Death [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Death


Kingarthurhk
06-08-2012, 05:38
Why is it tragic? Why is it necessary?

Brucev
06-08-2012, 05:47
Tragic? Not uniformly, but sometimes achingly so. Necessary? Inevitable given the limited qualities of our physical bodies. Happily, death is only the boundary between two kingdoms. And, we get to choose how we shall live beyond this life. Cool.

jbotstein1
06-08-2012, 06:20
Our DNA shortens every time it is replicated. We age, we are subject to oncogenic mutations, and we become more susceptible to infection. Some people believe there is something after we die, others believe that we are no different than any other living creature in that we biodegrade and become fertilizer. I think the former belief is much more comforting, but also without a shade of evidence.

FL Airedale
06-08-2012, 06:55
If there was no death, the planet couldn't support the population.

Lone Wolf8634
06-08-2012, 06:57
Death isn't tragic. Sometimes the circumstances may be, but death is the natural way of things. None of us get out of this alive.

I fail to understand the second question, unless you mean it literally, in that case, the world is to small to hold everything that has been born since the beginning of life on this planet. Methinks it would be a bit crowded by now.

Besides, who wants to live forever?

FL Airedale
06-08-2012, 08:00
Besides, who wants to live forever?

<--------------------------------

If I was in pain, sick or suffering some other way, and couldn't end it any other way, I wouldn't mind checking out. Otherwise, I'm sticking around as long as I can.

Japle
06-08-2012, 09:31
I plan to live forever.

So far, I'm right on schedule.

Vic Hays
06-08-2012, 10:00
Death is tragic because God wants us to live and not only live, but have good quality of life. God's original intention was that man should live forever.

Death is necessary because we are seperated from God and He is the source of all life. Only God has life within Himself. The Son also has life within Himself.

John 5:26 For as the Father has life in himself; so has he given to the Son to have life in himself;
5:27 And has given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, to the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, to the resurrection of damnation.

Guss
06-08-2012, 10:55
From Mark Twain -

"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."

Cavalry Doc
06-08-2012, 11:05
We all get to do it at least once, it's kinda like a rule or something.

Might as well get used to it, and do it with as much class and style as you can muster.

void *
06-08-2012, 11:42
Why is it tragic?

It's tragic because we as humans find it tragic, when we care about each other.

It's not tragic when we don't. (When a serial killer gets the needle, for instance. I don't find that tragic)

Why is it necessary?

I don't think it's established that it's a necessity, rather than an effect of biological systems being imperfect. There's seagrass that based on data is probably at least a hundred thousand years old, for instance. We've figured out how to extend our lives. We might figure out how to extend them more, potentially indefinitely (barring accident). Although that kind of tech may be a long way away if it's even possible.

Eventually, there won't be enough available energy to sustain life, but I don't think that means death is automatically a necessity, either. Just a fact that means that life will eventually not exist.

creaky
06-08-2012, 14:38
It's tragic because we as humans find it tragic, when we care about each other.

It's not tragic when we don't. (When a serial killer gets the needle, for instance. I don't find that tragic)



I don't think it's established that it's a necessity, rather than an effect of biological systems being imperfect. There's seagrass that based on data is probably at least a hundred thousand years old, for instance. We've figured out how to extend our lives. We might figure out how to extend them more, potentially indefinitely (barring accident). Although that kind of tech may be a long way away if it's even possible.

Eventually, there won't be enough available energy to sustain life, but I don't think that means death is automatically a necessity, either. Just a fact that means that life will eventually not exist.

Finally, a post I can go along with. All except for the last paragraph. I believe there will always be life, scripturally speaking.

What is the current theory, Big Crunch, Cold Death??

creaky
06-08-2012, 14:42
If there was no death, the planet couldn't support the population.

Even with death, it eventually won't.

All the more reason to put more effort into colonizing the other planets.

Kingarthurhk
06-08-2012, 15:24
If there was no death, the planet couldn't support the population.

Well, let's examine that thought. If we are evolving toward a better state all the time as Atheists tend to surmise, then this would be compensated for. The species would reproduce less to accomodate its natural surroundings. Clearly, this is not happening.

void *
06-08-2012, 15:40
What is the current theory, Big Crunch, Cold Death??

It's my understanding that, since we've observed that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing, and it looks like it will continue to do so, either heat death (maximal entropy, no energy available to do work) or every particle being so far apart it won't much matter even if there is a tiny bit of energy available.

427
06-08-2012, 15:44
Well, let's examine that thought. If we are evolving toward a better state all the time as Atheists tend to surmise, then this would be compensated for. The species would reproduce less to accomodate its natural surroundings. Clearly, this is not happening.

Over population has a built in check valve. When a population, doesn't matter what it is, gets too big for whatever reason, it dies off.

Altaris
06-08-2012, 16:10
Without death what I am supposed to put on my grill and eat? Death of something else is required so that I may live(plant and animal alike). When I die, my rotting corpse will contribute to the life of some other thing that needs energy to thrive.

Kingarthurhk
06-08-2012, 16:19
Over population has a built in check valve. When a population, doesn't matter what it is, gets too big for whatever reason, it dies off.

It seems unecessary, inefficient, and certainly not evolving in a positive direction. Why do you suppose that is?

Kingarthurhk
06-08-2012, 16:20
Without death what I am supposed to put on my grill and eat? Death of something else is required so that I may live(plant and animal alike). When I die, my rotting corpse will contribute to the life of some other thing that needs energy to thrive.

You aren't required to put a dead animal on your grill to survive.

Lone Wolf8634
06-08-2012, 16:27
Well, let's examine that thought. If we are evolving toward a better state all the time as Atheists tend to surmise, then this would be compensated for. The species would reproduce less to accomodate its natural surroundings. Clearly, this is not happening.

Probly because clearly, we don't live forever.

Lone Wolf8634
06-08-2012, 16:29
You aren't required to put a dead animal on your grill to survive.

No, but plants are "alive" also. Whatever would we eat?

Besides, dead animals are so tasty. :eat:

creaky
06-08-2012, 16:32
You aren't required to put a dead animal on your grill to survive.

It sure makes survival a lot more tolerable.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Altaris
06-08-2012, 16:37
You aren't required to put a dead animal on your grill to survive.

And notice one whole sentence after I mention the grill I say plant and animal. Both are alive, both require energy to live, and both need to die so that other things may take their energy.

Kingarthurhk
06-08-2012, 16:44
And notice one whole sentence after I mention the grill I say plant and animal. Both are alive, both require energy to live, and both need to die so that other things may take their energy.

If you take a peach from a tree, does it die? If you take an apple from a tree does it die? If you take an orange from a tree does it die? If you take a tomato from your garden does the vine die? I can keep going, but I think I have made my point.

Lone Wolf8634
06-08-2012, 16:51
If you take a peach from a tree, does it die? If you take an apple from a tree does it die? If you take an orange from a tree does it die? If you take a tomato from your garden does the vine die? I can keep going, but I think I have made my point.

So we all get to survive on plant abortions?

Thanks, but no, I'll keep my fried animal parts.

Kingarthurhk
06-08-2012, 16:52
So we all get to survive on plant abortions?

Thanks, but no, I'll keep my fried animal parts.

That argument was used to defend the necessity to death. My point is this type of death is by no means necessary.

Bren
06-08-2012, 16:53
If there was no death, the planet couldn't support the population.

We don't have death so the planet can support the population - we have death because this is a long-lived as our cells have managed to become. We don't die because it's necessary, we die because we don't have the physical ability to repair and replace our cells indefinitely.

Kingarthurhk
06-08-2012, 16:54
We don't have death so the planet can support the population - we have death because this is a long-lived as our cells have managed to become.

That seems counter intutive to the philosophy of evolution.

427
06-08-2012, 18:46
That seems counter intutive to the philosophy of evolution.

What proof do you that if Adam and Eve hadn't listened to a talking snake and eaten from a magic tree that man would be eternal? A story written in a book?

Kingarthurhk
06-08-2012, 19:23
What proof do you that if Adam and Eve hadn't listened to a talking snake and eaten from a magic tree that man would be eternal? A story written in a book?

What proof do you have that nothing beget inorganic chaos, the inorganic choas, beget organic order, amd the inorganic chaos that beget organic order, made you?

jbotstein1
06-08-2012, 19:55
Look up telomeres, telomerases, free radicals, apoptosis, and aging. This isn't a religious question anymore. THis one actually has real proof. Scientific evidence, theories that have been tested and proven again and again. I'm sorry.

juggy4711
06-08-2012, 20:28
What proof do you have that nothing beget inorganic chaos, the inorganic choas, beget organic order, amd the inorganic chaos that beget organic order, made you?

First of all you don't properly understand phyiscs judging by that statement. Secondly even if we take that incorrect discription at face value, all of science as currently understood, predicted, measured and tested to be accurate may not be proof but it sure as heck is better evidence than a book written by desert dwelling peoples from 1700+ years ago.

As for the OP...It's tragedy because of personal connections with others. Strangely enough tragedy is the origin of comedy, hence laugh to keep from crying. It's necessary becuase it would require infinite energy to live forever. There isn't infinite energy so it's recylced so to speak. To borrow a line...Life feeds on life, feeds on life feeds on...This is necessary.

Altaris
06-08-2012, 20:58
If you take a peach from a tree, does it die? If you take an apple from a tree does it die? If you take an orange from a tree does it die? If you take a tomato from your garden does the vine die? I can keep going, but I think I have made my point.

In that specific example, no, you do not kill that specific tree. You do however take the energy and life away from the offspring(new tree) that it was trying to produce. You have hindered its species chance of survival. I'm not saying that in a bad way, it's just how it is. You require 'life' energy from something in order to make and sustain something else.

It is even evident on the macro scale. How was the earth formed? From stars in the distant past 'dying'. They died and their remains created earth, and billions of other planets.

juggy4711
06-08-2012, 21:17
In that specific example, no, you do not kill that specific tree. You do however take the energy and life away from the offspring(new tree) that it was trying to produce. You have hindered its species chance of survival. I'm not saying that in a bad way, it's just how it is. You require 'life' energy from something in order to make and sustain something else.

It is even evident on the macro scale. How was the earth formed? From stars in the distant past 'dying'. They died and their remains created earth, and billions of other planets.

No sense using a macro example or a micro for that matter. That we and everything around us are made from stardust is well beyond proper comprehension when the parts of science one can rationalize with their religion are God's genius and the parts one can't are derived from Satan.

There is a connectivity between the sciences. Said it before will say it again. No evolution, no internet. No bio-chemistry, no electromagnetic force. No quantum physics, no colors, no nothing as we can perceive, measure, predict and test.

In other word science, can not be wrong otherwise we would not be having this discussion. It can be incomplete but it can't be wrong.

427
06-08-2012, 21:21
What proof do you have that nothing beget inorganic chaos, the inorganic choas, beget organic order, amd the inorganic chaos that beget organic order, made you?

Oh, I don't know, but science seems to be more plausible than book with everything being created in 6 days, along with talking animals and magic trees/bushes.

Altaris
06-08-2012, 21:25
There is a connectivity between the sciences. Said it before will say it again. No evolution, no internet. No bio-chemistry, no electromagnetic force. No quantum physics, no colors, no nothing as we can perceive, measure, predict and test.

In other word science, can not be wrong otherwise we would not be having this discussion. It can be incomplete but it can't be wrong.

Maybe God, in his infinite wisdom, planned it out all along. He created the universe in just this way, and created our brains just right, so that one day he knew we would be able to figure out his internet design. Which would in turn allow us to more easily spread his message. :tongueout:








....and yes, I do actually agree withe everything you said. :wavey:

janice6
06-08-2012, 21:32
Death is necessary to have an appreciation for life. Without death, life is meaningless.

dbarry
06-08-2012, 21:41
born once, die twice. born twice, die once...


“I tell you the truth, unless you are born again,a you cannot see the Kingdom of God.” John 3:3

juggy4711
06-08-2012, 21:49
...and yes, I do actually agree withe everything you said. :wavey:

Coincidentally so do I. What are the chances? :supergrin:

Seriously though, the probabilistic nature of reality and the universe is something that is simply too unfathomable for most folks. Heck even when one begins to comprehend it, that is the point where one realizes that true comprehension isn't really possible. Language falls short of accurately describing reality and numbers aren't descriptive enough to give us a reality we can properly articulate with language.

Kingarthurhk
06-08-2012, 22:34
First of all you don't properly understand phyiscs judging by that statement. Secondly even if we take that incorrect discription at face value, all of science as currently understood, predicted, measured and tested to be accurate may not be proof but it sure as heck is better evidence than a book written by desert dwelling peoples from 1700+ years ago.

It makes perfect sense to me. The Big Bang presupposes that nothing suddenly made something. That nothing that became something suddenly violently expanded with inorganic material. From this chaos, somehow order and organic material developed. Then from this order life began and then through some sort of natural selection became more and more effecient and specialized. If we are to accept this premise, it would not make sense for there to be death. Death serves no purpose.


As for the OP...It's tragedy because of personal connections with others. Strangely enough tragedy is the origin of comedy, hence laugh to keep from crying. It's necessary becuase it would require infinite energy to live forever. There isn't infinite energy so it's recylced so to speak. To borrow a line...Life feeds on life, feeds on life feeds on...This is necessary.

From an evolutionary point of view of natural selection a feeling of tragedy and loss would not seem necessary, but counter productive. But, why should it be necessary? Surely, if evolution is a continued natural selection for becomming more complex death would be unecessary.

Kingarthurhk
06-08-2012, 22:35
Death is necessary to have an appreciation for life. Without death, life is meaningless.

I find a great deal of meaning in life. I don't need death to teach me that.

Kingarthurhk
06-08-2012, 22:36
Coincidentally so do I. What are the chances? :supergrin:

Seriously though, the probabilistic nature of reality and the universe is something that is simply too unfathomable for most folks. Heck even when one begins to comprehend it, that is the point where one realizes that true comprehension isn't really possible. Language falls short of accurately describing reality and numbers aren't descriptive enough to give us a reality we can properly articulate with language.

Very true. You have made a decent argument for God whether you realize that or not.

Kingarthurhk
06-08-2012, 22:39
No sense using a macro example or a micro for that matter. That we and everything around us are made from stardust is well beyond proper comprehension when the parts of science one can rationalize with their religion are God's genius and the parts one can't are derived from Satan.

There is a connectivity between the sciences. Said it before will say it again. No evolution, no internet. No bio-chemistry, no electromagnetic force. No quantum physics, no colors, no nothing as we can perceive, measure, predict and test.

In other word science, can not be wrong otherwise we would not be having this discussion. It can be incomplete but it can't be wrong.

Science is often wrong. Global warming for instance, considering we are having more of a Global cooling at this point, and "science" was used a a politcal propaganda tool. Therefore, science was wrong.

janice6
06-08-2012, 23:09
I find a great deal of meaning in life. I don't need death to teach me that.


I also believe that if you lived long enough, you would tire of it all.

You have had a limited existance so it's still new and vibrant to you. As it should be with a limited existance.

Kingarthurhk
06-08-2012, 23:28
I also believe that if you lived long enough, you would tire of it all.

You have had a limited existance so it's still new and vibrant to you. As it should be with a limited existance.

In this body, you are right I would tire of it all. In an incorruptable body with a universe to explore, I would not tire of it all.

I am middle aged, so it is by no means still new and vibrant.

Animal Mother
06-09-2012, 00:47
Well, let's examine that thought. If we are evolving toward a better state all the time as Atheists tend to surmise, Who surmises that exactly? Do you have a reference, it certainly isn't scientists considering that it would require there to be a single "better" state which is enduring and unchanging. Such a state doesn't exist.

Animal Mother
06-09-2012, 00:57
It makes perfect sense to me. Sadly, I believe you. Unfortunately, what makes sense to you is not what the sciences show happened, it's a strawman constructed by those unable or unwilling to address the realities of the universe while maintaining their beliefs.
The Big Bang presupposes that nothing suddenly made something. No, it doesn't.
That nothing that became something suddenly violently expanded with inorganic material. Wrong again.
From this chaos, somehow order and organic material developed. What chaos? The early universe was far more ordered and uniform than what we see today.
Then from this order life began and then through some sort of natural selection became more and more effecient and specialized. Also wrong, or at least woefully incomplete.
If we are to accept this premise, it would not make sense for there to be death. Death serves no purpose. Luckily we don't accept this premise, because pretty much everything you've said is utterly incorrect.
From an evolutionary point of view of natural selection a feeling of tragedy and loss would not seem necessary, but counter productive. Wrong again. A sense of loss could potentially serve a number of evolutionary purposes, not least in encouraging unselfish behavior and propagating the species.
But, why should it be necessary? Surely, if evolution is a continued natural selection for becomming more complex death would be unecessary.Not only is this wrong, it doesn't even follow from your previous statements.

Kingarthurhk
06-09-2012, 01:02
Sadly, I believe you. Unfortunately, what makes sense to you is not what the sciences show happened, it's a strawman constructed by those unable or unwilling to address the realities of the universe while maintaining their beliefs.

I'll take a page from your play book:

No, it is not.


What chaos? The early universe was far more ordered and uniform than what we see today.

It has never been postulated before, is this your personal interpretation?


A sense of loss could potentially serve a number of evolutionary purposes, not least in encouraging unselfish behavior and propagating the species.

Wrong. Woefully incorrect. What else do you say when you don't like something and just dismiss it out of hand? I am trying to get all the catch phrases properly.


Not only is this wrong, it doesn't even follow from your previous statements.

Wrong.

Animal Mother
06-09-2012, 02:17
I'll take a page from your play book:

No, it is not. Very well. Now take another page from my playbook and stand ready to defend your position when challenged. Where in the scientific literature, specific references if you don't mind, do we find scientists claiming, It makes perfect sense to me. The Big Bang presupposes that nothing suddenly made something. That nothing that became something suddenly violently expanded with inorganic material. From this chaos, somehow order and organic material developed. Then from this order life began and then through some sort of natural selection became more and more effecient and specialized. If we are to accept this premise, it would not make sense for there to be death. Death serves no purpose.
It has never been postulated before, is this your personal interpretation?No, it's the finding of the COBE, WMAP, and Planck spacecraft missions to study the Cosmic Microwave Background. As for it never having been postulated before, it's a key component of the Standard Model and George Smoot recently won the Nobel Prize in Physics for his contributions.
Wrong. Woefully incorrect. What else do you say when you don't like something and just dismiss it out of hand? I am trying to get all the catch phrases properly. How am I incorrect? Would an evolutionary impetus to protect the young of a species serve to strengthen the species as a whole at the risk of a few individuals? If I'm wrong, show me how I'm wrong, as I've tried so vainly to do with you so many, many times.
Wrong.Please, defend this claim. I said your assertion, "But, why should it be necessary? Surely, if evolution is a continued natural selection for becomming more complex death would be unecessary."

First, evolution is a continued process which leads to improved viability in a given environment, complexity has nothing to do with it.

Second, why would evolution, accompanied by increasing complexity or not, render death unnecessary?

jbotstein1
06-09-2012, 05:59
born once, die twice. born twice, die once...


“I tell you the truth, unless you are born again,a you cannot see the Kingdom of God.” John 3:3

What would you do if you found out that your quote was based on fiction? That it was written by a man who had absolutely no connection to a divine being? Don't argue with me or try to tell me that it isn't a possibility, just answer the question hypothetically.

jbotstein1
06-09-2012, 06:03
It makes perfect sense to me. The Big Bang presupposes that nothing suddenly made something. That nothing that became something suddenly violently expanded with inorganic material. From this chaos, somehow order and organic material developed. Then from this order life began and then through some sort of natural selection became more and more effecient and specialized. If we are to accept this premise, it would not make sense for there to be death. Death serves no purpose.



From an evolutionary point of view of natural selection a feeling of tragedy and loss would not seem necessary, but counter productive. But, why should it be necessary? Surely, if evolution is a continued natural selection for becomming more complex death would be unecessary.

If you don't see the role of death in natural selection, you haven't actually learned anything about natural selection. It is death that enables the flawed genetics that are disadvantageous to be weened out of the pool. It is life that enables the advantageous genes to live on in order for life to become more specialized and efficient. Right?

Kingarthurhk
06-09-2012, 06:47
If you don't see the role of death in natural selection, you haven't actually learned anything about natural selection. It is death that enables the flawed genetics that are disadvantageous to be weened out of the pool. It is life that enables the advantageous genes to live on in order for life to become more specialized and efficient. Right?

If they are weened out of the genetic flaws by natural selection why are there more virulent diseases today? It seems like this theory dis DOA.

Animal Mother
06-09-2012, 06:50
If they are weened out of the genetic flaws by natural selection why are there more virulent diseases today? Your evidence this is true? If you mean things like MRSA and drug resistant TB, that's easily explained. Bacteria evolves too.
It seems like this theory dis DOA.Another thing that "seems" to you, but isn't actually true. That does "seem" to happen a lot.

Kingarthurhk
06-09-2012, 06:59
Your evidence this is true? If you mean things like MRSA and drug resistant TB, that's easily explained. Bacteria evolves too.
Another thing that "seems" to you, but isn't actually true. That does "seem" to happen a lot.

You forgot Ebola, AIDS, and flesh eating bacteria.

eracer
06-09-2012, 07:08
Even with death, it eventually won't.

All the more reason to put more effort into colonizing the other planets.Like the Ancient Ones colonized Earth?

Lone Wolf8634
06-09-2012, 07:17
You forgot Ebola, AIDS, and flesh eating bacteria.


As he said, bacteria evolve also.

So do viruses. Just in case you were wondering.

Why, I'll bet there's a brand new disease that no ones ever had before evolving right now somewhere in a humid dark hole in southern Africa.

Really King, you should do a bit of research on things like evolution and the BBT before you make statements about them.

Animal Mother
06-09-2012, 07:19
You forgot Ebola, AIDS, and flesh eating bacteria. No, I just didn't try for an exhaustive list. Were you going to answer the questions asked of you?

creaky
06-09-2012, 08:13
Like the Ancient Ones colonized Earth?

A late night visit from Nyarlathotep can convince you of a lot of things...

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

void *
06-09-2012, 09:23
It makes perfect sense to me. The Big Bang presupposes that nothing suddenly made something.

No, actually, it doesn't.

The Big Bang theory looks at the expansion of the universe, and asks "What does the universe look like if you take that expansion backwards through time, applying the laws of physics as we know them?". The answer is "A few quanta or a single quantum containing all the energy in the universe". That answer has implications (such as the cosmic background radiation) that we have actually observed.

The big bang theory makes no claim whatsoever about how that quantum/those quanta came to exist.

Go read the original paper. Or at least the abstract: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v127/n3210/abs/127706b0.html

If we go back in the course of time we must find fewer and fewer quanta, until we find all the energy of the universe packed in a few or even in a unique quantum.

a) A quantum is not "nothing". A few quanta is not "nothing".
b) Georges Lemaître was a Catholic priest. Do you really think a Catholic priest runs around presupposing that "nothing suddenly made something"?
c) "We don't know what caused that initial quantum, we don't know if there is anything external to our connected space-time, and we don't know that if there is something external to our connected space-time, the rules there would even require what we call a cause" is not "A presupposition that nothing suddenly made something".

As far as I can tell, the "Nothing suddenly made something" argument is for people who don't want to at all know what the theory says, but still want a way to criticize it, ignoring the fact that anyone with even a layman's understanding (which is what I have) can see that it's a false criticism.

creaky
06-09-2012, 10:51
No, actually, it doesn't.

The Big Bang theory looks at the expansion of the universe, and asks "What does the universe look like if you take that expansion backwards through time, applying the laws of physics as we know them?". The answer is "A few quanta or a single quantum containing all the energy in the universe". That answer has implications (such as the cosmic background radiation) that we have actually observed.

The big bang theory makes no claim whatsoever about how that quantum/those quanta came to exist.

Go read the original paper. Or at least the abstract: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v127/n3210/abs/127706b0.html



a) A quantum is not "nothing". A few quanta is not "nothing".
b) Georges Lemaître was a Catholic priest. Do you really think a Catholic priest runs around presupposing that "nothing suddenly made something"?
c) "We don't know what caused that initial quantum, we don't know if there is anything external to our connected space-time, and we don't know that if there is something external to our connected space-time, the rules there would even require what we call a cause" is not "A presupposition that nothing suddenly made something".

As far as I can tell, the "Nothing suddenly made something" argument is for people who don't want to at all know what the theory says, but still want a way to criticize it, ignoring the fact that anyone with even a layman's understanding (which is what I have) can see that it's a false criticism.

Good post, void.

steveksux
06-09-2012, 11:22
Sometimes it is tragic, sometimes not so much.

Nothing lasts forever. It's an entropy thing. You wouldn't understand.

Randy

steveksux
06-09-2012, 11:24
If they are weened out of the genetic flaws by natural selection why are there more virulent diseases today? It seems like this theory dis DOA.

Natural selection works on the diseases too. They are life, and as such evolve as well.

Evolution doesn't have any inherent bias that works towards the betterment of mankind vs other life.

Also, what makes you think there are more virulent diseases today than before? Lots of plagues in the old days wiping out huge chunks of mankind. Don't see that anymore.

Randy

Kingarthurhk
06-09-2012, 15:33
No, actually, it doesn't.

The Big Bang theory looks at the expansion of the universe, and asks "What does the universe look like if you take that expansion backwards through time, applying the laws of physics as we know them?". The answer is "A few quanta or a single quantum containing all the energy in the universe". That answer has implications (such as the cosmic background radiation) that we have actually observed.

The big bang theory makes no claim whatsoever about how that quantum/those quanta came to exist.

Go read the original paper. Or at least the abstract: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v127/n3210/abs/127706b0.html


Yet, you based what you have observed to be presupposed as this material having no origin, e.g. no God. How do you know that this isn't the method that God used to bring everything into sudden existance?


a) A quantum is not "nothing". A few quanta is not "nothing".
b) Georges Lemaître was a Catholic priest. Do you really think a Catholic priest runs around presupposing that "nothing suddenly made something"?
c) "We don't know what caused that initial quantum, we don't know if there is anything external to our connected space-time, and we don't know that if there is something external to our connected space-time, the rules there would even require what we call a cause" is not "A presupposition that nothing suddenly made something".

Cause equals effect. Our bone of contention is the Cause. I say God, you say nothing.


As far as I can tell, the "Nothing suddenly made something" argument is for people who don't want to at all know what the theory says, but still want a way to criticize it, ignoring the fact that anyone with even a layman's understanding (which is what I have) can see that it's a false criticism.

It is my no means a false criticism. There must be a cause for the reation. What then is the cause? If there was no cause then there can be no reaction.

Lone Wolf8634
06-09-2012, 16:09
Yet, you based what you have observed to be presupposed as this material having no origin, e.g. no God. How do you know that this isn't the method that God used to bring everything into sudden existance?

It is not known how it happened. But while science is comfortable saying "we do not know, but we are looking for the answer to the unknown", you insist you already know. Unfortunately there is still that evidence thingy that you have yet to overcome.

If we give weight to the "Goddidit" theory than we must also consider ALL creation myths as theories. Not just yours.





Cause equals effect. Our bone of contention is the Cause. I say God, you say nothing.

No one said "Nothing". Except you.

We said "We don't know". Big difference.

Again, research before making statements.



It is my no means a false criticism. There must be a cause for the reation. What then is the cause? If there was no cause then there can be no reaction.

I'm not sure your statement is true. Are you 100% sure " If there was no cause then there can be no reaction."?

And if it is true, why leap to a supernatural explanation when we have no evidence for any explanation?:dunno:

void *
06-09-2012, 17:31
Yet, you based what you have observed to be presupposed as this material having no origin, e.g. no God. How do you know that this isn't the method that God used to bring everything into sudden existance?

How many times to I have to say that we don't know before you will get that we don't know? How many times does it have to be noted that there is no way to show that a deity didn't, but there is likewise no way to show that a deity did, before you will get it?

Why do you think you have the right to take a simple statement like "Yes, I don't know what the cause of the universe is, or if the rules applicable in whatever might be outside of our universe even require a cause as we know it" and claim that that is somehow a presupposition that nothing caused something?

The big bang theory does not claim that the universe had no origin. Current physics explicitly states that there are reasons no such claim can be made. Furthermore, current physics shows that we can't look back any farther to see what such an origin was even if there was one. (such as the fact that in the math it doesn't make sense to talk about time or space outside of our universe because what we view as time and space is part of the /structure/ of our universe*).

Your claim of a presupposition is flat out incorrect.

*used in the sense of a "universe" being a connected space-time.

Kingarthurhk
06-09-2012, 18:21
How many times to I have to say that we don't know before you will get that we don't know? How many times does it have to be noted that there is no way to show that a deity didn't, but there is likewise no way to show that a deity did, before you will get it?]/quote]

That is rather my point. I say there is a God, you say there is not. Clearly, we have both made a pressuposition. WIth the exception that your reaction has no known cause, which in itself, seems odd as the model of everything else is there is a cause to the effect. So, it would be logical to deduce that this effect also has a cause.

Now, the cause I believe in has hope at the end. The cause you assert that is not there contains no hope. Wouldn't hope contain a positive rather than a negative?

[quote]
Why do you think you have the right to take a simple statement like "Yes, I don't know what the cause of the universe is, or if the rules applicable in whatever might be outside of our universe even require a cause as we know it" and claim that that is somehow a presupposition that nothing caused something?

But, that is ultimately what it comes down to, isn't it? I say there is an intelligent causer, you say "I don't know, but clearly you are wrong," then you have already made a pressuposition, because what other alternative is there? Either there is an inteligent causer or there is nothing suddenly making something, and that something violently expanded. Is that not the case? And given that everything else we can observe, test, and reproduce has a cause and then an effect, it would seem also logical to postulate the same has always been.


The big bang theory does not claim that the universe had no origin. Current physics explicitly states that there are reasons no such claim can be made. Furthermore, current physics shows that we can't look back any farther to see what such an origin was even if there was one. (such as the fact that in the math it doesn't make sense to talk about time or space outside of our universe because what we view as time and space is part of the /structure/ of our universe*).

Precisely. That is where the pressupositions come into play. You pressupose without absolute evidence that there is no God. I pressupose that there is a God. When it comes to this singular event, the leading edge I have is that everything else has a cause and then am effect.


Your claim of a presupposition is flat out incorrect.

I just demonstrated how the pressuposition of origin is actually valid.


*used in the sense of a "universe" being a connected space-time.

We exist in a universe that is connected in space-time. We exist in time. Time is measurable. Further, for us, at least, time is linear. No one has come back from the future to say otherwise.

Kingarthurhk
06-09-2012, 18:25
It is not known how it happened. But while science is comfortable saying "we do not know, but we are looking for the answer to the unknown", you insist you already know. Unfortunately there is still that evidence thingy that you have yet to overcome.

And you as well. As clearly, by choosing Atheism, you have made a decision already regarding the origin. You state there is no cause. This does not make snese with what we can observe, repeat, or test. We can observe, repeat, and test that cause has and effect.


If we give weight to the "Goddidit" theory than we must also consider ALL creation myths as theories. Not just yours.

Alright, lets evaluate these theories. Let's discuss some of your favorites.



No one said "Nothing". Except you.

We said "We don't know". Big difference.

Again, research before making statements.

Oh, but, I have. I have been in GTRI long enough to know the Atheist asserts there is no cause for the effect.


I'm not sure your statement is true. Are you 100% sure " If there was no cause then there can be no reaction."?

Certainly, by everything that is observerable, repeatable, and testable. That, is of course, the scientific method.


And if it is true, why leap to a supernatural explanation when we have no evidence for any explanation?:dunno:

What other constructive explanation do you have to offer?

void *
06-09-2012, 19:03
That is rather my point. I say there is a God, you say there is not. Clearly, we have both made a pressuposition.

No. You say there is a God. I say I don't currently have reason to believe that claim. Clearly, you have made a presupposition, and clearly, I have not. You are ruling out all of the possibilities. I am saying "There are many possibilities, and we can't currently tell which one, and we may never be able to - so why take any of them as fact?"

Besides which, even if I had made a presupposition, your claim was not that I personally make a presupposition. Your claim was that the Big Bang theory makes such a presupposition - which is quite clearly false.

Your post indicates that either you have absolutely no understanding that other people don't necessarily think exactly the way you do, or that you do have such an understanding, and are telling other people how they think in spite of it. Guess what happens when you do that? You end up being wrong about how and why they think what they think - which you , in fact, are.

Kingarthurhk
06-09-2012, 22:32
No. You say there is a God. I say I don't currently have reason to believe that claim. Clearly, you have made a presupposition, and clearly, I have not. You are ruling out all of the possibilities. I am saying "There are many possibilities, and we can't currently tell which one, and we may never be able to - so why take any of them as fact?"

If you say you don't know, you are no longer an Atheist; but, rather an Agnostic. I say, I do know. And, yes, I am ruling out possibilities to come to the best possible conclusion.


Besides which, even if I had made a presupposition, your claim was not that I personally make a presupposition. Your claim was that the Big Bang theory makes such a presupposition - which is quite clearly false.

I have stated that I have made a presupposition, metaphysically. I have asserted there is a Personal God as a cause to the effect. All you tell me is there is an effect without a cause, which is counter intuitive, and frankly unscientific.


Your post indicates that either you have absolutely no understanding that other people don't necessarily think exactly the way you do, or that you do have such an understanding, and are telling other people how they think in spite of it. Guess what happens when you do that? You end up being wrong about how and why they think what they think - which you , in fact, are.

So, you are saying then, you are an Agnostic and not an Atheist?

Animal Mother
06-10-2012, 00:12
If you say you don't know, you are no longer an Atheist; but, rather an Agnostic. I say, I do know. And, yes, I am ruling out possibilities to come to the best possible conclusion. Can you explain how a conclusion that rejects observed evidence is the best possible conclusion?
I have stated that I have made a presupposition, metaphysically. I have asserted there is a Personal God as a cause to the effect. All you tell me is there is an effect without a cause, which is counter intuitive, and frankly unscientific. Many scientific facts are counter intuitive, that doesn't make them unscientific.

427
06-10-2012, 00:12
If you say you don't know, you are no longer an Atheist; but, rather an Agnostic. I say, I do know. And, yes, I am ruling out possibilities to come to the best possible conclusion.



I have stated that I have made a presupposition, metaphysically. I have asserted there is a Personal God as a cause to the effect. All you tell me is there is an effect without a cause, which is counter intuitive, and frankly unscientific.



So, you are saying then, you are an Agnostic and not an Atheist?
You do know there's a god? You know the unknowable? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Show us this "proof" you have.

No, I'm not sitting through a video and I'm not interested in "proof" from a book that has talking animals and magic trees/bushes.

You made the claim, now show us indisputable, undeniable, and, most importantly, verifiable proof you have.
It's all on you.

juggy4711
06-10-2012, 04:27
It makes perfect sense to me...

Of course it does but as I stated, based on your posts, that one included you do not properly understand the BBT, physics, or evolution.

Very true. You have made a decent argument for God whether you realize that or not.

I would not call that a good argument for God so much as an acknowledgment that the quantum nature of reality can not be properly described with words.

And argument for God or not it says nothing about religion. There may be a God, I believe in one by some definition, but that doesn't mean any religion is correct. Religions are demonstrably wrong and incorrect. Whether there is a God or not is another story.

Science is often wrong. Global warming for instance, considering we are having more of a Global cooling at this point, and "science" was used a a politcal propaganda tool. Therefore, science was wrong.

Notice how you put science in quotes? That's not science, it's, as you acknowledged, politically driven statistical propaganda. People are often wrong but science is not

Basically all of your posts in this thread demonstrate that you have know idea what you are talking about. You're just repeating things about scientific concepts that you were told don't jive with the Bible because of xyz, when that isn't even what the science states.

Kingarthurhk
06-10-2012, 07:10
Can you explain how a conclusion that rejects observed evidence is the best possible conclusion?

That is what has been presented to me. I am being told there is an effect without cause. There is no place in observable, testable, repeatable physics that bears that out.


Many scientific facts are counter intuitive, that doesn't make them unscientific.

When they violate the scientific principal, have being concocted and crooked as a dog's leg and then slap the term "science" on it to come to a preconceived and presuposed metaphysical position that there is no God. I have a problem with that.

Kingarthurhk
06-10-2012, 07:18
You do know there's a god? You know the unknowable? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Show us this "proof" you have.

Yes, I do. I've met Him. You can too. The question is do you even want to? If you are unwilling, then you never will.


No, I'm not sitting through a video and I'm not interested in "proof" from a book that has talking animals and magic trees/bushes.

Nor am I interested in lies that say effects have no cause, and there is a clear evolutionary fossil record when clearly there is not any such order except within a text book and not actual life. Further, I am not interested in an artist's depiction of discongruent bone fragments found miles apart. Nor, am I interested in the myriad of fraudulent "missing" links that have been repeatedly disproven. Nor, am I interested in the adoption of an opinion that red blood cells and marrow can exist for millions of years to justify the unjustifiable.


You made the claim, now show us indisputable, undeniable, and, most importantly, verifiable proof you have.
It's all on you.

I have disproven the constant conspiracy to dictate there is no God. Further, I have presented time and time again in GTRI reasonable explanations for God. Further, I am of the opinion, to use a colloquialism, "You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make 'em drink." If you have not attempted a relationship with God, then you will never know. If you refuse to reach out of the source of life Greater than yourself, then you will never know.

Another analogy. We are all sitting in a dark room. I tell you there is a light, you deny it. I tell you there is a light switch. You refuse to use it. The conclusion, you'll still be in the dark for want of going to a light switch.

Kingarthurhk
06-10-2012, 07:34
Of course it does but as I stated, based on your posts, that one included you do not properly understand the BBT, physics, or evolution.

I understand it enough to know that there is an agenda, and every time a hole is poked into the agenda, there is an attempt to readjust to compenstate for the agenda. Actual science should not have an agenda. Unfortunately, it has become a religious institution whose goal seems by-in-large to support the metaphysical presuposition of Atheism, and to convert as many people as possible. It seems to me as an outsider that it has strayed long ago from seeking evidence, to trying to support a preconcieved conclusion. This seems to be an affront to the pursuit of actual knowledge using the time tested model of verifiable, testable, and repeatable.


I would not call that a good argument for God so much as an acknowledgment that the quantum nature of reality can not be properly described with words.

I would, because you hit the nail on the head, whether you realized it or not. We are created beings trying to make sense with our limited intellect an extreme vastness we cannot fully comprehend. Frankly, it will take an eternity to grasp.


And argument for God or not it says nothing about religion. There may be a God, I believe in one by some definition, but that doesn't mean any religion is correct. Religions are demonstrably wrong and incorrect. Whether there is a God or not is another story.

Once we have determiend there is a God, it then begins a quest to understand God as He relates to us. That leaves you leaving the presuposition and paradigm of Atheism to two possible outcomes. A Personal God, which incorporates the major theisms, or a Non-Personal God which incorporates the concept of the panintheisms.

Given the very personal nature of which we are designed, I would suggest the Personal God trek. From my Theistic standpoint, I fully believe if you honestly seek God, you will find Him.


Notice how you put science in quotes? That's not science, it's, as you acknowledged, politically driven statistical propaganda. People are often wrong but science is not

Basically all of your posts in this thread demonstrate that you have know idea what you are talking about. You're just repeating things about scientific concepts that you were told don't jive with the Bible because of xyz, when that isn't even what the science states.

Yes, I did put it in qoutes, because I am very weary of it being used as a tool to support and defend the unsupportable and defensible, and having the title "science" slapped on it, as if to say, it is infallible and unchallengable. All to make Al Gore and a bunch of greedy politicians wealthy. Global warming is one of the greatest frauds perpetrated in "scientific" history. It does not then inspire trust or confidence in it's practioners, when greed and politics are the preconceived conclusion and all the data is purposely skewed to support the incorrect conlusion. Again, it violates the scientific principal.

Altaris
06-10-2012, 09:10
I have disproven the constant conspiracy to dictate there is no God. Further, I have presented time and time again in GTRI reasonable explanations for God. Further, I am of the opinion, to use a colloquialism, "You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make 'em drink." If you have not attempted a relationship with God, then you will never know. If you refuse to reach out of the source of life Greater than yourself, then you will never know.


I, am many others here, have tried a serious relationship with god. The more I read, and the more I tried to embrace it, the more apparent the absurdity of it all became. I went back to church to strengthen my faith, and in turn That is what caused me to become an atheist/agnostic (depending on how you view the terms)


Another analogy. We are all sitting in a dark room. I tell you there is a light, you deny it. I tell you there is a light switch. You refuse to use it. The conclusion, you'll still be in the dark for want of going to a light switch.

Not even close. This one is an easily provable, verifiable, and testable experiment. If lets say I deny it and refuse to use it, you can easily walk over and turn the switch on and off many times to prove it is there and it works. At that point you have satisfied the burden of proof with evidence. I can now test this evidence by doing myself. Once that happens I then have no use for belief/faith, because the evidence is there.


Now if you claimed the switch was invisible and inside your mind, and the only reason you knew it was there was because some farmers wrote about it in a really old book, then ok, you can make that analogy.

Kingarthurhk
06-10-2012, 09:30
I, am many others here, have tried a serious relationship with god. The more I read, and the more I tried to embrace it, the more apparent the absurdity of it all became. I went back to church to strengthen my faith, and in turn That is what caused me to become an atheist/agnostic (depending on how you view the terms)

Okay, now, I am reading only what you have written. You stated that reading and church didn't help. Have you considered talking to God. Say for instance, you are alone in your home, or on a nature walk by yourself. Talk to Him honestly, and tell Him what is on your mind.

Let's try this, perhaps, say as an experiment. It can't hurt, esepcially if no one else sees you. Try this one day a week, unpack your heart, your feelings, your concerns for one month. Then tell us how your experience went. At the very most I suspect this would be a theraputic or cathartic experience.

Altaris
06-10-2012, 09:54
Okay, now, I am reading only what you have written. You stated that reading and church didn't help. Have you considered talking to God. Say for instance, you are alone in your home, or on a nature walk by yourself. Talk to Him honestly, and tell Him what is on your mind.


Everything you said above was also included. I was implying the whole religious experience when I said "went back to church". My coffee had not kicked in yet, so I just didn't feel like typing out more :supergrin:



Let's try this, perhaps, say as an experiment. It can't hurt, esepcially if no one else sees you. Try this one day a week, unpack your heart, your feelings, your concerns for one month. Then tell us how your experience went. At the very most I suspect this would be a theraputic or cathartic experience.

I do this quiet often. I am very close with several co-workers. We walk/run several hours every week in the park near me. There are no off limits topics, so we pretty much vent or let out anything and everything we have going on. It is very therapeutic. It is simple psychology to me though.

Animal Mother
06-10-2012, 09:56
That is what has been presented to me. I am being told there is an effect without cause. No, you're not. That's what you're claiming despite being repeatedly told that you're not correct.
There is no place in observable, testable, repeatable physics that bears that out. Even if you were being told that the BBT involves "an effect without a cause", there would be numerous examples of that being observed within physics of such events. Quantum vacuum fluctuations and radioactive decay have both been offered as such examples here in the past. This is what I mean by ignoring observed evidence in order to maintain your beliefs.
When they violate the scientific principal, have being concocted and crooked as a dog's leg and then slap the term "science" on it to come to a preconceived and presuposed metaphysical position that there is no God. I have a problem with that. Clearly you have many problems, grasping the theories you claim to be discussing not the least among them. What scientific principles do you imagine are being violated? If your only dispute with science were the initial event which cause the expansion which began our universe, you might have a defensible position (based entirely on ignorance) but that isn't an accurate representation of a person who has recently argued the koalas spread like bacteria and posted a video claiming kangaroos must have lived in the Middle East despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

void *
06-10-2012, 10:51
All you tell me is there is an effect without a cause, which is counter intuitive, and frankly unscientific.

I have said nothing of the kind. What I have said is that we don't know. "I don't know" is not "there is no cause". Are you intentionally misrepresenting what I've stated, or are you not actually understanding what I've written?

So, you are saying then, you are an Agnostic and not an Atheist?

I am both. I do not claim that there can be knowledge of whether or not gods exists. I do not believe they do (Technically, I am assessing the probability that they do as a low number - further information may change that assessment).

Kingarthurhk
06-10-2012, 10:56
No, you're not. That's what you're claiming despite being repeatedly told that you're not correct.

You saying I am incorrect, doesn't mean a great deal to me. As your typical responses are: No. Incorrect, not valid., etc without a qualifying statement.


Even if you were being told that the BBT involves "an effect without a cause", there would be numerous examples of that being observed within physics of such events.

Again, an unlogical position that is not supported by evidence. Because you cannot stand the concept of a God, you assert that in this special circumstance, unlike all other circumstances there must not be a cause. That is absurd.


Quantum vacuum fluctuations and radioactive decay have both been offered as such examples here in the past. This is what I mean by ignoring observed evidence in order to maintain your beliefs.

And something caused them. You are seeing an effect.


Clearly you have many problems, grasping the theories you claim to be discussing not the least among them.

I am applying logic, reason, and the scientific method. You are applying netatives without qualifying statements. I am not seeing you with the higher ground on this.


What scientific principles do you imagine are being violated?

I have made that implictly clear. Declaring there are effects without cause even though that cannot be substantiated by any observable, demonstratable, or repetable method in order to support your metaphysical presuposition that there is no God violates the whole scientific principal while you attempt to declare science to all of us. It is inconsistant, and disengenous.


If your only dispute with science were the initial event which cause the expansion which began our universe, you might have a defensible position (based entirely on ignorance)

This exactly what I am saying in regard to the Big Bang. I say there has to be cause for there to be effect.

Kingarthurhk
06-10-2012, 10:58
Everything you said above was also included. I was implying the whole religious experience when I said "went back to church". My coffee had not kicked in yet, so I just didn't feel like typing out more :supergrin:

I see. I was only basing it upon what was written, because when it came to your religious experience, I did not want to assume more than presented. These things tend to be deeply personal.


I do this quiet often. I am very close with several co-workers. We walk/run several hours every week in the park near me. There are no off limits topics, so we pretty much vent or let out anything and everything we have going on. It is very therapeutic. It is simple psychology to me though.

They can make a nice surrogate. But, if you are willing, give the experiment a shot. It can't hurt anything.:dunno:

Kingarthurhk
06-10-2012, 11:02
I have said nothing of the kind. What I have said is that we don't know. "I don't know" is not "there is no cause". Are you intentionally misrepresenting what I've stated, or are you not actually understanding what I've written?

If you don't know, then why not look further into it? Afterall, you are attempting to pursue knowledge, are you not?


I am both. I do not claim that there can be knowledge of whether or not gods exists. I do not believe they do (Technically, I am assessing the probability that they do as a low number - further information may change that assessment).

I am saying He does based upon there being a cause of some sort for the instant and sudden expansion of the Universe, and for the order present in the complexity of life. Even a singular cell has a complexity that is not yet fully comprehended. Then again, I also have anecdotal evidence that is personal that you would never accept.

void *
06-10-2012, 11:05
If you don't know, then why not look further into it? Afterall, you are attempting to pursue knowledge, are you not?

Are you admitting that there is no such presupposition required by the big bang theory yet?

Scientists do look into it. The problem is, there is no way to test any of the possibilities, and may never be. So, rather than presupposing, as you do - I say "hey, there's all these possibilities - in some of them, apparently, the math works out really well, but we can't test any of them (yet - although we may never be able to). There's not enough justification to accept any of them as true".

Those possibilities include things like colliding branes. Or the idea that black holes in one universe create a new universe. You don't see me claiming that any of those is absolutely actually what is true, though, now do you? Yet you continually accuse others of having presuppositions, when it is clear from what they are writing that your accusation is not true. Why?

Why do you feel the need to claim the big bang requires a presupposition that nothing created something, then, when faced with the fact that it does not, start accusing individual people that they hold such a presupposition, rather than simply admitting your statement was incorrect?

Kingarthurhk
06-10-2012, 11:09
Are you admitting that there is no presupposition yet?

Scientists do look into it. The problem is, there is no way to test any of the possibilities, and may never be. So, rather than presupposing, as you do - I say 'hey, there's all these possibilities - in some of them, apparently, the math works out really well, but we can't test any of them (yet - although we may never be able to). There's not enough justification to accept any of them as true".

Yes, there are all those possibilities. But, which one offers you hope? I see no hope in Atheism. Only death. So, if you don't know that the cause is God, why reject Him? If He offers you life, and Atheism offers you death, I know which one I would choose.

void *
06-10-2012, 11:14
But, which one offers you hope? I see no hope in Atheism. Only death.

Whether a possibility personally offers hope to you has no bearing on whether or not that possibility is actually true.

And I find it quite sad that you think people can't find joy and hope in the world without some external thing providing it.

But back to the point:

Why do you feel the need to claim the big bang requires a presupposition that nothing created something, then, when faced with the fact that it does not, start accusing individual people that they hold such a presupposition, rather than simply admitting your statement was incorrect?

427
06-10-2012, 11:45
Yes, I do. I've met Him. You can too. The question is do you even want to? If you are unwilling, then you never will.

Nor am I interested in lies that say effects have no cause, and there is a clear evolutionary fossil record when clearly there is not any such order except within a text book and not actual life. Further, I am not interested in an artist's depiction of discongruent bone fragments found miles apart. Nor, am I interested in the myriad of fraudulent "missing" links that have been repeatedly disproven. Nor, am I interested in the adoption of an opinion that red blood cells and marrow can exist for millions of years to justify the unjustifiable.



I have disproven the constant conspiracy to dictate there is no God. Further, I have presented time and time again in GTRI reasonable explanations for God. Further, I am of the opinion, to use a colloquialism, "You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make 'em drink." If you have not attempted a relationship with God, then you will never know. If you refuse to reach out of the source of life Greater than yourself, then you will never know.

Another analogy. We are all sitting in a dark room. I tell you there is a light, you deny it. I tell you there is a light switch. You refuse to use it. The conclusion, you'll still be in the dark for want of going to a light switch.

You made the claim for a creator, now support it with evidence.
I don't want your religious beliefs, your opinions, "reasonable explanations", I'm interested in cold hard verifiable evidence that we can verify for ourselves.

Again, my direct simple easy to understand question - What indisputable, undeniable, and, most importantly, verifiable proof do you have for the existence of a creator?

Kingarthurhk
06-10-2012, 11:51
Whether a possibility personally offers hope to you has no bearing on whether or not that possibility is actually true.

And I find it quite sad that you think people can't find joy and hope in the world without some external thing providing it.

Well, if you think about it, there is always something externally providing you amusement. But, that does not equal joy. I like Glocks. They are an enjoyable diversion. They don't bring me joy. The concept of Jesus who gave up everything for me because He loves me, and is willing to offer me an eternity in a universe full of peace, love, with no disease, or death, that I can commune with Him, my friends and loved ones, and explore every myster in the universe for the whole of eternity. Now, that to me is joy. Everything else is just frivelous while we live out estimated 75 years in the world in its present and flawed state.

Having peace in my life that passes understanding when I am in proper communion with Christ, and now that true bliss.

It is why I bother. I want everyone else to have the same joy, hope, and happiness.


But back to the point:

Why do you feel the need to claim the big bang requires a presupposition that nothing created something, then, when faced with the fact that it does not, start accusing individual people that they hold such a presupposition, rather than simply admitting your statement was incorrect?

No. Unless you are trully an Agnostic, everyone has made a metasphysical presuposition.

void *
06-10-2012, 11:55
No. Unless you are trully an Agnostic, everyone has made a metasphysical presuposition.

You stating that is true does not make it true. I don't presuppose there is no deity, I look around, evaluate the evidence I see, and make an assessment that deities are not probable, with the caveat that this is a conditional assessment and further evidence has the potential to change the assessment. I know that various evidence can change my mind, because evidence has changed my mind before.

Which is not something that you appear to be able to claim, given the direct links in this thread and your apparent inability to admit that you are incorrect in your claim.

Your claim:

The Big Bang presupposes that nothing suddenly made something.

Can you admit that this is not true?

Again, the theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest. Do you claim that Catholic priests are generally known for their presupposition that "nothing created something"?

Again, in the original paper, the statement was that if you rewind the expansion of the universe, you eventually end up with a few quanta, or a quantum. Do you claim that a few quanta or a quantum is "nothing"?

Kingarthurhk
06-10-2012, 11:57
You made the claim for a creator, now support it with evidence.
I don't want your religious beliefs, your opinions, "reasonable explanations", I'm interested in cold hard verifiable evidence that we can verify for ourselves.

Again, my direct simple easy to understand question - What indisputable, undeniable, and, most importantly, verifiable proof do you have for the existence of a creator?


Do you honestly want to find God?

427
06-10-2012, 11:58
Do you honestly want to find God?You are answering a question with a question.

You made the claim for a creator, now support it with evidence.

Again, my direct simple easy to understand question - What indisputable, undeniable, and, most importantly, verifiable proof do you have for the existence of a creator?

Kingarthurhk
06-10-2012, 12:17
You are answering a question with a question.

You made the claim for a creator, now support it with evidence.

Again, my direct simple easy to understand question - What indisputable, undeniable, and, most importantly, verifiable proof do you have for the existence of a creator?

Indeed. Are you actually seeking God? If you are not, then there is nothing positive I can say to you. Which is why I will ask that question.

Kingarthurhk
06-10-2012, 12:21
You stating that is true does not make it true. I don't presuppose there is no deity, I look around, evaluate the evidence I see, and make an assessment that deities are not probable, with the caveat that this is a conditional assessment and further evidence has the potential to change the assessment. I know that various evidence can change my mind, because evidence has changed my mind before.

I am not asserting deities. I am asserting Deity.


Which is not something that you appear to be able to claim, given the direct links in this thread and your apparent inability to admit that you are incorrect in your claim.

Actually, my claim comes from encounters from GTRI Atheists would repeatedly tell me that it is merely a singularity without any origin. That it simply is. That is not logical.


Again, the theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest. Do you claim that Catholic priests are generally known for their presupposition that "nothing created something"?

The RCC is known for adopting whatever practice is predominate in an area in order to obtain more converts. It's veracity regarding such things, is in serious doubt.


Again, in the original paper, the statement was that if you rewind the expansion of the universe, you eventually end up with a few quanta, or a quantum. Do you claim that a few quanta or a quantum is "nothing"?

I claim that nothing does not make something.

void *
06-10-2012, 12:31
Actually, my claim comes from encounters from GTRI Atheists would repeatedly tell me that it is merely a singularity without any origin. That it simply is. That is not logical.

Yet we can look at the posts, and do not find claims that it is merely a singularity without origin. Rather, we find claims that we don't know what the origin was, or if an origin was required - which is decidedly *not* a claim that it had to have no origin.

For instance:

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19070695&postcount=64

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19070930&postcount=65

In neither of those posts is the claim made that it is "merely a singularity without origin". The evidence available in GTRI indicates that you are making up this assertion out of whole cloth and assigning that position to myself and others without having sufficient justification.

If you disagree, find one post where I've asserted that the singularity had no origin. You will find plenty of posts where I've asserted that I don't know how it got there, or if what we call a cause is required. You will find posts where I assert that we may not be able to determine a cause, or if what we call a cause is required - but you will not find a post where I've asserted that it had to have no origin.

You know what it's called when someone asserts that another holds a position they do not, and then argues against the position the other person is not actually holding, right? It's called a straw man -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

And yet again, you are failing to admit that your original claim is incorrect. Why can't you just say that the big bang theory does not require such a presupposition, when it is blindingly obvious that it does not?

427
06-10-2012, 12:40
Indeed. Are you actually seeking God? If you are not, then there is nothing positive I can say to you. Which is why I will ask that question.
This is a strawman. You have nothing. It seems the only recourse for you is to try to ignore the question and deflect.

If you make a claim of fact and can't/won't support it with evidence - don't make the claim.

Animal Mother
06-10-2012, 12:59
You saying I am incorrect, doesn't mean a great deal to me. As your typical responses are: No. Incorrect, not valid., etc without a qualifying statement. Largely because taking the time to explain things to you hasn't been a productive activity. However, you need not take my word for it. Try actually researching the theories you're attempting to discuss.
Again, an unlogical position that is not supported by evidence. Because you cannot stand the concept of a God, you assert that in this special circumstance, unlike all other circumstances there must not be a cause. That is absurd. Simply denying the evidence isn't sufficient to dismiss it. You're obsessing about a supposed claim that isn't part of either the BBT or the Standard Model of Cosmology.
And something caused them. You are seeing an effect.What was that cause? Consider a specific atom of U-235, what causes it to decay?
I am applying logic, reason, and the scientific method. No, you're not. You're ignoring all those things in favor of maintaining your religious beliefs.
You are applying netatives without qualifying statements. Only because explaining why you are wrong about something has proved singularly unproductive, whether it is me or someone else providing those explanations.
I am not seeing you with the higher ground on this. Higher ground? Perhaps not. Firmer foundation in the evidence? Absolutely.
I have made that implictly clear. No, you haven't. You've rambled on and demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of not one but a variety of scientific principles.
Declaring there are effects without cause even though that cannot be substantiated by any observable, demonstratable, or repetable method in order to support your metaphysical presuposition that there is no God violates the whole scientific principal while you attempt to declare science to all of us. What whole scientific principle are you talking about?
It is inconsistant, and disengenous. Actually, what it seems is that you declare anything outside your realm of knowledge or understanding impossible, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
This exactly what I am saying in regard to the Big Bang. I say there has to be cause for there to be effect.Ok, if you want to declare the cause of the Big Bang to be God, and are willing to agree that God has had no influence since that time, then we don't have any dispute worth continuing.

Animal Mother
06-10-2012, 13:00
I am not asserting deities. I am asserting Deity. I'm asserting Odin. Do you accept the Odin is the Deity?

packsaddle
06-10-2012, 14:54
What indisputable, undeniable, and, most importantly, verifiable proof do you have for the existence of a creator?

i'll play.

because, epistemologically speaking, we know that every single object on planet earth with coded, functional information and intricate moving parts is the product of prior design - a creator.

humans consist of coded, functional information and intricate moving parts.

therefore, humans are the product of design - a creator.

that is called "inference", which is a field of "logic".

inference is "the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true".

hope this helps.

now, it's your turn to answer a question:

what indisputable, undeniable, and, most importantly, verifiable proof do you have that objects with coded, functional information and intricate moving parts are the product of a non-creator (i.e. natural law or chance)?

be sure and provide observable, testable, and repeatable evidence with your examples.

thanks, in advance.

Kingarthurhk
06-10-2012, 15:26
I'm asserting Odin. Do you accept the Odin is the Deity?

No. I do not. Please provide me the same unbiased historical evidence I provided you that Jesus actually existed that you have for Odin. You can't. Further, you obviously don't believe in Odin. Further, you can't make it to Vahala without a valient warrior's death. So, if you trully believe that, I suspect Odin would look down on you as a worthless weakling who pecks at a computer all day. Perhaps, that is just my Nordic blood talking.:tongueout:

427
06-10-2012, 15:33
i'll play.

because, epistemologically speaking, we know that every single object on planet earth with coded, functional information and intricate moving parts is the product of prior design - a creator.

humans consist of coded, functional information and intricate moving parts.

therefore, humans are the product of design - a creator.

that is called "inference", which is a field of "logic".

inference is "the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true".

hope this helps.

Very good. Now, where is the creator of this "coded information"? Show us that this creator, does, in fact, exist, please.

now, it's your turn to answer a question:

what indisputable, undeniable, and, most importantly, verifiable proof do you have that objects with coded, functional information and intricate moving parts are the product of a non-creator (i.e. natural law or chance)?

be sure and provide observable, testable, and repeatable evidence with your examples.

thanks, in advance.

I've made no claim about "coded information, intricate moving parts" or anything else.

Thanks for playing.

Kingarthurhk
06-10-2012, 15:37
Largely because taking the time to explain things to you hasn't been a productive activity. However, you need not take my word for it. Try actually researching the theories you're attempting to discuss.

I have researched what I need to know from High School and college physics. I know enough to know your position is not tenable.


Simply denying the evidence isn't sufficient to dismiss it.

Why not, that is your modus operendi. I thought you might be comfortable with that.



You're obsessing about a supposed claim that isn't part of either the BBT or the Standard Model of Cosmology.
What was that cause? Consider a specific atom of U-235, what causes it to decay?

Clearly something does. Cause = Effect. It isn't a difficult concept.


No, you're not. You're ignoring all those things in favor of maintaining your religious beliefs.

I could easily say the same for you. And, yes, you have a religious point of view for a philosophical point of view whether you admit or not. You have already made a metaphysical presuposition in your mind that that there is no God, and you view everything through that matrix. Therefore, if it does not conform to your "religion" than it is wrong.


Only because explaining why you are wrong about something has proved singularly unproductive, whether it is me or someone else providing those explanations.

And you.


Higher ground? Perhaps not. Firmer foundation in the evidence? Absolutely.

Since when?


No, you haven't. You've rambled on and demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of not one but a variety of scientific principles.

I understand just fine. If it is not observable, verifiable, and repeatable then it is not fact nor evidence. Further, I understand perfectly well how it has been abused to put forward politcal and religio agendas. Global warming and Atheism come immediately to mind.


What whole scientific principle are you talking about?

The very philosophy on which it was founded, and now has become little more than a sophistry.


Actually, what it seems is that you declare anything outside your realm of knowledge or understanding impossible, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

As you do with God.


Ok, if you want to declare the cause of the Big Bang to be God, and are willing to agree that God has had no influence since that time, then we don't have any dispute worth continuing.

I agree with the first premise, and disagree strongly with you on the second.

void *
06-10-2012, 16:29
I have researched what I need to know from High School and college physics.

Please cite the high school or college physics textbook, with page number, that claims the big bang theory requires a presupposition that "something made nothing", or that claims the singularity must have come from nothing.

void *
06-10-2012, 16:43
I agree with the first premise, and disagree strongly with you on the second.

How can you agree with the first premise? If the big bang theory requires, as you claim, that nothing made something, you contradict that claim by agreeing with a premise that asserts that God is the cause of the big bang, unless you think God is nothing.

Perhaps you should just admit that the big bang theory does not require such a presupposition?

juggy4711
06-10-2012, 17:51
...Even if you were being told that the BBT involves "an effect without a cause", there would be numerous examples of that being observed within physics of such events. Quantum vacuum fluctuations and radioactive decay have both been offered as such examples here in the past. This is what I mean by ignoring observed evidence in order to maintain your beliefs...

...And something caused them. You are seeing an effect...

...Consider a specific atom of U-235, what causes it to decay?...

...Clearly something does. Cause = Effect. It isn't a difficult concept...

Actually clearly something does not. Remember that whole thing about quantum reality not being able to be properly described using language, this is such a case. I could reference the different forces involved with alpha/beta decay but that would just invoke demands for more causes.

When we're down to the quantum level a word like cause is severely deficient. Chance or probability is better. The quantum world is not governed by classical cause and effect being probabilistic in nature. So what caused said events? The probability of it occurring.

I have researched what I need to know from High School and college physics. I know enough to know your position is not tenable...

I hope those teachers are long since retired. You know enough to pretend you know somethings, but your actual comprehension is abysmal.

I could easily say the same for you. And, yes, you have a religious point of view for a philosophical point of view whether you admit or not. You have already made a metaphysical presuposition in your mind that that there is no God, and you view everything through that matrix. Therefore, if it does not conform to your "religion" than it is wrong...

Well I've made a super-physical presupposition in my mind that there is something I call God and I still think you're full of it. It would be one thing if you would accept all that science is revealing and state that is the way God did it. But you're so wrapped up in your interpretation of the Bible having to be correct, that you misunderstand and misrepresent science so that it conforms to your religious beliefs.

Reject evolution, accept Tylenol. Assert the BBT states things it doesn't, insist Noah's Ark was the real deal. Reject that things happen on a quantum level without what one would classically refer to as cause, accept the internet where you can argue the point.

If AM, or void* or whoever are wrong about whether there is a God, it's the only thing they are wrong about. If there is a God you're wrong about much more than they are.

Lone Wolf8634
06-10-2012, 19:32
And you as well. As clearly, by choosing Atheism, you have made a decision already regarding the origin. You state there is no cause. This does not make snese with what we can observe, repeat, or test. We can observe, repeat, and test that cause has and effect.

As has been explained to you numerous times, my "choosing" Atheism is simply a result of lack of evidence for any deities. Please tell me again what I believe, I so enjoy it.

"You state there is no cause." No I don't. This isn't even a misunderstanding. It's a complete misrepresentation of what I said.

It is not known how it happened. But while science is comfortable saying "we do not know, but we are looking for the answer to the unknown", you insist you already know.


Fer Petes sake dude, it's in the first sentence of the first paragraph that YOU quoted. One wonders if you deliberately do this or just lack reading comprehension.


Alright, lets evaluate these theories. Let's discuss some of your favorites.

I have no favorites, they're all equally nonsensical to me, but there are hundreds, if not thousands of mythologies from all over the world. Native American, Norse, Hindu and don't forget all the different sects of Christianity.

If one is considered, all must be.




Oh, but, I have. I have been in GTRI long enough to know the Atheist asserts there is no cause for the effect.

You've already been schooled on this. No. We. Don't.



Certainly, by everything that is observerable, repeatable, and testable. That, is of course, the scientific method.

Yet you have been shown examples of events that have no cause, only probability, that you won't even take into account. The decay of U-235 ring a bell?



What other constructive explanation do you have to offer?

How 'bout "We don't know, but we're attempting to figure it out."?

What it lacks in personal satisfaction, it makes up for by being true.

Kingarthurhk
06-10-2012, 20:32
How can you agree with the first premise? If the big bang theory requires, as you claim, that nothing made something, you contradict that claim by agreeing with a premise that asserts that God is the cause of the big bang, unless you think God is nothing.

Perhaps you should just admit that the big bang theory does not require such a presupposition?

You missed the point entirely. You agreed the Big Bang had a Cause. We can agree on that. I believe that Cause is God. That is where you seem to disagree.

Kingarthurhk
06-10-2012, 20:37
As has been explained to you numerous times, my "choosing" Atheism is simply a result of lack of evidence for any deities. Please tell me again what I believe, I so enjoy it.

"You state there is no cause." No I don't. This isn't even a misunderstanding. It's a complete misrepresentation of what I said.

Then you admit there is a Cause to the Effect?


I have no favorites, they're all equally nonsensical to me, but there are hundreds, if not thousands of mythologies from all over the world. Native American, Norse, Hindu and don't forget all the different sects of Christianity.

If one is considered, all must be.

Okay, lets consider them. It seems only reasonable you say. So, lets work through a process of elimination.


You've already been schooled on this. No. We. Don't.

I guess Animal and Grape think differenlty then.


Yet you have been shown examples of events that have no cause, only probability, that you won't even take into account. The decay of U-235 ring a bell?

Entropy ring a bell?


How 'bout "We don't know, but we're attempting to figure it out."?

Alright, as I said earlier, let's work on cause.


What it lacks in personal satisfaction, it makes up for by being true.

How do you determine what is true?

void *
06-10-2012, 20:41
You missed the point entirely.

The Big Bang presupposes that nothing suddenly made something.

I didn't miss the point, you contradicted yourself. You *could* just go ahead and say that your previous statement about the Big Bang presupposing that nothing suddenly made something was in fact incorrect, thus resolving the contradiction, but instead, you choose to accuse me of missing the point ...

You agreed the Big Bang had a Cause.

... while claiming I've said something I did not say.

What I *have* said is we don't know if it had to have a cause and if it did have a cause, we don't know what that cause is.

Can you try and respond with a post where you don't say I said something that I didn't, please?

juggy4711
06-10-2012, 21:06
Then you admit there is a Cause to the Effect?

I don't. Cause isn't a meaningful word at that point. It's a big piece of the puzzle you don't get.

...Yet you have been shown examples of events that have no cause, only probability, that you won't even take into account. The decay of U-235 ring a bell...


Entropy ring a bell?

Yeah nice try but radioactive decay occurs to bring order not decrease it. I suspect you don't actually understand what entropy is. In fact I do not have to suspect anything. You continuously demonstrate from your posts that you do not understand basic quantum properties of reality. Which isn't really a knock on you. It's only at the point one realizes they can't understand quantum nature fully that one is starting to understand it.

Lone Wolf8634
06-10-2012, 21:25
Then you admit there is a Cause to the Effect?

Is that all you got from that? :faint:

Of course there could be a cause, or not.

We don't know.



Okay, lets consider them. It seems only reasonable you say. So, lets work through a process of elimination.

Go right ahead. As I said, they're all nonsense to me.



I guess Animal and Grape think differenlty then.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19072792&postcount=79

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19072995&postcount=80

I'm too lazy to go through Grape's posts. But these are right here in this thread.

I'll take "We don't know" for a thousand, Alex.

Entropy ring a bell?

Disorder in a system?

Juggy handled that one.


Alright, as I said earlier, let's work on cause.

Pretty sure thats underway as we speak.



How do you determine what is true?

How do you come up with this stuff?:dunno:

An admission of ignorance is a lie?:dunno:

Animal Mother
06-10-2012, 21:41
because, epistemologically speaking, we know that every single object on planet earth with coded, functional information and intricate moving parts is the product of prior design - a creator. Please demonstrate that we do, in fact, know this to be true, epistmologically speaking.

Animal Mother
06-10-2012, 22:22
No. I do not.Why not?
Please provide me the same unbiased historical evidence I provided you that Jesus actually existed that you have for Odin. BTDT.
The Poetic Eddas tell us Odin walked among men and brought them the runes. Archaeology tells us men have written using the Runic alphabet, therefor Odin must exist. Since the Poetic Edda has been verified by archaeology, all of the other Aesir must also exist.
Is there a historian the stature of Cornelius Tacitus who attested to Odin and Thor?
Yes, there is. Saxo Grammaticus and Snorri Sturluson, both of whom testify both to their existence and their divinity.
You can't. I must be able to, I already have.
Further, you obviously don't believe in Odin. How can you possibly know that?
Further, you can't make it to Vahala without a valient warrior's death. So, if you trully believe that, I suspect Odin would look down on you as a worthless weakling who pecks at a computer all day. Odin knows a warriors heart, as you do not.
Perhaps, that is just my Nordic blood talking.:tongueout:Clearly, it's no more insightful than your Christian heart.

Tommy Hanrahan
06-10-2012, 22:37
After reading all of this thread I am convinced even more there is no god or great pumpkin or almighty deity. Thanks to everyone who contributed, I will sleep well tonight.
T.H.

Animal Mother
06-10-2012, 22:46
I have researched what I need to know from High School and college physics. I know enough to know your position is not tenable. Like so many things you "know", you're wrong. Move past Physics 101 and research causality, causality violations, and retrocausality.
Why not, that is your modus operendi. I thought you might be comfortable with that. I don't simply deny things, I'm more than willing to produce evidence in support of my positions. I frequently don't bother in your case because you've shown no willingness to consider any position other than the one you've already adopted. Oddly, you've also shown no ability to produce evidence in support of your position.
Clearly something does. Cause = Effect. It isn't a difficult concept. No, that isn't. However, it also isn't a comprehensive concept. You can't simply assume that there is a cause due to there being an effect when it has been demonstrated that causality is neither universal nor necessary in quantum interactions.
I could easily say the same for you. You could say it, the difference is that in reference to me, it wouldn't be true. I'm more than willing to consider any evidence presented. Present some to support your position. You've been offered that opportunity many times and universally failed to come through.
And, yes, you have a religious point of view for a philosophical point of view whether you admit or not. You have already made a metaphysical presuposition in your mind that that there is no God, and you view everything through that matrix. No, I haven't. I'm more than willing to consider either the existence or influence of any god or other supernatural being. I simply ask that those asserting such a position first produce objective evidence that the being exists. That hasn't happened.
Therefore, if it does not conform to your "religion" than it is wrong. No, if it doesn't conform to the evidence, it is wrong.
And you. I challenge you to find a single example where my position was wrong, you or anyone else presented objective evidence to show it was wrong, and I did not concede the point. Just one. Should be a snap if I do it as routinely as you do.
Since when? 13.7 Billion years ago.
I understand just fine. You certainly hide your understanding well behind a smokescreen of complete failure to comprehend.
If it is not observable, verifiable, and repeatable then it is not fact nor evidence. That's just false.
Further, I understand perfectly well how it has been abused to put forward politcal and religio agendas. Global warming and Atheism come immediately to mind. Please expand on this claim. How is recognizing global climate change an abuse of science? How is not believing in gods an abuse of science?
The very philosophy on which it was founded, and now has become little more than a sophistry. Now you're just stringing words together, defend your position. You assign me a position I do not hold, then claim that position somehow defies a scientific principle you apparently are incapable of defining. Try actually constructing a coherent, complete argument so we can discuss it in a substantive manner.

Since you apparently haven't picked up on my position yet, despite my having explicitly stated it repeatedly, let me try one more time. I don't claim that science disproves the existence of God or gods in general. I do claim that science disproves certain specific claims and interpretations of a religious nature, like the literal six day creation or the existence of a World Turtle. As I said in my previous post, if you care to take the position that God "flipped the switch" 13.7 Billion years ago to begin the universe, I don't see any point in debating that position. However, that isn't the position you take, and as has been demonstrated repeatedly across a number of threads, specific claims you make based on Biblical beliefs are directly contradicted (and disproven) by science.
As you do with God. No, I don't. I've repeatedly asked for evidence of God, all you've managed to produce is evidence that a guy named Jesus lived in Jerusalem during the first century CE. If you have any objective evidence for the existence of the triune Christian God, please do share it.
I agree with the first premise, and disagree strongly with you on the second.Ok, why? Where is your evidence?

juggy4711
06-11-2012, 21:06
I don't. Cause isn't a meaningful word at that point. It's a big piece of the puzzle you don't get.

Yeah nice try but radioactive decay occurs to bring order not decrease it. I suspect you don't actually understand what entropy is. In fact I do not have to suspect anything. You continuously demonstrate from your posts that you do not understand basic quantum properties of reality. Which isn't really a knock on you. It's only at the point one realizes they can't understand quantum nature fully that one is starting to understand it.

*crickets*

I'd suggest some reading material for you and some videos (I know you're fond of those) but you have not demonstrated the comprehension necessary to understand either.

Kingarthurhk
06-12-2012, 16:33
Is that all you got from that? :faint:

Of course there could be a cause, or not.

We don't know.

That sounds like wilfull ignorance. When everything we observe has both a cause and effect, how can you say, "except in this special cirucmstance, because we either don't want to know, or suddenly can't know." That sounds like an attempt to justify a preconceived position that is exactly counter to everything know in physics.


Go right ahead. As I said, they're all nonsense to me.



I suspect you are saying the concept is nonsense to you, as I you have yet to mention any other religion other than Judeo Christianity.


I'm too lazy to go through Grape's posts. But these are right here in this thread.

I'll take "We don't know" for a thousand, Alex.

Cause and effect a constant.



Disorder in a system?

Juggy handled that one.

Chaos and entropy do not equal order.





How do you come up with this stuff?:dunno:

An admission of ignorance is a lie?:dunno:

It depends on whether it is a Srgt. Shultz syndrome.

juggy4711
06-12-2012, 20:04
...Chaos and entropy do not equal order...

You referenced entropy in reply to a comment about radioactive decay. Radioactive decay occurs to restore order. Quite the opposite of entropy. Admit it you have no f'ing clue what entropy is or how it does or does not relate to radioactive decay.

void *
06-12-2012, 20:59
That sounds like wilfull ignorance. When everything we observe has both a cause and effect, how can you say, "except in this special cirucmstance, because we either don't want to know, or suddenly can't know."

It's not willful ignorance when what we've actually observed so far tells us that we can't know (at least, based on our current understanding).

It's no different that being at the bottom of a cliff we can't see the top of and will never be able to climb, and noting that we can't see the top of it and will never be able to climb it. In the context of the metaphor, you're saying "You just don't want to know what's on top of the cliff!" when what is actually being said is "We can't see the top of the cliff, and we can't climb it".

We can't see what's outside the universe. The rules inside our universe (time, space, etc) are, as far as we can tell, part of the structure of our universe. So if there is something outside of our universe, who can say that those rules require cause and effect, or what those rules are? What if there is *nothing* outside our universe (not in the sense of a vacuum, but literally that nothing exists that is not our universe itself, or withing it), and the initial quantum did not have a 'creation event', but just always existed? What if our universe is a simulation running on a computer in a *real* universe? What if our universe is part of an eternal chain of universes where every black hole in one universe spawns a baby universe? What if a multidimensional being was making spaghetti and brane-balls and smashed two branes together while making the sauce? Can we differentiate between those possibilities? The answer has been and is currently (and possibly always will be) "No, we can't get data that would tell us if any of those is true or false".

Some people are admitting that the answer is "No, we have no way to get data that would confirm or deny those possibilities. Maybe we will in the future, but based on what we can currently observe it looks a whole lot like we won't be able to". You're accusing those people of saying "Eh, we just don't want to know".

Lone Wolf8634
06-12-2012, 21:39
That sounds like wilfull ignorance. When everything we observe has both a cause and effect, how can you say, "except in this special cirucmstance, because we either don't want to know, or suddenly can't know." That sounds like an attempt to justify a preconceived position that is exactly counter to everything know in physics.

Void* Gave a pretty good answer here. All I can add is thats a pretty silly way to deliberately misunderstand what I wrote.

Try reading it again: http://glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19074882&postcount=105


I suspect you are saying the concept is nonsense to you, as I you have yet to mention any other religion other than Judeo Christianity.

Actually, yes, the concept is nonsensical to me, I thought I've been pretty up front about that?

And again, reading comprehension is your friend. When you re-read the post in the link, you'll notice that I did mention at least three other belief structures other than Christianity.

You forget, I dismiss your "Theories" for lack of evidence and low probability of being true. Therefore I needn't study every religion in the known world to assess whether they are any more probable than yours.

However you should probably look into a few of them, who knows, maybe you'll find one you like better than your current one?



Cause and effect a constant.

I give up.:faint:




Chaos and entropy do not equal order.

And the price of tea in China is.....?






It depends on whether it is a Srgt. Shultz syndrome.

Really?:upeyes:

Animal Mother
06-12-2012, 22:11
When everything we observe has both a cause and effect,That sounds like wilfull ignorance. Especially considering that you've had it explained to you multiple times that not everything we observe has a cause.
Essentially, your constant refusal to accept any part of science that contradicts your beliefs, "sounds like an attempt to justify a preconceived position that is exactly counter to everything know in physics."