Prove God Exists - Act Three

[CivCube]

If you accept the Bing Bang as a real event, then the logical answer is to put the creation event outside our universe. Science is moving to brane theory, Christian can put it with god, Hindus might attribute it to a universal and eternal oversoul.

What's kind of interesting is that the first part of Genesis actually follows the Big Bang and the order of life's emergence to a point. Doesn't really mean anything, but it's still interesting.

 

[Mise]

@Birdjaguar:
I wonder if it is accellerating at a constant rate? If the rate of growth is increasing, but the rate of the rate of growth is decreasing, oscillations are possible. Also, if there is more "empty" space in the universe with the same amount of energy in the universe, the factors which are causing the accelleration of the universe (which I won't state here, since I'm only VERY vaguely aware of them) will become increasingly less significant.

I personally don't get all this 10th/11th dimension crap. Hopefully, I'll find out in a couple years... .

 

[CivCube]

In that case, you're already reading it according to your own personal inclinations.

You know what, you're right. And every other denomination has its own personal inclination. There is no "official" interpretation in religion.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Meh, I dont beleve there is such thing as a god. I dont even think there is such thing as a god or a supreme deity. I dont see no deity helping me with life's problems.

Do you see, feel or even notice the orbital velocities of the electrons that keep you functioning? When was the last time you felt oxygen being transfered from reb cell to muscle sell?

Claiming that a mirage is an illusion speaks to the quality of your reasoning, as well as, the inadequacy of your thirst.

 

[newfangle]

Actually, CivGeneral's post produces a very interesting side-effect.

He does not believe in a god because he has not been presented with any evidence, as opposed to say, an electron.

Which is why it is up to the religionists to explain to him why there is a god, instead of calling him blind.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Birdjaguar:
I wonder if it is accellerating at a constant rate? If the rate of growth is increasing, but the rate of the rate of growth is decreasing, oscillations are possible. Also, if there is more "empty" space in the universe with the same amount of energy in the universe, the factors which are causing the accelleration of the universe (which I won't state here, since I'm only VERY vaguely aware of them) will become increasingly less significant.

As recently as last month the evidence is accumulating that the expansion rate is increasing. Dark energy is the supposed culprit here. The acceleration began some 6 billion years ago. If the density of Dark energy is constant, the universe will expand forever. If it's density is increasing (theoretically possible), the speed up will reach such levels that everything will be torn asunder. So the physicists say.

 

[Phydeaux]

In the same way that neutrons and protons bind to form atomic nuclei, atoms bind to form molecules, molecules bind to form proteins, proteins bind to form cellular nuclei, which are the basis of life. DNA is a protein and is as a catalyst for the reactions required to form all life. Like I said, I'm no biologist, but it's clear to see that evolution makes sense.

You made the letters but you are still missing the part that you really need, the words, with out them you have nothing. There was not enough time for chance to hellp with the life prob.

How else can bacteria gain resistance to antibiotics?

Hmm, I wonder... http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v8i5f.htm But really if you want to talk about evolution you should ask the forum starter or start a forum you self.

About analogies. Here is another. Everything is made up of 4 elements, earth, water, fire and air. Some things have more of one type of element than others, e.g. a stone has more earth than orange juice, which has mostly water. Each element will try to make the object go towards where there is an abundance of that element. E.g. a stone, if dropped, will go towards the earth. Water, if poured, will flow towards the sea. Air, if trapped under another fluid, will on release go up towards the air. Fire, if left untamed, will release the fire element in other things (like trees).

That is because there is already a force cuasing all of these things to happen. The Q is, what started all of these force.

This of course, is utter crap. Why? Because it is based on analogy, not on empirical evidence. Religion is also based on analogy. Almost everything Jesus says is an analogy.

What?... What makes you think that things Jesus said are analogys?

Regarding logic. Consider the tortoise and the hare. Near the end of the race, the hare realises that the tortoise might win, so decides to start running again. The hare sees the tortoise in the distance, so runs to that point. He takes a finite amount of time to reach that point, but in that time, the tortoise has moved on a finite distance. The Hare then takes a finite time to run to that point, but the tortoise has also moved on a little bit in that time. The hare runs to the point where the tortoise is now, but again, the tortoise has used that time to move on a bit! So the hare runs to the point where the tortoise is now, but the tortoise has gone on a bit again! This goes on and on and on, and if you add up all the small bits of time the hare has travelled to "catch up" with the tortoise, it will be infinity! I.e. it takes the hare an infinite amount of finite bits of time to catch the tortoise up, and so cannot catch up with the tortoise, ever!

Clearly, this isn't right, yet it makes logical sense.

Analogy and logic can be used to prove anything. That is its great power, and it's greatest weakness.

No nothing is going on there is nothing moving or any thing, before stuff was created. Am I missing some thing? I don't really see how this could do any thing for you.

 

[Perfection]

Just because we don't know where it came from doesn't mean that it came from nowhere. This is the mistake that people made with mold, they couldn't see what made it so they guessed it came from nowhere... We look down at those people and say ha of corse it didn't come from nowhere silly people, but will people be saying the same thing about us? I think that we should what what we say.

Virtual particles have no causation. There are no particles that interact to create them, we can't make them come and we can't prevent them from coming, they are an inherent consequences of the nature of the universe.

Personally, I don't think they exist... If they did exist, then they would exert an infinitessimal, but finite, force on orbiting bodies, such as the moon. This force would reduce the moon's tangential velocity, causing it's KE to be less than its PE, resulting in the orbit decaying (i.e. the Moon falls into the Earth).

This not the case, virtual particles push it equally in both directions so no effect is observed.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Virtual particles have no causation. There are no particles that interact to create them, we can't make them come and we can't prevent them from coming, they are an inherent consequences of the nature of the universe.

They have no cause that we have identified as yet. If you attribute them to the "inherent nature of the universe", you might as well say "god". Both are outside of reason, unexplainable and therefore an illusion in your view. I would hate to have to explain to you again (see previous thread, about post 1100) how you are proving a case for god. It will be bad for your reputation.

 

[Smidlee]

Smidlee: you seem to be saying that something non-living cannot produce life...have you considered that you are made up entirely of non-living atoms, but you are alive?

I never said that since I know that life comes after a non-living seed that rots in the ground to produce life. I know I came from one single cell in my mother's womb and yet this one cell produce a complex brain which still is very mysterious to the scientist. Yet this one cell produced an complex eye, miles of nerves and blood vessels, ears, noses , heart, etc. Even Life as we know it today is very hard to explain.

Instead of replying to the thing about probabilty, I shall just suggest that you read this excellent set of pages which clearly explain the probability of life developing and highlight the flaws in "life cannot have come out of non-life" arguments (false analogies, etc.)

One of the first thing I notice about your article is the writer uses profanity. This is very unprofessional for someone to use profanity when they want to be taken very serious (seems like the writer is offended and bashing the other article). Also I read both evolution and creation articles and the rule of probability said that both side has to be right sometimes even if it's by accident. So just say a creationists has to be wrong because he a creationist is just being bias. There are evolutionists who also admits the problem that this creation articles claims.
When it come down to it, this writer fits in my second group in my Walmart example who refuses to believe that a Walmart on Mars had a builder. Again as I said before even if scientist finally did creat a living cell it would only reinforce the idea of a creator since it still took human intelligences. This would only prove we could copy of creator.

 

[Perfection]

They have no cause that we have identified as yet. If you attribute them to the "inherent nature of the universe", you might as well say "god". Both are outside of reason, unexplainable and therefore an illusion in your view. I would hate to have to explain to you again (see previous thread, about post 1100) how you are proving a case for god. It will be bad for your reputation.

No it is very much within reason. Virtual particles exist because of the probabilistic nature of the universe, which has been mathmatically defined. You are confusing reason with cause. They exist for a reason (the probabilistic nature of the universe), however there is no temporal cause for thier existance, they simply come from nowhere. Same with the universe, it can exist for reasons and yet have no temporal causation! You are stuck viewing things as a sequnce of events from start to finish where what occurs before causes the next events. This has been demonstrated to be a false assumption!

 

[shadowdude]

Doesn't anyone get tired of the "prove **** exists" threads, because i'm sick of seeing them

 

[Perfection]

Doesn't anyone get tired of the "prove **** exists" threads, because i'm sick of seeing them

Well, I'll tell ya one thing, posting in them isn't gonna make them go away!

 

[shadowdude]

Well, I'll tell ya one thing, posting in them isn't gonna make them go away!

Good point, but what else am i gonna do

 

[Perfection]

Good point, but what else am i gonna do

Well, there are two things:
1. You could post an actual response to the thread
2. Leave the damn thread alone

Simple as that!

 

[Birdjaguar]

No it is very much within reason. Virtual particles exist because of the probabilistic nature of the universe, which has been mathmatically defined. You are confusing reason with cause. They exist for a reason (the probabilistic nature of the universe), however there is no temporal cause for thier existance, they simply come from nowhere. Same with the universe, it can exist for reasons and yet have no temporal causation! You are stuck viewing things as a sequnce of events from start to finish where what occurs before causes the next events. This has been demonstrated to be a false assumption!

I would separate reason and cause too. Probability explains the freqency or likeliness of an occurance. It is used to explain why in the sense that because we see these particles, the probabalisitc nature of the universe says we might. It all fits. I agree. How about a non temporal cause?

You claimed that they come from nowhere and are part of the inherent nature of the universe. If they come from nowhere, then they cannot be part of the universe which is somewhere. Does that mean that there is a place that is not the universe? Or is it that within the universe both nothing and nowhere exist.

If I may: the universe is made up of probabalisitc particles (call them dice for now) As they roll we see the numbers appear in various frequencies that shape the nature of things. Reasons explain the whys and hows of the numbers that appear. I would ask "why is it the nature of the dice to roll?" Why are the probabilities we see occuring the ones that are? You might ask what is the nature of a quark and how does it build a proton. I would ask "How did quarks get their nature?"

Do you believe the universe is eternal? Or did it have a beginning? This is not a trick question, but one that is fundamental to any position.

 

[shadowdude]

Well, there are two things:
1. You could post an actual response to the thread
2. Leave the damn thread alone

Simple as that!

OK thats what i'll do(the leave the dam thread alone part)
Of course God exists,silly rabbit trix are 4 kidz

 

[Birdjaguar]

One more post and you get to 100!

 

[Perfection]

You claimed that they come from nowhere and are part of the inherent nature of the universe. If they come from nowhere, then they cannot be part of the universe which is somewhere. Does that mean that there is a place that is not the universe? Or is it that within the universe both nothing and nowhere exist.

Umm, nowhere does not exist. The did not exist until the moment they came into being and than after they annhilated ceased to exist, simple really. You are assuming they had to come from somehere, they don't!

If I may: the universe is made up of probabalisitc particles (call them dice for now) As they roll we see the numbers appear in various frequencies that shape the nature of things. Reasons explain the whys and hows of the numbers that appear. I would ask "why is it the nature of the dice to roll?" Why are the probabilities we see occuring the ones that are? You might ask what is the nature of a quark and how does it build a proton. I would ask "How did quarks get their nature?"

How do these relate to my comment that science shows that causation isn't the same as reason. Things do occur without cause, they don't occur without reason. I suppose eventually we could get to the point where we have to say "they just are" but that is not illogical if there is no evidence to suggest otherwise!

Do you believe the universe is eternal? Or did it have a beginning? This is not a trick question, but one that is fundamental to any position.

Frankly, I don't know, it could work either way in my book.

 

[Perfection]

Of course God exists,silly rabbit trix are 4 kidz

Actually adults too can enjoy the wonderful fruity flavor of Trix!