Does God exist? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Does God exist?


WS6
04-20-2012, 20:18
Maybe?

The existence of God can be proved [ … ] from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. [Summa Theologica, Part 1, Question 2, Article 3. (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3)]

Geko45
04-20-2012, 20:43
Maybe?

Complete gibberish. There is nothing here to suggest that this "first mover" was an intelligent being.

WS6
04-20-2012, 20:45
Complete gibberish.

How so?

There is nothing here to suggest that this "first mover" was an intelligent being.

So what?

Woofie
04-20-2012, 21:01
So what?

The post is pointless. It in no way suggests the existence of a god, let alone your god.

WS6
04-20-2012, 21:07
The post is pointless. It in no way suggests the existence of a god,

Why not?

let alone your god.

What do you know about me?

oldman11
04-20-2012, 21:10
Complete gibberish. There is nothing here to suggest that this "first mover" was an intelligent being.
Show me proof to the contrary.

SDGlock23
04-20-2012, 21:14
He certainly does

Geko45
04-20-2012, 21:18
Show me proof to the contrary.

:upeyes: :sigh:

You really don't want to ask me that.

JBnTX
04-20-2012, 21:22
Atheists will never accept any proof that God exists. If he appeared directly in front of them, they'd still deny his existence.

Maybe that's why God offers no proof of his existence and wants us to accept him on faith?

Maybe that's God's way of sticking it to the atheists, because he knows that faith is a concept that's lost on most atheists?

God knows what he's doing.:rofl:

Tilley
04-20-2012, 21:23
Complete gibberish. There is nothing here to suggest that this "first mover" was an intelligent being.

This is the theory of Causation, something which suggests the Universe was created and to which zombies have no answer to.

Google it.

Geko45
04-20-2012, 21:28
This is the theory of Causation, something which suggests the Universe was created and to which zombies have no answer to.

Google it.

No, just the same flawed theory that has been refuted dozens of times before, it offers nothing to support its assertion that there must have been an intelligent initiator (or "first mover"). Natural forces explain this just as well if not better.

WS6
04-20-2012, 21:29
Atheists will never accept any proof that God exists. If he appeared directly in front of them, they'd still deny his existence.

Maybe that's why God offers no proof of his existence and wants us to accept him on faith?

Maybe that's God's way of sticking it to the atheists, because he knows that faith is a concept that's lost on most atheists?

God knows what he's doing.:rofl:

Do you have a problem with this consideration (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article2)?

WS6
04-20-2012, 21:32
No, just the same flawed theory that has been refuted dozens of times before, it offers nothing to support its assertion that there must have been an intelligent initiator (or "first mover"). Natural forces explain this just as well if not better.

Rebut the argument.

Tilley
04-20-2012, 21:38
No, just the same flawed theory that has been refuted dozens of times before, it offers nothing to support its assertion that there must have been an intelligent initiator (or "first mover"). Natural forces explain this just as well if not better.

Your answer does not refute Causation. Refute or move on.

Animal Mother
04-20-2012, 21:52
How so? Mostly because it expresses a 13th century understanding of the natural world. In just the passage you quote, he talks about wood being "potentially hot", for example. How would that fit into an understanding of the universe based on quantum mechanics?
So what?Are you willing to accept that god is not an intelligent being?

WS6
04-20-2012, 22:05
Mostly because it expresses a 13th century understanding of the natural world. In just the passage you quote, he talks about wood being "potentially hot", for example. How would that fit into an understanding of the universe based on quantum mechanics?

What are your quantum physics concerns in this regard?

Are you willing to accept that god is not an intelligent being?

How does my willingness one way or the other bear on this proof?

Animal Mother
04-20-2012, 22:21
What are your quantum physics concerns in this regard? Does wood contain heat which is released by fire? Is that the actual physical process?
How does my willingness one way or the other bear on this proof?Is the first mover is not an intelligent being, or a being at all in the traditional sense, even if such a thing exists, then Christianity is refuted.

Animal Mother
04-20-2012, 22:28
Atheists will never accept any proof that God exists. If he appeared directly in front of them, they'd still deny his existence.

Maybe that's why God offers no proof of his existence and wants us to accept him on faith?

Maybe that's God's way of sticking it to the atheists, because he knows that faith is a concept that's lost on most atheists?

God knows what he's doing.:rofl:God sounds like a dick. Why was He so willing to prove his existence in the past?

WS6
04-20-2012, 22:45
What are your quantum physics concerns in this regard?
Does wood contain heat which is released by fire? Is that the actual physical process?

If you believe that quantum physics negates a particular proposition of the proof in some way, make your case.

How does my willingness one way or the other bear on this proof?
Is the first mover is not an intelligent being, or a being at all in the traditional sense, even if such a thing exists, then Christianity is refuted.

If you concede an unmoved mover, I will address this point.

Syclone538
04-20-2012, 22:48
I'm thinking gravity is the first mover.
:dunno:
What am I missing here?

jay-bird
04-20-2012, 22:51
God only exists if you believe in Him. Same goes for the other guy.

WS6
04-20-2012, 22:54
I'm thinking gravity is the first mover.
:dunno:
What am I missing here?

Make your case.

Syclone538
04-20-2012, 22:55
I did. What problem do you see with it.

WS6
04-20-2012, 22:58
I did. What problem do you see with it.

I don't see it; did you edit a post?

Tilley
04-20-2012, 22:59
God sounds like a dick. Why was He so willing to prove his existence in the past?

Up until this point I actually admired your intelligence. You crossed a line. Have a good life.

Syclone538
04-20-2012, 23:01
What problem do you see with gravity being the "first mover"?

WS6
04-20-2012, 23:04
What problem do you see with gravity being the "first mover"?

Define the term gravity.

Syclone538
04-20-2012, 23:07
I'm sure you can find a dictionary online.

WS6
04-20-2012, 23:12
I'm sure you can find a dictionary online.

Okay, I choose:

serious or dignified behavior; dignity, solemnity.

Please show how this concept is unmoved.

Syclone538
04-20-2012, 23:18
Very mature.

Anyway, show how gravity is "moved".


edit

I don't get it, it's so simple it feels like a trick question. I ask again, what am I missing.

WS6
04-20-2012, 23:23
Very mature.

Anyway, show how gravity is "moved".

Address Aquinas' proof, or start your own thread regarding gravity.

Syclone538
04-20-2012, 23:26
So it really was that simple?

Animal Mother
04-20-2012, 23:31
If you believe that quantum physics negates a particular proposition of the proof in some way, make your case. I have, repeatedly. Classic causation, as described in the passage you've quoted, does not apply in a quantum environment. The most famous example, though not the most accurate, is Schroedinger's cat.
If you concede an unmoved mover, I will address this point.If you demonstrate the existence of such a mover, I'll happily concede it.

Animal Mother
04-20-2012, 23:32
Up until this point I actually admired your intelligence. You crossed a line. Have a good life.Imagine my dismay.

WS6
04-20-2012, 23:40
I have, repeatedly. Classic causation, as described in the passage you've quoted, does not apply in a quantum environment. The most famous example, though not the most accurate, is Schroedinger's cat.

Classic causation? Perhaps you should address the proof.

Animal Mother
04-20-2012, 23:52
Classic causation? Perhaps you should address the proof. Would you prefer if I used the term unmoved mover?

WS6
04-21-2012, 00:03
Would you prefer if I used the term unmoved mover?

Only if it lends to the relevancy of your rebuttal to the proof.

Animal Mother
04-21-2012, 00:46
Only if it lends to the relevancy of your rebuttal to the proof.Perhaps we need to take a step back. Do you not see the passage you quoted as an example of an attempt at proving the existence of an unmoved mover, first cause, or uncaused cause?

Guss
04-21-2012, 04:34
God sounds like a dick. Why was He so willing to prove his existence in the past?
Which leads us to the God-is-dead school of thought.

Kingarthurhk
04-21-2012, 07:01
This is the theory of Causation, something which suggests the Universe was created and to which zombies have no answer to.

Google it.

1 Peter 3:15.

Geko45
04-21-2012, 07:38
Your answer does not refute Causation. Refute or move on.

I don't need to refute something that neither of you have succesfully proven. It's wild unsubstantiated speculation, nothing more.

When I presented my proof that there is no god, I supplied evidence to back it up in the form of proven pysical laws. Not one believer was able to offer anything to contradict those three laws (and yet still you would not concede the point). Now you are making an assertion without any proof at all and requiring me to do the leg work to show it false?

This is absurd. It's seems the common denominator in christian apoligetics is the complete absence of evidence.

Woofie
04-21-2012, 07:41
Only if it lends to the relevancy of your rebuttal to the proof.

Asserting that god created the universe begs the question "Who created god?"

Woofie
04-21-2012, 07:46
Why not?

You're stuck in a Newtonian physics world, but the universe operates in the quantum world. Quantum physics has shown that events on the molecular can and do move without cause.



What do you know about me?

Nothing, but when the evidence doesn't suggest ANY god, it is logical that it won't suggest YOUR god either.

JBnTX
04-21-2012, 07:50
Asserting that god created the universe begs the question "Who created god?"


Nobody created God. He's an eternal being that created the physical world and even time itself,

God exists outside of time and physical space. You can't apply our "physical" standards and limitations to God.

Maybe that's why there's no proof of his existence?
We wouldn't understand it anyway.

Geko45
04-21-2012, 07:59
You're stuck in a Newtonian physics world, but the universe operates in the quantum world. Quantum physics has shown that events on the molecular can and do move without cause.

Woofie nailed it. In the quantum world cause and effect can be reversed or there can even be no cause at all. The causality chain that we all come to rely on in our perceived reality is the cumulative effect of probabilities that cause quantum "strangeness" to be a moot issue in day to day life. But given enough time (like an infinitely old universe) even large cosmic events can and will happen without cause.

Er go, the "proof" is debunked.

WS6
04-21-2012, 08:41
Perhaps we need to take a step back. Do you not see the passage you quoted as an example of an attempt at proving the existence of an unmoved mover,

Yes, I do.

first cause, or uncaused cause?

The concern of this thread is Aquinas' First Way proof, not the Second.

WS6
04-21-2012, 08:55
Asserting that god created the universe begs the question "Who created god?"

So, don't make such assertions.

You're stuck in a Newtonian physics world, but the universe operates in the quantum world. Quantum physics has shown that events on the molecular can and do move without cause.

Address/rebut the specific propositions of the proof, which fail in this regard.

Nothing, but when the evidence doesn't suggest ANY god, it is logical that it won't suggest YOUR god either.

I worship the unmoved mover.

Geko45
04-21-2012, 09:21
Address/rebut the specific propositions of the proof, which fail in this regard.

He already did (at least as directly as possible given the convoluted presentation of the "proof"). As Tilley has already pointed out, this is a permutation (and distortion) of the causality argument. One action was caused by another, which was caused by another, ad inifinitum all the way back to this "first mover". The proof relies entirely on causality as an absolute. If at any point in the chain of events it is possible to have any action without a cause then the whole argument is moot as the dependency chain is broken and it could have all started with something entirely natural and explainable.

Quantum mechanics provides this break in the chain. Events at the quantum level can and do happen without cause all the time. As the scale gets larger, the probablity of any particular event happening without a cause grows smaller, but it never reaches zero. At our scale, the chances are so infinitesimal as to have no practical meaning in day to day life, but when combined with a sample size of an eternal universe then large cosmic events can and must happen without cause sooner or later.

In summary, since the math clearly states that anything that is possible will happen given a large enough sample size and quantum mechanics clearly shows that it is possible, the only valid conclusion is that events on the scale of the Big Bang can and do happen without cause given the infinite nature of spacetime. Don't bother responding. I know that you will deny that this as a conclusive deductive argument. Believers always do.

WS6
04-21-2012, 09:24
In the quantum world cause and effect can be reversed or there even be no cause at all.

My expletives to your very words were posted in this forum last week.

The causality chain that we all come to rely on in our perceived reality is the cumulative effect of probabilities that cause quantum "strangeness" to be a moot issue in day to day life. But given enough time (like an infinitely old universe) even large cosmic events can and will happen without cause.

Er go, the "proof" is debunked.

Blah, blah, blah. Debunk specific propositions of the "proof" with very specific quantum laws.

WS6
04-21-2012, 09:32
He already did (at least as directly as possible given the convoluted presentation of the "proof"). As Tilley has already pointed out, this is a permutation (and distortion) of the causality argument. One action was caused by another, which was caused by another, ad inifinitum all the way back to this "first mover". The proof relies entirely on causality as an absolute. If at any point in the chain of events it is possible to have any action without a cause then the whole argument is moot as the dependency chain is broken and it could have all started with something entirely natural and explainable.

Quantum mechanics provides this break in the chain. Events at the quantum level can and do happen without cause all the time. As the scale gets larger, the probablity of any particular event happening without a cause grows smaller, but it never reaches zero. At our scale, the chances are so infinitesimal as to have no practical meaning in day to day life, but when combined with a sample size of an eternal universe then large cosmic events can and must happen without cause sooner or later.

In summary, since the math clearly states that anything that is possible will happen given a large enough sample size and quantum mechanics clearly shows that it is possible, the only valid conclusion is that events on the scale of the Big Bang can and do happen without cause given the infinite nature of spacetime. Don't bother responding. I know that you will deny that this as a conclusive deductive argument. Believers always do.

Straw man someone else.

Geko45
04-21-2012, 09:34
My expletives to your very words were posted in this forum last week.

Blah, blah, blah. Debunk specific propositions of the "proof" with very specific quantum laws.

Yeah, this is about what I expected from a believer.

Quantum Entanglement turns your causality chain on its head and puts effect before cause.

Quantum Entanglement and Causality (http://oolong.co.uk/causality.htm)

The phenomenon in question is known as quantum entanglement. Briefly stated, what is happening is this: Particles which are arbitrarily far apart seem to be influencing each other, even though according to relativity this means that what seems to be causing an event from one point of view, from another point of view doesn't happen until after the effect being caused.

Geko45
04-21-2012, 09:36
Straw man someone else.

OMG! LOL! That was ballsy!

:rofl:

Kingarthurhk
04-21-2012, 09:40
Isaiah 55:2-12, "<sup>6</sup> Seek the LORD while he may be found;
call on him while he is near.
<sup id="en-NIV-18748" class="versenum">7</sup> Let the wicked forsake their ways
and the unrighteous their thoughts.
Let them turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on them,
and to our God, for he will freely pardon.
<sup id="en-NIV-18749" class="versenum">8</sup> “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the LORD.
<sup id="en-NIV-18750" class="versenum">9</sup> “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
<sup id="en-NIV-18751" class="versenum">10</sup> As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
<sup id="en-NIV-18752" class="versenum">11</sup> so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
<sup id="en-NIV-18753" class="versenum">12</sup> You will go out in joy
and be led forth in peace;"

WS6
04-21-2012, 09:51
Yeah, this is about what I expected from a believer.

Quantum Entanglement turns your causality chain on its head and puts effect before cause.

Quantum Entanglement and Causality (http://oolong.co.uk/causality.htm)

From your linked article:

The phenomenon in question is known as quantum entanglement. Briefly stated, what is happening is this: Particles which are arbitrarily far apart seem to be influencing each other, even though according to relativity this means that what seems to be causing an event from one point of view, from another point of view doesn't happen until after the effect being caused.

What is going on here remains a topic of heated debate; so much so that it seems that for any conclusion on the matter reached by one scholar, one can find another to vehemently contradict it. However, there is one thing that almost all commentators agree on: There has to be something pretty strange going on here.

Am I to be impressed that the only thing that seems to be carved in stone is the last statement?

WS6
04-21-2012, 09:53
Isaiah 55:2-12, "<sup>6</sup> Seek the LORD while he may be found;
call on him while he is near.
<sup id="en-NIV-18748" class="versenum">7</sup> Let the wicked forsake their ways
and the unrighteous their thoughts.
Let them turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on them,
and to our God, for he will freely pardon.
<sup id="en-NIV-18749" class="versenum">8</sup> “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the LORD.
<sup id="en-NIV-18750" class="versenum">9</sup> “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
<sup id="en-NIV-18751" class="versenum">10</sup> As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
<sup id="en-NIV-18752" class="versenum">11</sup> so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
<sup id="en-NIV-18753" class="versenum">12</sup> You will go out in joy
and be led forth in peace;"


How is your post relevant to the First Way?

Kingarthurhk
04-21-2012, 09:57
How is your post relevant to the First Way?

It is relevant to the discussion. This conceopt that we can reason as God does, doesn't work. His ways are not our ways, His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. Further, He entreats those who are lost to come to Him and be forgiven and blessed. Moreover, when the word of God goes out, it never comes back empty.

God is the First way and the Last way. He is the Alpha and the Omega.

WS6
04-21-2012, 10:05
It is relevant to the discussion. This conceopt that we can reason as God does, doesn't work. His ways are not our ways, His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. Further, He entreats those who are lost to come to Him and be forgiven and blessed. Moreover, when the word of God goes out, it never comes back empty.

God is the First way and the Last way. He is the Alpha and the Omega.

If you want to preach, start your own thread.

Geko45
04-21-2012, 11:13
Am I to be impressed that the only thing that seems to be carved in stone is the last statement?

It's a heated debate because people like you have a hard time grasping the concept, but the math is dispassionate and without bias. Even Einstein had difficulty in accepting quantum strangeness initially, quite understandable why someone at your level would find the task almost insurmountable.

WS6
04-21-2012, 11:21
It's a heated debate because people like you have a hard time grasping the concept, but the math is dispassionate and without bias. Even Einstein had difficulty in accepting quantum strangeness initially, quite understandable why someone at your level would find the task almost insurmountable.

The only grasping being done here are straws by you. Folks like me (probably most folks on this forum) are not included within the particular context of that statement. Are you perhaps "published" in this regard?

Geko45
04-21-2012, 11:30
The only grasping being done here are straws by you. Folks like me (probably most folks on this forum) are not included within the particular context of that statement. Are you perhaps "published" in this regard?

Einstein had difficulty with it not because it was to hard for him to understand, but because he had grown accustom to the tenents of clasical physics. In your case, you've grown to accustom to the tenents of your belief system to think of possibilities that exist outside your worldview.

I know from personal expeience how difficult that is as it took me 36 years of my life to finally throw off the mythos I was initially taught. In that realm, I've proven myself as one of the very few that can shed a deeply held belief when the evidence clearly shows it to be illogical.

Published, me? Not in the discipline of theoritcal physics, no. Do I need to be to cite to you the works of experts in this field of study? No.

WS6
04-21-2012, 12:09
Einstein had difficulty with it not because it was to hard for him to understand, but because he had grown accustom to the tenents of clasical physics. In your case, you've grown to accustom to the tenents of your belief system to think of possibilities that exist outside your worldview.

You really have no idea what I think.

I know from personal expeience how difficult that is as it took me 36 years of my life to finally throw off the mythos I was initially taught. In that realm, I've proven myself as one of the very few that can shed a deeply held belief when the evidence clearly shows it to be illogical.

Don't flatter yourself, as after three pages of thread you have yet to engage even one proposition of Aquinas' First Way.

Published, me? Not in the discipline of theoritcal physics, no.

So, when we consider this statement from your linked article ...

What is going on here remains a topic of heated debate; so much so that it seems that for any conclusion on the matter reached by one scholar, one can find another to vehemently contradict it.

… and as I am not a scholar in this regard, your statement …

It's a heated debate because people like you have a hard time grasping the concept

…. is just a cheap shot without warrant.

Do I need to be to cite to you the works of experts in this field of study? No.

Why do you bring this up? I never made this point.

__________________

Geko45
04-21-2012, 13:19
You really have no idea what I think.

Ironically, neither do you.

Don't flatter yourself, as after three pages of thread you have yet to engage even one proposition of Aquinas' First Way.

Just keep repeating that until it becomes true, eh?

From your initial post:

Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another

Quantum Mechanics says "no" to this. Everything else in that quote relies on this to be true. If this is not true then his conclusion is not true. If you can't grasp this simple concept then there is no debating with you. You are closed minded fool.

WS6
04-21-2012, 14:33
Ironically, neither do you.

I appreciate the ad hom.

From your initial post:

Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another

Quantum Mechanics says "no" to this. Everything else in that quote relies on this to be true. If this is not true then his conclusion is not true.

You are right. Now considering what Aquinas means by the term motion ...

For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality.

... cite that established law of quantum mechanics that negates this.

If you can't grasp this simple concept then there is no debating with you. You are closed minded fool.

Gee thanks ... again.

Geko45
04-21-2012, 14:43
For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality.

... cite that established law of quantum mechanics that negates this.

I don't need to. My position (and quantum mechanics) are consistent with this (although it is poorly worded description of potential versus kinetic energy). Do you have even a rudimentary understanding of physics? Why would you ask such an irrelevant question?

:dunno:

WS6
04-21-2012, 16:15
I don't need to.

You can't.

My position (and quantum mechanics) are consistent with this (although it is poorly worded description of potential versus kinetic energy). Do you have even a rudimentary understanding of physics? Why would you ask such an irrelevant question?

:dunno:

Time out for rudimentary logical fallacy instruction:

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy. More ... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

Geko45
04-21-2012, 16:31
You can't.

Don't need to, it's not contrary to my point.

Time out for rudimentary logical fallacy instruction:

My ad hominems only come after my valid and sound arguments are made. I don't rest my case on them.

Woofie
04-21-2012, 21:14
How is your post relevant to the First Way?

I got to hand it to you; you're even hostile towards the guys who would support your argument.

Bravo

TangoFoxtrot
04-22-2012, 07:48
Maybe?

This is the question scientist and theologists have been battling over for centuries. I would like to think when you die there is a better place our souls will go to.

On the other hand its hard to believe that God would let a little girl or boy be brutely raped, beaten and killed or even die of cancer. Some say its part of Gods plan. What the hell is the reason to let someone die so horribly?, some inocent young person???? :dunno:

Vic Hays
04-22-2012, 08:37
This is the question scientist and theologists have been battling over for centuries. I would like to think when you die there is a better place our souls will go to.

On the other hand its hard to believe that God would let a little girl or boy be brutely raped, beaten and killed or even die of cancer. Some say its part of Gods plan. What the hell is the reason to let someone die so horribly?, some inocent young person???? :dunno:


God's principles are Truth, fairness (justice),mercy and individual liberty. When sin came into the world God followed His principle of individual liberty. The bad things that happen are just the logical results. For God to step in and overturn the logical consequences of sin would mean a violation of His principle of individual liberty.

The only way for God to maintain His principles and mitigate the consequences of sin would be to take on those consequences of sin personally and freely allow people to either accept or reject His sacrifice.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
3:18 He that believes on him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

G23Gen4TX
04-22-2012, 08:52
Imagine my dismay.

Shame on you for calling god a dick. We all know he's an arshole and not a dick. Read the bible.

G23Gen4TX
04-22-2012, 08:54
If you want to preach, start your own thread.

Religious people can never seem to agree with each other.

TangoFoxtrot
04-22-2012, 15:28
God's principles are Truth, fairness (justice),mercy and individual liberty. When sin came into the world God followed His principle of individual liberty. The bad things that happen are just the logical results. For God to step in and overturn the logical consequences of sin would mean a violation of His principle of individual liberty.

The only way for God to maintain His principles and mitigate the consequences of sin would be to take on those consequences of sin personally and freely allow people to either accept or reject His sacrifice.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
3:18 He that believes on him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Sorry not buying any today.

Gunhaver
04-22-2012, 16:47
Atheists will never accept any proof that God exists. If he appeared directly in front of them, they'd still deny his existence.

Maybe that's why God offers no proof of his existence and wants us to accept him on faith?

Maybe that's God's way of sticking it to the atheists, because he knows that faith is a concept that's lost on most atheists?

God knows what he's doing.:rofl:

Or that's just the perfect way to design a BS story that you have no evidence to support. Don't humans have a long history of passing on unsupported claims? Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

Lone Wolf8634
04-22-2012, 20:23
Atheists will never accept any proof that God exists. If he appeared directly in front of them, they'd still deny his existence.

No. It'd be beyond retarded to deny an entity appearing before me.

Maybe that's why God offers no proof of his existence and wants us to accept him on faith?

Cuz he wants to play mind games with us?

Maybe that's God's way of sticking it to the atheists, because he knows that faith is a concept that's lost on most atheists?

Sounds like a worthy God to me.......:whistling:

God knows what he's doing.:rofl:

Okay..:wavey:

Danny Reid
04-22-2012, 21:26
God exists...in the minds of people who need for god to exist.

Gunhaver
04-23-2012, 09:50
Quantum Mechanics says "no" to this. Everything else in that quote relies on this to be true. If this is not true then his conclusion is not true. If you can't grasp this simple concept then there is no debating with you. You are closed minded fool.

Well, it's simple really. Quantum mechanics is wrong. More evidence put there by the devil to confuse us like geology and the fossil record. Anything that disagrees with the grand god plan is wrong. God said so in his book.

Gunhaver
04-23-2012, 09:53
God exists...in the minds of people who need for god to exist.

I made this quote up a long time ago, "With God, all things are possible. That's why we created him. There were just too many things that we really, really needed to be possible"

Bren
04-23-2012, 12:38
How so?



So what?

Because it amounts to no mroe than a wordy version of "this all couldn't have come from nothing, because nothing comes from nothing, so it must have come from God..."

...except that God came from nothing and we have no reason for calling the "something" it all came from "god."

If you are going to copy and paste, come up with something better.

As for the "so what?" - So your religion claims the "first mover" was/is an intelligent being, therefore it isn't a "so what" when you provide evidence of his existence that doesn't require and intelligent being (even if it was a legitimate argument at its core).

Bren
04-23-2012, 12:40
Well, it's simple really. Quantum mechanics is wrong. More evidence put there by the devil to confuse us like geology and the fossil record. Anything that disagrees with the grand god plan is wrong. God said so in his book.

You'd think God would eventually counter that by letting his believers have some evidence that he exists.

I know, I know...it would destroy faith, and faith is important because, if you know god existed you wouldn't have faith, and faith is important because, ..........................

Bren
04-23-2012, 12:51
This is the theory of Causation, something which suggests the Universe was created and to which zombies have no answer to.

Google it.

You guys keep googling and pasting arguments, they all lead to the same conclusion.

The theory of Causation argument should be obviously invalid to anyone (see above), as Gecko.45 stated in his initial response - in that even if it was true, it would not provide any proof of the christian god or religion.

The problem is, christians like Blaise Pascal or Thomas Aquinas come up with these "proofs" that seem solid only because they start from christian assumptions that people like them didn't think to look behind or reason to their fairly obvious conclusions. Maybe they saw the flaws but had nothing better, or maybe such reasoning is simply easier to see through when we have been educated in centuries of knowledge beyond their times.

Gunhaver
04-23-2012, 13:07
Life, first movement, the tides coming in and going out with never a miscommunication, it all boils down to the same argument. "I don't understand how it works so god must have done it."

The explanation for many of those things can be found in books but you can't just keep staring at the same one that was written thousands of years ago. We've learned a few things since then.

WS6
04-23-2012, 14:14
Complete gibberish.

How so?

There is nothing here to suggest that this "first mover" was an intelligent being.

So what?

Because it amounts to no mroe than a wordy version of "this all couldn't have come from nothing, because nothing comes from nothing, so it must have come from God..."

If you had read the proof, you would note that an unmoved mover is posited, which to the 13th century Christian audience was understood to be God. That last consideration in no way negates the argument for an unmoved mover.

...except that God came from nothing

The unmoved mover never "came", as it is in a state of actuality.

and we have no reason for calling the "something" it all came from "god."

Considering what I just stated, this is gibberish.

If you are going to copy and paste, come up with something better.

Perhaps you might focus on making a coherent response, and let me worry about how I do things in this regard.

As for the "so what?" - So your religion claims the "first mover" was/is an intelligent being, therefore it isn't a "so what" when you provide evidence of his existence that doesn't require and intelligent being (even if it was a legitimate argument at its core).

Read the proof again. The only thing concluded is an unmoved mover. Proofs regarding the attributes of the unmoved mover are subsequent to this particular proof.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles1.htm

Tilley
04-23-2012, 14:24
The theory of Causation argument...if it was true, it would not provide any proof of the christian god or religion.

True, but it would validate intelligent design and destroy your theory of evolution.

Tilley
04-23-2012, 14:28
Life, first movement, the tides coming in and going out with never a miscommunication, it all boils down to the same argument. "I don't understand how it works so god must have done it."

Allow me to quote an ancient and wise philosopher:

Originally Posted by Paul7:
Thanks for admitting you have no clue how the first non-life became life, although you're positive God wasn't involved apparently.

God is a more reasonable answer than nothingdidit.

Geko45
04-23-2012, 14:37
True, but it would validate intelligent design and destroy your theory of evolution.

But it doesn't since quantum mechanics provides us with a substitute "first mover" that does not require an intelligence and is supported by emprical observation. No need for a deity to start it all when a single particle could have made the first spontaneous movement without cause.

Also note, that the "proof" never really did anything to challenege evolution or the big bang as even if it had been true, all it suggested is that something had to start the ball rolling. Nothing in the "proof" suggests it had to be done with intent or design. This deity may have just spilled their coffee cup and "poof" universe.

WS6
04-23-2012, 15:00
But it doesn't since quantum mechanics provides us with a substitute "first mover" that does not require an intelligence and is supported by emprical observation. No need for a deity to start it all when a single particle could have made the first spontaneous movement without cause.

Please expand on this alleged "first mover".

Also note, that the "proof" never really did anything to challenege evolution or the big bang as even if it had been true, all it suggested is that something had to start the ball rolling. Nothing in the "proof" suggests it had to be done with intent or design.
[ ... ]

I agree.

Bren
04-24-2012, 05:06
True, but it would validate intelligent design and destroy your theory of evolution.

No, it would not - not even close. Thomas Aquinas' philosophical argumentvs. a scientific theory based on evidence? It's only a half step better than "bible vs. evolution."

WS6
04-24-2012, 09:49
You guys keep googling and pasting arguments, they all lead to the same conclusion.

The theory of Causation argument should be obviously invalid to anyone (see above), as Gecko.45 stated in his initial response - in that even if it was true, it would not provide any proof of the christian god or religion.

I have already conceded this point.

The problem is, christians like Blaise Pascal or Thomas Aquinas come up with these "proofs" that seem solid

How is Aquinas' First Way argument not solid?

only because they start from christian assumptions

From what Christian assumption does Aquinas' First Way start?

that people like them didn't think to look behind or reason to their fairly obvious conclusions. Maybe they saw the flaws but had nothing better,

Maybe? You're just guessing.

or maybe such reasoning is simply easier to see through when we have been educated in centuries of knowledge beyond their times.

After four pages of thread I'm still waiting for this superior education to engage.

Bren
04-24-2012, 12:25
From what Christian assumption does Aquinas' First Way start?

The one you discalim - that the alternative to scientific explanation is the christian god.


After four pages of thread I'm still waiting for this superior education to engage.

How would you recognize it? Honestly, look at your posts here (the entire forum) - if not for googling and pasting, you'd have nothing to say.

Bren
04-24-2012, 12:27
Read the proof again. The only thing concluded is an unmoved mover. Proofs regarding the attributes of the unmoved mover are subsequent to this particular proof.

Did you see the thread yesterday about intellectual dishonesty? My assumption is that it was about your posts, like this one.

Gunhaver
04-24-2012, 15:46
Did you see the thread yesterday about intellectual dishonesty? My assumption is that it was about your posts, like this one.

:rofl:
I was about to say the same thing after I read that until I scrolled down and saw that you beat me to it. Seriously, the first thing that popped into my head after that response was, "Boy, Gecko's intellectual dishonesty thread is going to get linked to a lot!"

So what is it WS6? Is it real intellectual dishonesty that at least 2 people spotted or are we just ganging up to **** with you?

Schabesbert
04-24-2012, 15:55
:rofl:
I was about to say the same thing after I read that until I scrolled down and saw that you beat me to it. Seriously, the first thing that popped into my head after that response was, "Boy, Gecko's intellectual dishonesty thread is going to get linked to a lot!"

So what is it WS6? Is it real intellectual dishonesty that at least 2 people spotted or are we just ganging up to **** with you?
I think it's neither. I think that responses to WS6 are perfunctory and without any real attempt to actually absorb the material presented.

I can't say whether that's due to intellectual laziness or intellectual dishonesty (or intellectual capacity).

But, yes, perhaps WS6 could link to the intellectual dishonesty thread in response.

muscogee
04-24-2012, 16:30
Blah, blah, blah. Debunk specific propositions of the "proof" with very specific quantum laws.

Do you have scriptures to back that up?

muscogee
04-24-2012, 16:32
Are you perhaps "published" in this regard?

Are you?

Gunhaver
04-24-2012, 17:10
I think it's neither. I think that responses to WS6 are perfunctory and without any real attempt to actually absorb the material presented.

I can't say whether that's due to intellectual laziness or intellectual dishonesty (or intellectual capacity).

But, yes, perhaps WS6 could link to the intellectual dishonesty thread in response.

Actually the material was absorbed fully and my conclusion was, "Yeah, you got nothing." Intellectual laziness has something to do with it for sure but not on my or Bren's part. As I've said before, this argument is just like the "It's all just too complicated !" or "There must be a god because I don't understand how things work." arguments. He presented an "only god could" explanation for something, he got a much simpler no-god-needed explanation that Gecko provided and he maintained that his infinitely more complicated god explanation must be right. No surprise there. Not nearly so many books to read and he still gets to tell himself how he's right. How nice for him.

Schabesbert
04-24-2012, 17:19
Actually the material was absorbed fully and my conclusion was, "Yeah, you got nothing."
Wow! What an erudite and coherent response!
:bowdown:

Intellectual laziness has something to do with it for sure but not on my or Bren's part.
Ahh, the ol' "I know you are, but what am I?" response.

As I've said before, this argument is just like the "It's all just too complicated !" or "There must be a god because I don't understand how things work." arguments.
I expected to see a strawman somewhere here.

He presented an "only god could" explanation for something, he got a much simpler no-god-needed explanation that Gecko provided and he maintained that his infinitely more complicated god explanation must be right. No surprise there. Not nearly so many books to read and he still gets to tell himself how he's right. How nice for him.
Nope. I guess you didn't understand the argument at all. Again, for at least one of the reasons I listed above:

Intellectual dishonesty (denial)
Intellectual laziness
Intellectual capacity

WS6
04-24-2012, 17:21
:rofl:
I was about to say the same thing after I read that until I scrolled down and saw that you beat me to it. Seriously, the first thing that popped into my head after that response was, "Boy, Gecko's intellectual dishonesty thread is going to get linked to a lot!"

So what is it WS6? Is it real intellectual dishonesty that at least 2 people spotted or are we just ganging up to **** with you?

Neither. You folks simply lack the intellectual hardware to bust the proof. http://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif

Geko45
04-24-2012, 17:33
Nope. I guess you didn't understand the argument at all. Again, for at least one of the reasons I listed above:

Intellectual dishonesty (denial)
Intellectual laziness
Intellectual capacity


And yet your own post(s) adds nothing to the discussion.

WS6's presentation of Aquinas' classical argument based on causality depends on a classical understanding of physics where for every action there is always a reaction (and inversely, for every reaction there must have been an action).

Quantum mechanics has made this undesrtanding of causality obsolete. It is only by the aggregation of a multitude of probablities does the strangeness of the quantum world settle down to what we "know" as "normal" in our perceived reality, but the chance of an uncaused action (no matter how remote) always remains.

If causality is not an absolute as assumed by Aquinas then his "proof" must, at a minimum, be downgraded from a deductive argument into an inductive argument. Which, by definition is not conclusive. Which leads to the statement which all to frequently occurs here in one form or another; you can't prove an "unmoved mover".

Again, if you have anything more constructive to add to thread other than accusations, insults and innuendo then, please, let's hear it?

Schabesbert
04-24-2012, 17:49
Quantum mechanics has made this undesrtanding of causality obsolete.
Please, do explain.

If causality is not an absolute as assumed by Aquinas then his "proof" must, at a minimum, be downgraded from a deductive argument into an inductive argument. Which, by definition is not conclusive.
You'd need to provide some evidence for your first premise.

Geko45
04-24-2012, 18:28
You'd need to provide some evidence for your first premise.

Post #51 in this very thread Bert. If you want to participate, you'll need to keep up with the discussion.

(believers once again pretending that nothing has been presented)

Geko45
04-24-2012, 18:42
You'd need to provide some evidence for your first premise.

And another cite (although significantly more technical).

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0208087v2.pdf

juggy4711
04-24-2012, 22:11
Does God exist?

Maybe?

What does it matter.

Complete gibberish. There is nothing here to suggest that this "first mover" was an intelligent being.

...So what?

Exactly.

The post is pointless. It in no way suggests the existence of a god, let alone your god.

Yep.

No, just the same flawed theory that has been refuted dozens of times before, it offers nothing to support its assertion that there must have been an intelligent initiator (or "first mover"). Natural forces explain this just as well if not better.

Yep.

Your answer does not refute Causation. Refute or move on.

Causation does not require an intelligent designer, first mover or anything else of the sort. It only requires that the probability that for there to be something (reality) correlates to observation. Chances are if they weren't we would not be around to argue otherwise.

...The causality chain that we all come to rely on in our perceived reality is the cumulative effect of probabilities that cause quantum "strangeness" to be a moot issue in day to day life...

Yep. There is a fundamental lack of understanding of the probabilistic nature of reality at the quantum level. I can understand why. It is completely unlike anything we experience on the classical level and the mind wants to reject it. However it has proven to be true by every test many of which were intentionally designed to disprove it.

Straw man someone else.

It's not a straw man. You simply can not accept that every attempt to prove that reality does not behave at the quantum level as science indicates that it does has done nothing but prove that it indeed does behave in such a fashion.

Yeah, this is about what I expected from a believer.

Hey I resemble that comment. :tongueout: :whistling:

Quantum Entanglement turns your causality chain on its head and puts effect before cause...

QE is a great if not the best example of just how counter intuitive reality is at the quantum level. Even Einstein was bothered by it.

...Even Einstein had difficulty in accepting quantum strangeness initially, quite understandable why someone at your level would find the task almost insurmountable.

One step ahead of me Geko. Einstein had issues with a few properties of quantum reality so yeah...

Ironically, neither do you...

Beverage spit on screen. Well done.

Just keep repeating that until it becomes true, eh?...Quantum Mechanics says "no" to this. Everything else in that quote relies on this to be true. If this is not true then his conclusion is not true. If you can't grasp this simple concept then there is no debating with you. You are closed minded fool.

WS6 doesn't get and in someway I don't blame him. Quantum mechanics isn't something the mind can instinctively grasp. It's a foreign concept like repulsive gravity, but gravity can be repulsive. It's like inescapable black holes ejecting something, which happens also. Well anyway it's like not realizing how bizarre something is until you realize you have no clue how bizarre things really are.

Please, do explain.

You'd need to provide some evidence for your first premise.

Geko has, you either refuse or are incapable of accepting and/or understanding it.

Schabesbert
04-25-2012, 07:24
Post #51 in this very thread Bert. If you want to participate, you'll need to keep up with the discussion.

(believers once again pretending that nothing has been presented)
This is speculation, not evidence.

The phenomenon in question is known as quantum entanglement. Briefly stated, what is happening is this: Particles which are arbitrarily far apart seem to be influencing each other, even though according to relativity this means that what seems to be causing an event from one point of view, from another point of view doesn't happen until after the effect being caused.

moreammoplz
04-25-2012, 07:55
Yes he does

Geko45
04-25-2012, 08:10
This is speculation, not evidence.

Wait, what??? Quantum Entanglement is speculation?

http://pages.suddenlink.net/pilotbob/facepalm.gif

WS6
04-25-2012, 08:46
Wait, wait??? Quantum Entanglement is speculation?

http://pages.suddenlink.net/pilotbob/facepalm.gif

Schabesbert, this Quantum Entanglement has zapped us into the past; we're back on page 3 (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18874179&postcount=54). http://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif

WS6
04-25-2012, 11:28
[ ... ] Quantum physics has shown that events on the molecular can and do move without cause. [ ... ]

Prove this statement.

Geko45
04-25-2012, 12:44
Prove this statement.

Most of the scholarly work on this topic appears in scientific journals and as such is only available via paid subscription, so all that can be offered here are the abstracts.

Evidence for microscopic causality violation (http://pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v35/i6/p2409_1)

Evidence has been discovered for the violation of microscopic causality in the Compton scattering of light by protons. A calculation of the degree of acausality expected on the basis of a semiclassical model is found to be in quantitative agreement with the data.

Violation of Causality in Relativistic Quantum Theory? (http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v54/i22/p2395_1)

We show that states of systems which, in a very general sense, are approximately localized at time t=0 in a finite region, with exponentially bounded tails outside, violate Einstein causality at later times. Implications are discussed.


Explicit illustration of causality violation: Noncausal relativistic wave-packet evolution (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987PhRvD..36.2381R)

A class of functions whose relativistic evolution is analytically solvable is found. These wave functions are initially localized (by a Newton-Wigner definition) and their spreading through time is investigated. Using these wave packets an explicit example of the violation of relativistic causality (in the spirit of Hegerfeldt's theorem) is presented. Some detailed qualitative features of relativistic quantum behavior are displayed.

Violation of Einstein causality in a model quantum system (http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v35/i12/p3836_1)

A series of theorems have been proved showing that localization in quantum mechanics is inconsistent with Einstein causality. In this paper a simple model of a localized source and a localized detector is studied. This model does not satisfy the assumptions of the rigorous theorems; nonetheless, it is found that the model violates Einstein causality. The effect is very small and resides in the nonresonant part of the transition probability.

Schabesbert
04-25-2012, 13:30
Most of the scholarly work on this topic appears in scientific journals and as such is only available via paid subscription, so all that can be offered here are the abstracts.

Evidence for microscopic causality violation (http://pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v35/i6/p2409_1)



Violation of Causality in Relativistic Quantum Theory? (http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v54/i22/p2395_1)




Explicit illustration of causality violation: Noncausal relativistic wave-packet evolution (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987PhRvD..36.2381R)



Violation of Einstein causality in a model quantum system (http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v35/i12/p3836_1)
You don't seem to understand the difference between, say, Einstein causality and classic causality.

Geko45
04-25-2012, 13:48
You don't seem to understand the difference between, say, Einstein causality and classic causality.

You don't seem to understand that classic causality has been made obsolete. The only reason why we don't see the strangeness of the quantum world at our scale is because the probabilities average out to what we perceive as normal (or "classical" if you will).

Although seeing an event without a cause at our scale has such an infinitesimally small chance of occuring that it is of no consequence in our day to day lives, the probablity is still there and very real and anything that can happen, will happen when given a large enough sample size.

This is a point I've made before, but you and the others here seem determined to not take this argument as a whole and instead only attack it at its component parts.

WS6
04-25-2012, 13:51
Most of the scholarly work on this topic appears in scientific journals and as such is only available via paid subscription, so all that can be offered here are the abstracts.

Evidence for microscopic causality violation (http://pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v35/i6/p2409_1)



Violation of Causality in Relativistic Quantum Theory? (http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v54/i22/p2395_1)




Explicit illustration of causality violation: Noncausal relativistic wave-packet evolution (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987PhRvD..36.2381R)



Violation of Einstein causality in a model quantum system (http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v35/i12/p3836_1)

How does this inaccessible information move the discussion beyond this point (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18874179&postcount=54) and lend itself to proving the following statement?

[ ... ] Quantum physics has shown that events on the molecular can and do move without cause. [ ... ]

fletch_man
04-25-2012, 14:00
Of course he does. He created Gaston and he in turn created these wonderful pistols. What more proof do you need?

Geko45
04-25-2012, 14:02
How does this inaccessible information move the discussion beyond this point (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18874179&postcount=54) and lend itself to proving the following statement?

Well, first, if you were more concerned with learning then you are with winning then you could buy those articles and read them in their entirety and learn a bit why causality is no longer an absolute and therefore understand why basing a proof on it is fundamentally flawed.

And two, as merely quotations of abstracts, they still move my argument forward as each clearly points to the discovery of something that has violated causality as it is commonly perceived by individuals who are experts in their field. So, to maintain your belief in your proof, you now have to believe that multiple researchers who are experts in their fields of study are all somehow mistaken while you are the only one that is correct.

Someone will try to characterize this as an Appeal to Authority fallacy, but that fallacy only applies when the individuals being presented are not true experts on the subject at hand. This is not the case here.

Schabesbert
04-25-2012, 14:22
You don't seem to understand that classic causality has been made obsolete.
No, I don't understand that, as it is very likely untrue.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Give_up_causality:
Causality is not required by special or general relativity, but is nonetheless generally considered a basic property of the universe that cannot be sensibly dispensed with. Because of this, most physicists expect that quantum gravity effects will preclude this option.

The things you're confusing with classical causality are things such as exceeding the speed of light; virtual simultaneity.


Although seeing an event without a cause at our scale has such an infinitesimally small chance of occuring that it is of no consequence in our day to day lives, the probablity is still there and very real and anything that can happen, will happen when given a large enough sample size.
Fine.

You claim that the age of the universe is infinite. In that case, it's a pretty large sample size; "large enough" would be an understatement. Therefore, another universe should have materialized on top of it by now.



This is a point I've made before, but you and the others here seem determined to not take this argument as a whole and instead only attack it at its component parts.
Seems like the ol' "magic happens here" argument.

Geko45
04-25-2012, 14:24
Another aspect of this that the theists here (except Juggy) seem to be missing is that this whole debate started with the idea of a "first mover" or "unmoved mover". The basic idea being that something had to be the first thing to move which subsequently allowed all other things to move by an ongoing cause and effect chain.

In quantum mechanics, all that is needed to accomplish this is for an elementary particle of some sort to perform one of the causality violations I have previously cited and in doing so it happens to collide with its anti-particle. That single collision could have been enough to set the entire Big Bang off as the force of the matter/antimatter annihilation would push surrounding particles into other antiparticles thereby adding to the force of the detonation and ultimately leading to the universe we have today.

All without the need for an intelligent first mover.

WS6
04-25-2012, 14:27
Well, first, if you were more concerned with learning then you are with winning then you could buy those articles and read them in their entirety and learn a bit why causality is no longer an absolute and therefore understand why basing a proof on it is fundamentally flawed.

I have an idea. You subscribe, read, and then post the pertinent information needed to make your case that:

Quantum physics has shown that events on the molecular can and do move without cause.

In other words - do your own homework!

And two, as merely quotations of abstracts, they still move my argument forward as each clearly points to the discovery of something that has violated causality as it is commonly perceived by individuals who are experts in their field. So, to maintain your belief in your proof, you now have to believe that multiple researchers who are experts in their fields of study are all somehow mistaken while you are the only one that is correct.

So you allege. Hey, half my tribe is from Missouri (http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/history/slogan.asp); you'll have to do better than that.

Someone will try to characterize this as an Appeal to Authority fallacy, but that fallacy only applies when the individuals being presented are not true experts on the subject at hand. This is not the case here.

I certainly have not made this characterization.

Geko45
04-25-2012, 14:34
No, I don't understand that, as it is very likely untrue.

No one is dispensing with causality in its entirety, but our understanding of it is certainly being refined. Only in the aggregrate does it take on meaning.

The things you're confusing with classical causality are things such as exceeding the speed of light; virtual simultaneity.

Yes, these are the examples of causality violations that I have cited, but there are other examples. Like virtual particles that wink in and out of existence without cause. Are you saying you need still more citations? When will you have enough? Just saying, cuz this is starting to get ridiculous on your (the thiests) part as y'all haven't put anything meaningful forward for awhile now.

You claim that the age of the universe is infinite. In that case, it's a pretty large sample size; "large enough" would be an understatement. Therefore, another universe should have materialized on top of it by now.

M-theory postulates a "multiverse". I'd used different terminology to describe it myself, but yes, it might be happening in other planes that we can not perceive.

Seems like the ol' "magic happens here" argument.

Seems strange coming from a theist, but at least my "magic" is supported by empirical results.

Geko45
04-25-2012, 14:46
I have an idea. You subscribe, read, and then post the pertinent information needed to make your case that:

The only pertinent information I needed to make my case was in the abstracts. If you'd like to maintain willful ignorance then there is nothing I can do for you.

In other words - do your own homework!

A strange statement coming from a self-admitted high school drop out.

I certainly have not made this characterization.

The point is that I was heading off whoever inevitably tries.

fletch_man
04-25-2012, 15:03
The only pertinent information I needed to make my case was in the abstracts. If you'd like to maintain willful ignorance then there is nothing I can do for you.



A strange statement coming from a self-admitted high school drop out.



The point is that I was heading off whoever inevitably tries.

I'll bet Stephen Hawking gets more coochie than either one of you guys...............................

Geko45
04-25-2012, 15:05
I'll bet Stephen Hawking gets more coochie than either one of you guys...............................

I don't know about that, chicks dig the plane!

<---

:cool:

WS6
04-25-2012, 15:51
I'll bet Stephen Hawking gets more coochie than either one of you guys...............................

http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/images/smilies/xxrotflmao.gif

WS6
04-25-2012, 16:06
A strange statement coming from a self-admitted high school drop out.

Why strange? If I were disinclined to do my homework, it certainly seems very unlikely that I would do yours. Boy, you sure aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer. http://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif

WS6 - 8; Geko45 - 2.

Geko45
04-25-2012, 17:58
WS6 - 8; Geko45 - 2.

:dunno:

You need to provide a breakdown of this imaginary score you are quoting. You've got two spelling errors and one not-so-witty retort. You've got nothing on point so far.

Causation? Debunked, scoreboard Geko. +1
Divinty of Christ / Council of Nicaea? Dead wrong, scoreboard Geko. +2
Intellectual Dishonesty? You're a textbook example, scoreboard Geko. +eleventy billion

So, my card shows: Geko45 - eventy billion and five; WS6 - a wimpy 2.5

:tongueout:

WS6
04-25-2012, 18:21
:dunno:

You need to provide a breakdown of this imaginary score you are quoting. You've got two spelling errors and one not-so-witty retort. You've got nothing on point so far.

Causation? Debunked, scoreboard Geko. +1
Divinty of Christ / Council of Nicaea? Dead wrong, scoreboard Geko. +2
Intellectual Dishonesty? You're a textbook example, scoreboard Geko. +eleventy billion

So, my card shows: Geko45 - eventy billion and five; WS6 - a wimpy 2.5

:tongueout:

You are penalized one point for challenging my game, my rules, and my scoreboard; so the score now stands at:

WS6 - 8; Geko45 - 1

Geko45
04-25-2012, 18:23
You are penalized one point for challenging my game, my rules, and my scoreboard; so the score now stands at:

WS6 - 8; Geko45 - 1

Uh-oh, I got bad news for you...

http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/MES1326.jpg

Gunhaver
04-25-2012, 18:24
So, to maintain your belief in your proof, you now have to believe that multiple researchers who are experts in their fields of study are all somehow mistaken while you are the only one that is correct.



I'm taking bets that they don't have any problem believing that.

Who's in?

Anyone?

Geko45
04-25-2012, 18:36
I'm taking bets that they don't have any problem believing that.

Exactly, it is a testament to their "faith" every time they deny scientific empirical evidence in favor of unsupported superstition. Wallowing in ignorance is a virtue to them.

juggy4711
04-25-2012, 20:56
Another aspect of this that the theists here (except Juggy) seem to be missing is that this whole debate started with the idea of a "first mover" or "unmoved mover". The basic idea being that something had to be the first thing to move which subsequently allowed all other things to move by an ongoing cause and effect chain.

In quantum mechanics, all that is needed to accomplish this is for an elementary particle of some sort to perform one of the causality violations I have previously cited and in doing so it happens to collide with its anti-particle. That single collision could have been enough to set the entire Big Bang off as the force of the matter/antimatter annihilation would push surrounding particles into other antiparticles thereby adding to the force of the detonation and ultimately leading to the universe we have today.

All, without the need for an intelligent first mover.

I appreciate the exception. I believe that the probability that anything exists rather than nothing is God. I ascribe no other attributes to my idea of God. No intelligence, no need for certain behaviors or diets or any other such nonsense. It's only the "reason" or "cause" (of course not in the classical sense) if you will that there is a reality for us to experience. So I am only a theist in the sense that I refer to something as God.

I imagine most theists, and atheists for that matter, could argue that my concept of God is so far off the religious concept as to not be God and therefore I would not be a legitimate theist. And I would not argue with that.

Quantum foam/jitters is non-casual in the classical sense. No cause just a chance. I realize I could be construed as contradicting myself but if there is one thing I have come to realize is certain about the quantum nature of reality is that language is simply incapable of describing it in any way we could consider proper.

I could substitute complete gibberish for everything and as long as the numbers/math were right it wouldn't make a shred of difference.

juggy4711
04-25-2012, 21:01
Exactly, it is a testament to their "faith" every time they deny scientific empirical evidence in favor of unsupported superstition. Wallowing in ignorance is a virtue to them.

My issue with the religious believers as well. And to argue so on a media completely dependent on science being correct. Baffles the mind.

Geko45
04-25-2012, 21:56
I imagine most theists, and atheists for that matter, could argue that my concept of God is so far off the religious concept as to not be God and therefore I would not be a legitimate theist. And I would not argue with that.

So, sort of an absent clock maker type?

I could substitute complete gibberish for everything and as long as the numbers/math were right it wouldn't make a shred of difference.

Most people don't realize that the terminology set most commonly used to describe quantum effects (the Copenhagen interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation)) is just one of many available. The underlying math doesn't change, just the words and analogies that we use to try and make sense of it in our own minds.

WS6
04-26-2012, 03:56
[ ... ] Most people don't realize that the terminology set most commonly used to describe quantum effects (the Copenhagen interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation)) is just one of many available. [ ... ]

An excerpt from your article:

[ ... ] Because it consists of the views developed by a number of scientists and philosophers during the second quarter of the 20th Century, there is no definitive statement of the Copenhagen interpretation. Thus, various ideas have been associated with it; Asher Peres remarked that very different, sometimes opposite, views are presented as "the Copenhagen interpretation" by different authors [ ... ]

In spite of the statement I've underlined above, you still have faith that, if we all shut our eyes at one time, nothing exists, right? Is this the basis for the term blind faith?

Animal Mother
04-26-2012, 05:34
In spite of the statement I've underlined above, you still have faith that, if we all shut our eyes at one time, nothing exists, right? Is this the basis for the term blind faith? I've absented myself from this discussion because you made it eminently clear you had no interest in an actual discussion and no intention of considering anything which might disagree with your deified Aquinas. However, at this point, I feel compelled to point out both that you're following the ancient creationist tradition of quote mining and neglecting to include an important portion of the passage you quote:
Because it consists of the views developed by a number of scientists and philosophers during the second quarter of the 20th Century, there is no definitive statement of the Copenhagen interpretation.[7] Thus, various ideas have been associated with it; Asher Peres remarked that very different, sometimes opposite, views are presented as "the Copenhagen interpretation" by different authors.[8] Nonetheless, there are several basic principles that are generally accepted as being part of the interpretation:
Additionally, you neglect another part of the article:The Copenhagen interpretation is an attempt to explain the mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics and the corresponding experimental results. Early twentieth-century experiments on the physics of very small-scale phenomena led to the discovery of phenomena which could not be predicted on the basis of classical physics, and to the development of new models (theories) that described and predicted very accurately these micro-scale phenomena. These models could not easily be reconciled with the way objects are observed to behave on the macro scale of everyday life. The predictions they offered often appeared counter-intuitive and caused much consternation among the physicists—often including their discoverers.

Perhaps most importantly, you neglect to recognize that the actual language of quantum mechanics is mathematics, not english and that while Geko has made a valiant effort to share explanations of that math in language a layman might comprehend, were he willing, the fact remains that the translation will not be exact.

Geko has chosen to point out the failings of Aquinas' (and Aristotle's) argument based on our knowledge of quantum dynamics. While entirely valid, it isn't the path I would have chosen as the only necessity to contradict the argument would be to break the chain of causality, to show that the statement from the OP, "Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover" is not necessarily true. I would have chosen to invoke cosmology, the Lambda-CDM model and the period prior to barygenesis.

Geko45
04-26-2012, 06:57
In spite of the statement I've underlined above, you still have faith that, if we all shut our eyes at one time, nothing exists, right? Is this the basis for the term blind faith?

Strawman much? Quantum Mechanics doesn't predict that. And, as Animal Mother and Juggy have pointed out, the exact language involved here is mathematics. The math predicts that particles can and will do things without cause. The Copenhagen interpretation is just a way to describe those weird behaviors in terms we can visualize. If I had chosen another interpretation, the underlying math would remain the same.

Next...

Lone Wolf8634
04-26-2012, 07:18
This is why I lurk here. Interesting, educational and amusing.

Gecko45, I believe your up to eleventy billion and 6...:rofl::rofl:

Woofie
04-26-2012, 07:52
Strawman much? Quantum Mechanics doesn't predict that. And, as Animal Mother pointed out, the exact language involved here is mathematics. The math predicts that particles can and will do things without cause. The Copenhagen interpretation is just a way to describe those weird behaviors in terms we can visualize. If I had chosen another interpretation, the underlying math would remain the same.

Next...

I had a friend years ago in my first tour of duty at university who, no matter how many notated articles, logical arguments, and even outlines showing steps of reasoning and where his reasoning failed, would just say "No. You're wrong," and repeat whatever he had initially stated. He did this until you just gave up and moved on to the next topic where he would do the same thing.

I coined a term to describe him and used it as the title of a book I started writing on the subject when I realized how many people are exactly like this.

I called it "Quantum Reasoning."

Schabesbert
04-26-2012, 08:31
Strawman much? Quantum Mechanics doesn't predict that. And, as Animal Mother and Juggy have pointed out, the exact language involved here is mathematics. The math predicts that particles can and will do things without cause.
Please, point out exactly where the math does this. And explain it, in your own words.

Oh, and provide a definition of "cause" that is applicable.

Geko45
04-26-2012, 08:34
Please, point out exactly where the math does this. And explain it, in your own words.

Oh, and provide a definition of "cause" that is applicable.

Asked and answered.

Schabesbert
04-26-2012, 09:02
Asked and answered.
Not a very specific answer.

WS6
04-26-2012, 09:16
In spite of the statement I've underlined above, you still have faith that, if we all shut our eyes at one time, nothing exists, right? Is this the basis for the term blind faith?

I've absented myself from this discussion because you made it eminently clear you had no interest in an actual discussion and no intention of considering anything which might disagree with your deified Aquinas.

I suspect that your absence was due to lack of having anything substantial with which to rebut Aquinas.

However, at this point, I feel compelled to point out both that you're following the ancient creationist tradition of quote mining and neglecting to include an important portion of the passage you quote:

Because it consists of the views developed by a number of scientists and philosophers during the second quarter of the 20th Century, there is no definitive statement of the Copenhagen interpretation.[7] Thus, various ideas have been associated with it; Asher Peres remarked that very different, sometimes opposite, views are presented as "the Copenhagen interpretation" by different authors.[8] Nonetheless, there are several basic principles that are generally accepted as being part of the interpretation:

I didn't neglect a thing, as I wanted to speak to that which I quoted. Also, I knew that someone, such as you, would surely point out this so-called "quote mining". Now, show how those generally accepted basic principles necessarily impinge on the validity of the First Way argument.

Additionally, you neglect another part of the article:

The Copenhagen interpretation is an attempt to explain the mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics and the corresponding experimental results. Early twentieth-century experiments on the physics of very small-scale phenomena led to the discovery of phenomena which could not be predicted on the basis of classical physics, and to the development of new models (theories) that described and predicted very accurately these micro-scale phenomena. These models could not easily be reconciled with the way objects are observed to behave on the macro scale of everyday life. The predictions they offered often appeared counter-intuitive and caused much consternation among the physicists—often including their discoverers.

Nope, you're wrong; I read that too.

Perhaps most importantly, you neglect to recognize that the actual language of quantum mechanics is mathematics, not english and that while Geko has made a valiant effort to share explanations of that math in language a layman might comprehend, were he willing, the fact remains that the translation will not be exact.

You are nonsensical. Either Geko45 "made a valiant effort" or he was just "willing". Oh, wait a minute … I get it. You are making the case for these quantum irregularities by way of the English language.


Geko has chosen to point out the failings of Aquinas' (and Aristotle's) argument based on our knowledge of quantum dynamics.

Is he going to follow through on his choice?

While entirely valid, it isn't the path I would have chosen as the only necessity to contradict the argument would be to break the chain of causality, to show that the statement from the OP, "Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover" is not necessarily true. I would have chosen to invoke cosmology, the Lambda-CDM model and the period prior to barygenesis.

Well, why don't you just do that?

WS6
04-26-2012, 09:25
I had a friend years ago in my first tour of duty at university who, no matter how many notated articles, logical arguments, and even outlines showing steps of reasoning and where his reasoning failed, would just say "No. You're wrong," and repeat whatever he had initially stated. He did this until you just gave up and moved on to the next topic where he would do the same thing.

I coined a term to describe him and used it as the title of a book I started writing on the subject when I realized how many people are exactly like this.

I called it "Quantum Reasoning."

Aren't you the bright one. (http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CQT/chaps/cqt16.ps)

Woofie
04-26-2012, 11:52
Aren't you the bright one. (http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CQT/chaps/cqt16.ps)

Not going to bother reading all that right now, but I'd be willing to bet it's not meant in the same sense I used it. Not really a big deal that two people independently titled different projects the same.

juggy4711
04-26-2012, 17:48
Please, point out exactly where the math does this. And explain it, in your own words.

Not my words but here you go.

-Jabberwocky was a favorite of the British astronomer Arthur Stanley Eddington and is alluded to several times in his writings. In New Pathways in Science he likens the abstract syntactical structure of the poem to that modern branch of mathematics known as group theory. In The Nature of the Physical World he points out that the physicist's description of an elementary particle is really a kind of Jabberwocky; words applied to "something unknown" that is "doing we don't know what." Because the description contains numbers, science is able to impose a certain amount of order on the phenomena and to make successful predictions about them.

"By contemplating eight circulating electrons in one atom and seven circulating electrons in another," Eddington writes, "we begin to realize the difference between oxygen and nitrogen. Eight slithy toves gyre and gimble in the oxygen wabe; seven in nitrogen. By admitting a few numbers even "Jabberwocky" may become scientific. We can now venture on a prediction; if one of its toves escapes, oxygen will be masquerading in a garb properly belonging to nitrogen. In the stars and nebulae we do find such wolves in sheep's clothing which might otherwise have startled us. It would be a bad reminder of the essential unknownness of the fundamental entities of physics to translate it into "Jabberwocky"; provided all numbers -- all metrical attributes -- are unchanged, it does not suffer in the least."

Cause is just another word. I realize it is hard to grasp but in physics language does not matter.

Hydrogen has one electron orbiting it's nucleus which consists of one proton. I could describe it as: Tellemuve has one yecktish gerferting it's kyboz, which blaters of one yile, and it would not make a difference in the properties, behavior or interactions of hydrogen.

Until you can fathom that you are never going to be able to accept any answer Geko45 could give.

I had a friend years ago in my first tour of duty at university who, no matter how many notated articles, logical arguments, and even outlines showing steps of reasoning and where his reasoning failed, would just say "No. You're wrong,"..."

...Nope, you're wrong...

:rofl:

...You are nonsensical.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Geko45
04-26-2012, 17:54
Until you can fathom that you are never going to be able to accept any answer Geko45 could give.

I'm gonna call this the Jabberwocky Interpretation of relativistic elementary particle physics.

:supergrin:

WS6
04-26-2012, 17:57
Not my words but here you go.

-Jabberwocky was a favorite of the British astronomer Arthur Stanley Eddington and is alluded to several times in his writings. In New Pathways in Science he likens the abstract syntactical structure of the poem to that modern branch of mathematics known as group theory. In The Nature of the Physical World he points out that the physicist's description of an elementary particle is really a kind of Jabberwocky; words applied to "something unknown" that is "doing we don't know what." Because the description contains numbers, science is able to impose a certain amount of order on the phenomena and to make successful predictions about them.

"By contemplating eight circulating electrons in one atom and seven circulating electrons in another," Eddington writes, "we begin to realize the difference between oxygen and nitrogen. Eight slithy toves gyre and gimble in the oxygen wabe; seven in nitrogen. By admitting a few numbers even "Jabberwocky" may become scientific. We can now venture on a prediction; if one of its toves escapes, oxygen will be masquerading in a garb properly belonging to nitrogen. In the stars and nebulae we do find such wolves in sheep's clothing which might otherwise have startled us. It would be a bad reminder of the essential unknownness of the fundamental entities of physics to translate it into "Jabberwocky"; provided all numbers -- all metrical attributes -- are unchanged, it does not suffer in the least."

Cause is just another word. I realize it is hard to grasp but in physics language does not matter.

Hydrogen has one electron orbiting it's nucleus which consists of one proton. I could describe it as: Tellemuve has one yecktish gerferting it's kyboz, which blaters of one yile, and it would not make a difference in the properties, behavior or interactions of hydrogen.

Until you can fathom that you are never going to be able to accept any answer Geko45 could give.





:rofl:



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Well, I'll be a ^$@#!

juggy4711
04-26-2012, 18:07
So, sort of an absent clock maker type?

Even that is a bit much for me. Maker is too close to designer and implies some sort of sentience or being. Existence as God would be closer sort of. Much like in QM, language comes up short.

Animal Mother
04-26-2012, 23:48
I suspect that your absence was due to lack of having anything substantial with which to rebut Aquinas. Wrong again.
I didn't neglect a thing, as I wanted to speak to that which I quoted. Also, I knew that someone, such as you, would surely point out this so-called "quote mining". So you intentionally misrepresented the meaning of the passage.
Now, show how those generally accepted basic principles necessarily impinge on the validity of the First Way argument. Geko has done so repeatedly. Do you really need me to do it again?
Nope, you're wrong; I read that too.Reading it doesn't mean you didn't neglect it. Clearly you're not considering its meaning if you're continuing down this erroneous path.
You are nonsensical. Either Geko45 "made a valiant effort" or he was just "willing". Oh, wait a minute … I get it. You are making the case for these quantum irregularities by way of the English language. No, I'm using the English language. Clearly that confuses you. I fear what might happen were we to move to mathematics. In the interest of educating though, the passage in question is, "...Geko has made a valiant effort to share explanations of that math in language a layman might comprehend, were he willing..."

Clearly, the pronoun "he" is a reference to the preceding "layman", not the earlier "Geko".
Is he going to follow through on his choice? He already has. (That "he" is a reference to the "he" in the quoted passage, which was a reference to Geko. Just so you can keep up.)
Well, why don't you just do that?Mostly because I'm familiar with your tactic of denying your questions have been addressed, even when it has been done.

Schabesbert
04-27-2012, 08:20
Not my words but here you go.

-Jabberwocky was a favorite of the British astronomer Arthur Stanley Eddington and is alluded to several times in his writings. In New Pathways in Science he likens the abstract syntactical structure of the poem to that modern branch of mathematics known as group theory. In The Nature of the Physical World he points out that the physicist's description of an elementary particle is really a kind of Jabberwocky; words applied to "something unknown" that is "doing we don't know what." Because the description contains numbers, science is able to impose a certain amount of order on the phenomena and to make successful predictions about them.

"By contemplating eight circulating electrons in one atom and seven circulating electrons in another," Eddington writes, "we begin to realize the difference between oxygen and nitrogen. Eight slithy toves gyre and gimble in the oxygen wabe; seven in nitrogen. By admitting a few numbers even "Jabberwocky" may become scientific. We can now venture on a prediction; if one of its toves escapes, oxygen will be masquerading in a garb properly belonging to nitrogen. In the stars and nebulae we do find such wolves in sheep's clothing which might otherwise have startled us. It would be a bad reminder of the essential unknownness of the fundamental entities of physics to translate it into "Jabberwocky"; provided all numbers -- all metrical attributes -- are unchanged, it does not suffer in the least."

Cause is just another word. I realize it is hard to grasp but in physics language does not matter.
Not hard to grasp, just not entirely accurate. I deal with physics day in and day out. Believe me, when I describe things to our customers, I present math. And then I have to describe the physical effects and underpinnings. You can claim not to have to do that, but that would be ... dare I say it? ... intellectually dishonest.

Physics books, journals, reports, white papers, etc. -- they are heavy on the math, true, but they also have accompanying words.

dbcooper
04-27-2012, 10:48
Atheists will never accept any proof that God exists. If he appeared directly in front of them, they'd still deny his existence.

Maybe that's why God offers no proof of his existence and wants us to accept him on faith?

Maybe that's God's way of sticking it to the atheists, because he knows that faith is a concept that's lost on most atheists?

God knows what he's doing.:rofl:

Maybe, but the believers will never give an honest answer to the question. What one believes is not the same as what one knows.

There is one correct answer, one and only one honest answer to the question.. one that neither side seems to be willing to give.

I Don't Know. :cool:

WS6
04-27-2012, 11:10
.....

Geko45
04-27-2012, 12:18
Sure. You, Geko45, or anyone else will do. Just so we are on the same page, here is the text in question:

Despite this being explained to you several times, you seem determined to willingly cling to your misunderstanding of what the Copenhagen interpretation actually is (emphasis on interpretation). It is not the be all, end all expression of relativistic elementary particle physics in plain langauge. It is merely an attempt to describe the math in lay terms. As such, it is just a grouping of terms and analogies that can be used to discuss the ideas.

Quantum Mechanics is pure math, it can never be expressed fully and accurately in plain english. So, your attempt to constrain us to the accepted principles of the Copenhagen interpretation is meaningless and, quite frankly, illustrates your complete ignorance on the topic. I could use any of the other available interpretations to try and get you to understand the math and my argument would be equally valid (although, I'm sure, equally futile considering the audience). To use an analogy that you might actually comprehend, the interpretations aren't canon, only the math is canon.

Someone will ask me (probably Bert) to post the math and demonstrate it directly. But I have already done that. One of the six cites I have made in this thread already is a full text (and freely available) article that contains a full explanation of the math involved (the one noted as being highly technical). If you want to study the math, go read it.

void *
04-27-2012, 13:24
This seems interesting and relevant:

http://www.blazingtruth.com/unmoved-mover/

Geko45
04-27-2012, 13:52
This seems interesting and relevant:

http://www.blazingtruth.com/unmoved-mover/

Good cite. I've mentioned virtual particles in this thread already as an example of violation of the causality principle, but perhaps I should have lead with it because it more directly illustrates the point.

Woofie
04-27-2012, 13:56
Despite this being explained to you several times, you seem determined to willingly cling to your misunderstanding of what the Copenhagen interpretation actually is (emphasis on interpretation). It is not the be all, end all expression of relativistic elementary particle physics in plain langauge. It is merely an attempt to describe the math in lay terms. As such, it is just a grouping of terms and analogies that can be used to discuss the ideas.

Quantum Mechanics is pure math, it can never be expressed fully and accurately in plain english. So, your attempt to constrain us to the accepted principles of the Copenhagen interpretation is meaningless and, quite frankly, illustrates your complete ignorance on the topic. I could use any of the other available interpretations to try and get you to understand the math and my argument would be equally valid (although, I'm sure, equally futile considering the audience). To use an analogy that you might actually comprehend, the interpretations aren't canon, only the math is canon.

Someone will ask me (probably Bert) to post the math and demonstrate it directly. But I have already done that. One of the six cites I have made in this thread already is a full text (and freely available) article that contains a full explanation of the math involved (the one noted as being highly technical). If you want to study the math, go read it.

It's pointless, Geko. His reasoning randomly pops in and out of existence like a virtual particle.

Geko45
04-27-2012, 13:57
It's pointless, Geko. His reasoning randomly pops in and out of existence like a virtual particle.

So, his reasoning is without cause?

:whistling:

void *
04-27-2012, 14:03
It's pointless, Geko. His reasoning randomly pops in and out of existence like a virtual particle.

Stochastically, not randomly. It's a longer word and thus logically correct. :supergrin:

WS6
04-27-2012, 15:50
.....

Geko45
04-27-2012, 16:38
Finally! After seven pages of thread we get something that intelligently addresses Aquinas' First Way.

LOL! You really haven't been reading this thread at all have you? The only difference between that article and my initial argument is the quantum effect put forward as a violation of causality. I even mentioned virtual particles a couple of pages ago to Bert as another example of violation of causality that would support my position. Did you not read that?

Ok, so now that you have "finally" seen something that addresses Aquinas, I've noticed a distinct lack of rebuttal in your response. Yeah, a couple of links (your book link is broken by the way), but do you not have an original thought on this topic? Is the author of void's article wrong in some way? Show that he is.

WS6
04-27-2012, 16:58
.....

Geko45
04-27-2012, 17:19
Your window of opportunity for a response in this regard closed about page 3 of this thread. So long.

So, in short, you can't. Thanks!

:wavey:

juggy4711
04-27-2012, 17:38
Not hard to grasp, just not entirely accurate. I deal with physics day in and day out. Believe me, when I describe things to our customers, I present math. And then I have to describe the physical effects and underpinnings. You can claim not to have to do that, but that would be ... dare I say it? ... intellectually dishonest.

Physics books, journals, reports, white papers, etc. -- they are heavy on the math, true, but they also have accompanying words.

You deal with physics day in day out, great. You present the math, fantastic. And you have to describe it to your customers the math in a way that they can picture it, I get that. But my gibberish was entirely accurate even if it would not present any picture your customers could understand.

So what part of my post was not entirely accurate? Maybe I should have specified that in quantum physics language does not matter? I thought that point would be obvious in context of the discussion. And what part of it in any shape, form or fashion described the effects and underpinnings of the numbers I referenced that your customers could relate to?

Geko45
04-27-2012, 18:44
You deal with physics day in day out, great.

Well, I would suspect that he deals with applied physics (engineering) day in and day out as true physicists don't typically have "customers".

juggy4711
04-27-2012, 18:58
Well, I would suspect that he deals with applied physics (engineering) day in and day out as true physicists don't typically have "customers".

I will admit that was my first thought as well, just wanted to give Bert a chance to explain where I was incorrect. Or in other words: I vlabit berscan to fefit Bert a jorgen to salimide canfric I was udific. :whistling:

WS6
04-28-2012, 09:00
.....

Geko45
04-28-2012, 09:15
Oh, don't mention it. Hey, you may find these excerpts from the first couple reviews of the book (://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Superstition-Refutation-Atheism/product-reviews/1587314517/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_summary?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending) heartwarming:

Oh yes, that warmed my icy, cold, soulless and godless little atheistic heart.

:innocent:

The book shipped last night, so I'll keep you posted.

Please do, come back when you've finally done some reading and have armed yourself with the typical array of believer fallacies.

GreenDrake
04-28-2012, 10:53
In short, the answer to the title question, no. And religion is nothing more than fear disguised as virtue.

WS6
04-28-2012, 11:55
.....

muscogee
04-28-2012, 12:08
You are certainly in line with your credo:

Stop quoting from non-canonical sources heretic.

GreenDrake
04-28-2012, 12:22
Stop quoting from non-canonical sources heretic.

:rofl:

I know, right? Just answering the question honestly.

GreenDrake
04-28-2012, 12:25
You are certainly in line with your credo:

Certainly not. A credo is a statement of religious beliefs. I don't believe in religion. Want to try again?

WS6
04-28-2012, 13:36
.....

GreenDrake
04-28-2012, 14:28
If lack of a belief in religion is a credo, how is that possible? I can possess a belief in not having one? Awesome. Thanks, chief.

Woofie
04-28-2012, 20:47
If lack of a belief in religion is a credo, how is that possible? I can possess a belief in not having one? Awesome. Thanks, chief.

You only believe that you don't have beliefs, when you actually do?:dunno:

Geko45
04-28-2012, 20:56
You only believe that you don't have beliefs, when you actually do?:dunno:

I don't believe that I actually believe when I believe I do not believe.

GreenDrake
04-29-2012, 06:41
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-b5PgijqjWhA/Tox2fGjWpsI/AAAAAAAABo0/_TzQHdfELgA/s1600/circular-reasoning1.jpg

Lone Wolf8634
04-29-2012, 07:56
I've still seen nothing that convinces me that a god exists.

Including the OP's quoted essay.

So I still have no reason to say that God exists.:dunno:

dbcooper
05-03-2012, 10:27
I've still seen nothing that convinces me that a god exists.

Including the OP's quoted essay.

So I still have no reason to say that God exists.:dunno:

Have you seen anything to convince you that the God, or a God, or some Gods don't exist?

cysoto
05-03-2012, 10:57
Have you seen anything to convince you that the God, or a God, or some Gods don't exist?
And we are right back to square one and that is asking ourselves: which side of this debate has the burden of proof? :dunno:

dbcooper
05-03-2012, 11:14
And we are right back to square one and that is asking ourselves: which side of this debate has the burden of proof? :dunno:

I'd say the believers.

But the only intellectually honest answer is

I don't know.

Woofie
05-03-2012, 13:36
I'd say the believers.

But the only intellectually honest answer is

I don't know.

The intellectually honest answer is "The party making the positive claim."

You can't prove a negative.

Lone Wolf8634
05-03-2012, 13:42
Have you seen anything to convince you that the God, or a God, or some Gods don't exist?

No, I haven't.

But that seems to be the entire argument here, eh?

Bren
05-03-2012, 13:44
Have you seen anything to convince you that the God, or a God, or some Gods don't exist?

The only evidence of nonexistence is a lack of evidence - I've seen nothing but.

And we are right back to square one and that is asking ourselves: which side of this debate has the burden of proof? :dunno:

That should be too basic for us to need to debate it. Exisetence is show by positive evidence, nonexistence is shown by a lack of positive evidence. Only the side making the positive claim has the ability to supply positive evidence. if they do, they win - if they don't, they lose.

Woofie
05-03-2012, 13:50
Have you seen anything to convince you that the God, or a God, or some Gods don't exist?

I have seen plenty to convince me that the christian interpretation of god is incorrect. No evidence to the contrary coupled with my own observations of the world were enough to convince me of that.

Is there an absolute, eternal creator in any form? I don't know, and neither does anybody else.

muscogee
05-03-2012, 14:09
Have you seen anything to convince you that the God, or a God, or some Gods don't exist?

What's your point? If you can't prove God does not exist then he does?

muscogee
05-03-2012, 14:11
And we are right back to square one and that is asking ourselves: which side of this debate has the burden of proof? :dunno:

No. No one ever has the burden to prove something does not exist. That's illogical. Prove Martha Stewart isn't God. Can't do it? Then she must be.