universe is a closed system, the second law applies. If not, please explain, why."

i have done a bit of research on this reading many PHYSICISTS who all have ideas, but all basically agree that we really don't know and may NEVER know the answer to that question.

"A "closed system" can be defined as a system of which the internal properties in investigative question can not be substantively modified through existing external influence.
In reality this is impossible.
As such, a "closed system" is a fictional, idealized state of isolation, though very useful in certain examinations."

found here! which is a forum of real physicists who seem to all agree that there are no REAL answers to that question, but the question should be more WHY does it matter whether the universe is OPEN or CLOSED.

a thought for you to answer with your best shot!

"If the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, then by the postulates of classical statistical mechanics, it should have already settled into an equilibrium situation (ie a maximum entropy state with as many degrees of freedom as possible). However, this is not what we see. There are still very large scale motions present in our universe with few "degrees of freedom" (the Earth's orbit around the Sun is an example). So then one is tempted to say that the universe has only "existed" for a finite time. So then what was here before it?? But if it really wasn't here, and then just "appeared", this would contradict conservation of mass (which is in relativity conservation of energy). "

found here

so you believe the universe is closed, to what purpose? to prove that god exists? can you be certain and 100% sure that there are no multi-verse realities out there? can YOU prove there are no outside forces acting to add or remove energy to or from the universe we think we know? that would be an interesting read! the physicists forums i have read do NOT agree on either position, and THAT is the beauty of REAL science, it can say WE DON'T know with honesty and integrity and not make shit up to prove a point!

check out this video by a very well respected author and scientist about A Universe From Nothing I am sure there is a lot in there that can provide you with real science you can chose to ignore!!

cheers!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 92
• 93
• 94
• 95
• 96
• …
• 101
• Next ›
• Page