|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 03/01/2006 : 08:47:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
bill, here is a concise, well-written article that addresses precisely what you presume to not exist--a non-caused, non-eternal creation event. The article is entitled What Happened Before the Big Bang?
It begins, in part, with this observation: quote:
Children grow up with an intuitive sense of cause and effect. Events in the physical world aren't supposed to "just happen." Something makes them happen. Even when the rabbit appears convincingly from the hat, trickery is suspected. So could the entire universe simply pop into existence, magically, for no actual reason at all?
The conclusion is most important.
quote:
A typical quantum process is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event "just happened" at that moment, that's all. You cannot predict these occurrences. All you can do is give the probability-there is a fifty-fifty chance that a given nucleus will decay in, say, one hour. This uncertainty is not simply a result of our ignorance of all the little forces and influences that try to make the nucleus decay; it is inherent in nature itself, a basic part of quantum reality.
The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.
It is, of course, a big step from the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particle-something that is routinely observed in particle accelerators-to the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of the universe. But the loophole is there. If, as astronomers believe, the primeval universe was compressed to a very small size, then quantum effects must have once been important on a cosmic scale. Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event.
So perhaps you need to lose your childish sense of cause and effect and understand that in nature events can "just happen"--things do not always need a cause.
quote:
Mostly, quantum events occur at the atomic level; we don't experience them in daily life. On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended.
(bill) Notice how he said, "the usual commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended"? The atheist must dream up point in time where "commonsense" can be "suspended", if only for just a brief moment, that gives the atheist the "loophole" he/she needs to get their eternal first cause , but not God, hypothesis of the atheistic universe rolling. Or at least gave it something they could use to keep the conversation rolling, rather then give the attribute of eternal first cause to that which fits the definition of eternal, and would posse infinite power. It's just a big game of smoke and mirrors the atheist will play to avoid acknowledging the logical conclusion of on eternal and infinite first cause for the universe. The writer of this piece tries to use "childish" as the smoke and mirrors tactic of the day to get the creationist off that pesky cause and effect theory which is just nothing but a stick in the spokes for the logical hypothesis of an atheistic universe, where the eternal first cause is anything, and I mean anything, but God, who is the only one who meets the requirements of eternal and infinite.
quote:
The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason.
(bill) Just as I predicted it would. The atheist realizes that any explanation of the atheistic universe would somehow have to circumvent, or suspend, the reality of cause and effect, time and space. So they are forced to hypothesize about a made up universe, from somewhere in their imagination, where they replace what? Answer: "law". With what? Answer: "anarchy and spontaneous happenings" And when the atheist is asked what makes them think their made up universe has anything to do with reality they reply with? Answer: "no particular reason"
And atheism is supposed to be based off of probability? Oh my....
quote:
Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again.
(bill) Much in the same way as doc mab's eternal video stores and VRC's I see. Oh my...
quote:
Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.
A typical quantum process is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event "just happened" at that moment, that's all.
(bill) That was/is the battle cry for the atheist when confronted with the circular logic of an atheist universe. atheist: "It just happened" "for no particular reason" and that is all you need to know. *sigh*
quote:
You cannot predict these occurrences. All you can do is give the probability-there is a fifty-fifty chance
(bill) How do you give more probability to a hypothesis that was made up in the imagination of man? Especially when this made up universe does not align with reality? And it was fully admitted that to get to this made up atheistic universe one must first "suspend" "commonsense" as well as, "cause and effect", In this made up atheistic universe the "The rule of law " is replaced with "anarchy" and "spontaneous" actions. When asked why they think this made up universe has anything to do with reality the atheist responds with what? Answer: "no particular reason" *sigh* When question further the atheist gets a little testy and snaps back with what? Answer: " |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 09:48:19 [Permalink]
|
Atheist sez: "I don't know."
Churchy sez: "I do 'cause it's in my book that was written by goatherds in the lands that gave us hashist and opium."
My point on the Either/Or Fallacy is made.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 10:15:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
that a given nucleus will decay in, say, one hour. This uncertainty is not simply a result of our ignorance of all the little forces and influences that try to make the nucleus decay; it is inherent in nature itself, a basic part of quantum reality.
(bill) This is a fairytale, not reality. It comes straight from the imagination of man
The arrogance of bill supported by the ignorance of his religious convictions. I didn't even see his hand wave as he dismissed ideas that he didn't understand and doesn't want to.
bill continues to use his eternal deity as an explanation for the origin of the universe, even though it has been clearly explained numerous times why proposing a god first cause doesn't bring him any closer to the truth. Not only can bill not explain how god created the universe, method/mechanisms, he can not show evidence for his god. His god as a first cause becomes extraneous.
bill's eternal spin, faith testimonials, and statements of personal incredulity bring him no closer to providing irrefutable evidence for his first cause. Until he can do that he has nothing to offer but the sated ignorance of his religious convictions.
edited: btw bill Thank You for using the quote tag. Your most recent post was much easier to read. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 03/01/2006 10:17:38 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 10:46:34 [Permalink]
|
Jane, I mean Bill, you ignorant slut. You can't just wave away quantum physics as coming from the imagination of atheistic scientists out to prove God doesn't exist. The world of the very small does not operate by the same rules of physics as the macro world does. Laws of physics simply break down at the quantum level. There is much experimental evidence to support that and all your hand waving will not make that go away. Why in the hell do you think so many physicists are looking for a unified theory?
Frankly Bill your ignorance on the subject is appalling. What is more, as though you have all of the answers, you put your ignorance on display for all to see…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 10:57:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Atheist sez: "I don't know."
Churchy sez: "I do 'cause it's in my book that was written by goatherds in the lands that gave us hashist and opium."
My point on the Either/Or Fallacy is made.
quote:
Atheist sez: "I don't know."
(bill) As I pointed out in the last post, and demonstrated by your lack of any response to that post, your "I don't know" hand waving is just smoke and mirrors in a lame attempt to divert from the real issue, which is that atheism ends in circular logic and is encompassed with ill-logic. Rather then face that music the atheist will just hide behind their smoke and mirrors of "we don't know" and maybe in 200 years or somewhere in the future someone will figure out to repeal "law", "cause and effect", and "commonsense" and will replace them with "anarchy" and "for no reason" on a full time bases. That day is the only hope the atheist can cling too, and his faith must remain in that hope as his worldview is currently stuck in a quagmire of circular and ill-logic. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 11:00:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Atheist sez: "I don't know."
Churchy sez: "I do 'cause it's in my book that was written by goatherds in the lands that gave us hashist and opium."
My point on the Either/Or Fallacy is made.
Oh, and why do atheists search for "loopholes" if they are in search of truth? Shady denfence lawyers, who seek to to distort the truth, search for loopholes. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 11:31:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Jane, I mean Bill, you ignorant slut. You can't just wave away quantum physics as coming from the imagination of atheistic scientists out to prove God doesn't exist. The world of the very small does not operate by the same rules of physics as the macro world does. Laws of physics simply break down at the quantum level. There is much experimental evidence to support that and all your hand waving will not make that go away. Why in the hell do you think so many physicists are looking for a unified theory?
Frankly Bill your ignorance on the subject is appalling. What is more, as though you have all of the answers, you put your ignorance on display for all to see…
quote:
Jane, I mean Bill, you ignorant slut.
(bill) Yes, dirty fat bastard?
See, name calling can be fun, and really makes for a serious looking forum. *sigh*
quote:
You can't just wave away quantum physics as coming from the imagination of atheistic scientists...
(bill) I didn't. The piece provided by H.H. did all that for me.
quote:
The world of the very small does not operate by the same rules of physics as the macro world does. Laws of physics simply break down at the quantum level.
(bill) Yes, as long as "the usual commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended". And to do this atheist must dream up a "loophole" where they can repeal "law", "cause and effect", and "commonsense" and replace it with "anarchy and spontaneous happenings". When asked why they think their hypothesis trumps reality the atheist will respond with "for no particular reason" or it "just happened" and that is all you need to know. *sigh*
quote:
Frankly Bill your ignorance on the subject is appalling. What is more, as though you have all of the answers, you put your ignorance on display for all to see…
(bill) Why do atheist, if they are really truth seekers, look for loopholes? Loopholes are for defense attorneys who get paid to distort truth.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 11:37:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jane, I mean Bill, you ignorant slut.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(bill) Yes, dirty fat bastard?
See, name calling can be fun, and really makes for a serious looking forum. *sigh*
No sense of humor, apparently...*sigh*
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/78/78eupdate.phtml |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 11:45:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Well, we know that matter would not be able to be used in the big bang, otherwise this would have to be eternal matter as we also know, thanks to nasa, that the universe is finite.
No, we only know that matter as we know it came into being with the Big Bang.quote:
So if the atheist begins their origins hypothesis off with physical matter already in existence then the next question that will have to be asked is where did this matter come from? This ends in circular logic.
No it doesn't. "We don't know where all this matter comes from" isn't circular logic.quote:
Now, if the first cause of the universe is eternal, this would break the circular logic of a finite first cause redundancy.
Since the circular logic you assert isn't present, then no "eternal first cause" is needed to break the non-existant circularity.quote:
Now understanding that it takes an infinite cause which would be the more logical suggestion for this infinite cause?
A. eternal matter is somehow the first cause of the universe, even though NASA proved the universe was not eternal. If the universe is not eternal, then how can eternal matter exist as a first cause? Eternal matter is an oxymoron. You are taking matter, and giving to it the attribute of eternal existence, which is an attribute of deity.
B. The eternal first cause is an infinite deity. Eternal existence is an attribute of deity. If the deity is not eternal then he is not a deity
There's no reason to assume that these are the only choices.quote:
Good, then that will help us narrow it down quickly to an eternal first cause then, because those are your only two choices.
You keep saying that without proving it.quote:
Now the main question shifts to what/who is the eternal first cause?
Not at all, since the previous question has yet to be answered.quote:
The choice would have to be infinite matter of some kind or an infinite deity? If you have any others please share here.
Non-infinite matter, a different kind of matter, a non-infinite being, the list is practically endless.quote:
I subscribe to a deity, who would be eternal, or he would not be a deity, as the first cause, while you subscribe to nothing. You can't come up with an eternal first cause, apart from God, and you acknowledge the universe is not eternal, so where does atheism go from there?
Atheism doesn't even attempt to answer the question "how did the universe begin?" Science does that, |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 11:47:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jane, I mean Bill, you ignorant slut.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(bill) Yes, dirty fat bastard?
See, name calling can be fun, and really makes for a serious looking forum. *sigh*
No sense of humor, apparently...*sigh*
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/78/78eupdate.phtml
You find calling someone an "ignorant slut" as humors?
What a simpleton you are. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 12:02:11 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote” quote:
How do you give more probability to a hypothesis that was made up in the imagination of man?
How do you? The principle of causality was made up in the imagination of man.
Physics has discovered that the philosophical principle regarding cause and effect is not a hard and fast rule. Physicists, like Paul Davies (you know, the author who wrote that article posted by Humbert), don't debate this. Philosophers don't even debate this. They don't debate it because we now know that time is not a consistent and stable thing that is separate from the material universe. Time itself is part of the natural world, and since it can be distorted, that throws a big fat wrench in previous ideas of cause and effect.
This is what I meant when I twice before compared the principle of causality to Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics fit in with “common sense” too. But Newtonian physics was wrong. That is a fact. It has been proven wrong with experimentation. The classical principle of Causality also doesn't apply anymore. We figured out that time and the rest of nature is more complicated than what human “common sense” dictates.
Do you get is yet, Bill? By continuing to push your whole “smoke and mirrors” argument, you are essentially accusing the entire academic fields of physics, philosophy, even astronomy, of a gargantuan atheistic conspiracy. All so you can pretend that your religious faith has some sort of rational basis. Your faith has no rational basis. It is faith and nothing more.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 12:13:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jane, I mean Bill, you ignorant slut.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(bill) Yes, dirty fat bastard?
See, name calling can be fun, and really makes for a serious looking forum. *sigh*
No sense of humor, apparently...*sigh*
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/78/78eupdate.phtml
You find calling someone an "ignorant slut" as humors?
What a simpleton you are.
Okay Bill, you didn't get the reference or you don't think it's funny. So, I apologies. You're not a slut… |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 12:14:07 [Permalink]
|
Billquote:
Oh, and why do atheists search for "loopholes" if they are in search of truth? Shady denfence lawyers, who seek to to distort the truth, search for loopholes.
False analogy, Bill. Lawyers deal with man-made laws. Made-made laws can be broken and often are, which is why we need lawyers.
A requirement to be a natural law is that it cannot be broken. If the law of gravity is broken, physicists would strip it of its status of “law”.
No natural laws are repealed by Quantum physics. “Common sense” and “cause and effect” are not natural laws. They are mere ideas from the imagination of man.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 12:36:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
You find calling someone an "ignorant slut" as humors?
What a simpleton you are.
 |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 13:12:44 [Permalink]
|
| Gee bill you have managed to change the minds of exactly zero people in this forum. I guess we just don't get it. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
