Prove God Exists - Act Three

[Birdjaguar]

It defies the everyday notion of linear time, but it does not defy logic. It is been scientificly proven that all effects do not have a direct cause, a virtual particle will come in to being with no cause. You have to understand the difference in your mind between logic and causality.

ARe you talking about Hawking radiation at the event horizon of a black hole?

 

[WS78]

I'm butting in and state something different

God=creation/reality

There is no substantial proof of "god" or any other deity. Not what Perfection is looking for.
Responding to this thread requires either intense studies in theology and/or physics or a defensive sense of faith.

 

[anarchywrksbest]

The Christian God is no different from any of the thousands of Gods that man has created in his time. None of them were real, just ways of explaining what they did not understand. The decline of religon today is due to our increasing knowledge of what really makes the world work and it definitely isn't supernatural beings.

 

[Birdjaguar]

We have heard a lot from the science folks (and I count myself among them) on this thread: Logic to the forefront; deductive reasoning as a superior methodology; If it can’t be proven, it ain’t true; etc. etc. As you get to the edges of science especially in cosmology and astrophysics, it gets murky. I quoted two sections that show the mystery and unprovable speculation that abounds at the cutting edges of science today. There is lots of speculation and little proof.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/open_questions.html

How do black holes evaporate?

This is a tough one. Back in the 1970's, Stephen Hawking came up with theoretical arguments showing that black holes are not really entirely black: due to quantum-mechanical effects, they emit radiation. The energy that produces the radiation comes from the mass of the black hole. Consequently, the black hole gradually shrinks. It turns out that the rate of radiation increases as the mass decreases, so the black hole continues to radiate more and more intensely and to shrink more and more rapidly until it presumably vanishes entirely.

Actually, nobody is really sure what happens at the last stages of black hole evaporation: some researchers think that a tiny, stable remnant is left behind. Our current theories simply aren't good enough to let us tell for sure one way or the other. As long as I'm disclaiming, let me add that the entire subject of black hole evaporation is extremely speculative. It involves figuring out how to perform quantum-mechanical (or rather quantum-field-theoretic) calculations in curved spacetime, which is a very difficult task, and which gives results that are essentially impossible to test with experiments. Physicists *think* that we have the correct theories to make predictions about black hole evaporation, but without experimental tests it's impossible to be sure.

Now why do black holes evaporate? Here's one way to look at it, which is only moderately inaccurate. (I don't think it's possible to do much better than this, unless you want to spend a few years learning about quantum field theory in curved space.) One of the consequences of the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics is that it's possible for the law of energy conservation to be violated, but only for very short durations. The Universe is able to produce mass and energy out of nowhere, but only if that mass and energy disappear again very quickly. One particular way in which this strange phenomenon manifests itself goes by the name of vacuum fluctuations. Pairs consisting of a particle and antiparticle can appear out of nowhere, exist for a very short time, and then annihilate each other. Energy conservation is violated when the particles are created, but all of that energy is restored when they annihilate again. As weird as all of this sounds, we have actually confirmed experimentally that these vacuum fluctuations are real.

Now, suppose one of these vacuum fluctuations happens near the horizon of a black hole. It may happen that one of the two particles falls across the horizon, while the other one escapes. The one that escapes carries energy away from the black hole and may be detected by some observer far away. To that observer, it will look like the black hole has just emitted a particle. This process happens repeatedly, and the observer sees a continuous stream of radiation from the black hole.

Is the universe really full of "dark energy"? If so, what causes it?

As mentioned above, evidence has been coming in that suggests the universe is full of some sort of "dark energy" with negative pressure. For example, an analysis of data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe in 2003 suggested that 73% of the energy density of the universe is in this form! But even if this is right and dark energy exists, we're still in the dark about what it is.

The simplest model is a cosmological constant, meaning that so-called "empty" space actually has a negative pressure and positive energy density, with the pressure exactly equal to minus the energy density in units where the speed of light is 1. However, nobody has had much luck explaining why empty space should be like this, especially with an energy density as small as what we seem to be observing: about 6 x 10-30 grams per cubic centimeter if we use Einstein's E = mc2 to convert it into a mass density. Other widely studied possibilities for dark matter include various forms of "quintessence". But, this term means little more than "some mysterious field with negative pressure", and there's little understanding of why such a field should exist.

And remember:

“The distinction between reality and imagination exists only in the mind.”

 

[Mrogreturns]

We have heard a lot from the science folks (and I count myself among them) on this thread: Logic to the forefront; deductive reasoning as a superior methodology; If it can’t be proven, it ain’t true; etc. etc.

Well I don't blame you for wording it that way, but it would be better to describe the postion of science as: "If it can’t be tested, it ain’t possible to assess whether or not it is true, consequently it is of no use to us."

As you get to the edges of science especially in cosmology and astrophysics, it gets murky. I quoted two sections that show the mystery and unprovable speculation that abounds at the cutting edges of science today. There is lots of speculation and little proof.

Are you trying to say that everything not currently understood is on an equal footing with respect to science? The issues and specuculations discussed in the material you posted are open to investigation either experimentally or by naturalistic observation. The observations and results are open to inspection by anyone who is interested.

And remember:

“The distinction between reality and imagination exists only in the mind.”

I beleive you are flying off to Spain shortly? Lets say we take the wings off your plane and put them on again upside down. Will the plane get off the ground, will you get to Spain? If you imagine the wings are on correctly, will you then get to Spain?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Dog is my copilot -- We're off to Spain,
But backwards are the wings of my plane.
At lift off we failed,
Mrog's been jailed,
But 72 virgins keep me sane.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Are you trying to say that everything not currently understood is on an equal footing with respect to science?

No, just pointing out that at the edges, science is alot messier than most people believe. Discovery is a process made up of small events on twisty paths.

I beleive you are flying off to Spain shortly? Lets say we take the wings off your plane and put them on again upside down. Will the plane get off the ground, will you get to Spain? If you imagine the wings are on correctly, will you then get to Spain?

Without my mind to interfere, I might be there already!

 

[Mrogreturns]

No, just pointing out that at the edges, science is alot messier than most people believe. Discovery is a process made up of small events on twisty paths.

Oh it's messy alright, but the source of the mess is observable to all who care to look- the initial observations are available, and interpetations are testable against further observations. Its fundamentally differerent from a situation where the only "observations" are subjective.

Without my mind to interfere, I might be there already!

You have used that quote a number of times now- you obviously feel it means something, I'm just trying to get a sense of what it means to you. If it doesn't apply to flying to Spain- why should it apply in any other sense?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I do like it. The mind is the arbitor of all we experience. It separates and sorts and creates boundries and understanding. Without that process the border between what we call reality and imagination would blur to a significant degree. Something lost and something gained. The creative process is all about using the mind in unusual ways. I revived the quote to "stir the pot" one last time before I leave.

 

[FredLC]

Before my actual reply, that should be coming ASAP, let me bring in a little excerpt from Immanuel Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason", which's contents, I am finding out, differ from what I expected it to be:

Originally Written by Immanuel Kant

However, one can ask himself: what treasure is this that we intend to deliver to posterity in this metaphysics depurated by critique and, exactly because of that, placed in a lasting state? A quick glance in this work may lead to believe that its utility is negative, meaning, that of never daring to go beyond, with speculative reason, the limits of experience, this one being, positively, it’s first utility. Nevertheless, this utility soon becomes positive if we wake to the fact that the principles in which the speculative reason bases itself, with the intent to risk itself to beyond its limits, have as inevitable consequence not the extension, but, looking closely, a restriction to our usage of reason, as, in fact, these principles threats to extend to everything the limits of the sensiticity to which they belong, and hence reduce to nothing the pure – practical – usage of reason. So, despite a critique that limits the use of speculative reason being a “negative”, as it nulls a obstacle that limits or even threats of annihilation the practical use of reason, it’s truly a positive utility and highly important, as soon as we find out that there is a practical use that is absolutely necessary for the pure reason (…)

(there was no highlighted parts in the original)

Regards .

 

[Gladinia]

Prove God Exists - The Deverry Trick
We believe in God. Therefore he exists. Simply put, a god's power derives from the number and faith of his worshippers.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

R-O-T-F-L-M-A-O!
700 posts of back-and-forth arguing over axioms which will never be resolved, with a self-appointed judge with a bias, and then some newbie posts a one-liner from a fantasy book, shutting you all up. (I read "shutting up" as "no post activity for a day" which is fairly rare for an active thread in OT.)

 

[Mrogreturns]

R-O-T-F-L-M-A-O!
700 posts of back-and-forth arguing over axioms which will never be resolved, with a self-appointed judge with a bias, and then some newbie posts a one-liner from a fantasy book, shutting you all up. (I read "shutting up" as "no post activity for a day" which is fairly rare for an active thread in OT.)

How about the 2 day hiatus before Gladinia posted? You might consider the fact that two of the main protagonists are not able to post for the time being- but don't let that get in the way of your fun.

EDIT

I'll answer Erik Mesoy here as it isn't worth adding another post:

I was refering to the gap between Birdjaguar's post on the 28th and the subsequent one by FredLC- no not quite 2 days but 33 hours is a fair gap.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

How about the 2 day hiatus before Gladinia posted?

FredLC's post was 1 hour 11 minutes before Gladinia's. So, what about the two day hiatus? Did it ever exist?

Oh, I read that book too, by the way. It's good. I suggest you go read the Deverry series.

 

[BassDude726]

God must exist because he keeps resurrecting this thread

 

[Saga of Gemini]

Ok I wont get on the debate since honestly Ive lost my will to argue this kind of things with you ppl ( those who dont know me ask curt or perfection).

But I will just say this:
Science ( science to be reckoned as the scientific method, and empirical proof) cant prove or disprove the existence of God, as it cant prove or disprove any moral or estetic principle. there no scientific reason to love your family or neighbor or respect human life. To say that theres nothing that science cant its a terrible mistake, beacuse that implies to negate the existence of almost everything we treasure in life, not only God or the human spirit, but love and poetry and music.

 

[cgannon64]

God must exist because he keeps resurrecting this thread

Proof that God hates humanity and wants them to suffer, then.

 

[Colonel]

I think i have the best arguement to prove god doesnt exsist(plz keep in mind i do believe in god) if he did simply put why does the devil exsist god could simply get rid of him, next why would good people be allowed to suffer, whats the point of putting humans on a planet to destroy it,

Finally he wouldnt let this damn thread get so dam long (39 pages) and be the THIRD thread

 

[BassDude726]

God didn't make the devil. Lucifer was an angel that rebelled against God's power and was subsequently cast down into hell along with 1/3 of the other angels that sided with him as punishment. These fallen angels made evil their new objective rather than good. Armageddon will happen when God finally does get rid of Satan since that will be the final battle between good and evil.

Well, at least according to Christians. I dunno about other religions.

 

[Colonel]

yes but god did create the devil (he created everything according most religons) and if there was a battle between good and evil and good won then why would god not just sap them out of exsistance, second why would there have been a battle before as god is suppose to omnipotent infalable so at least christans and jewish are hypocrities in there religon they contratic what they say within there own religons


IWIN