|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 02/22/2006 : 17:21:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Ok, now where we before being silenced I mean locked out:
Hey Bill, have you been silenced or were you free to open another thread on our website? You know, if silencing you was any of the SFN staffs' intention, we could have done just that. Valiant Dancer stated clearly the reason this thread was closed.
Perhaps you have delusions of being persecuted. I don't know. But if you really want to get on any administrator or moderator's bad side, go ahead and accuse us of being unfair.
your right. I am sorry val... |
"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 - 02/22/2006 : 17:36:47 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: quote:
(bill) This one is getting to you huh dude? I see that you yet again go off ranting and refuse to offer even your hypothesis to the existence of a materialistic universe and it's origin. Why? Because you can not even dream up a atheistic first cause let alone find one in reality apart from an eternal creator? I predict you will continue to rant and will still refuse to give even a hypothesis in support of your ramblings.
What am I, invisible? Bill, what do I have to do to get you to actually respond to my posts? Do I have to call you insulting names? I have answered your questions about suggested atheistic explanations for the original of all physical matter in several ways, and yet you just ignore all my posts and then attack Pleco and Dude and write those silly conversations between your imaginary atheist friend and yourself.
We have three logically consistent possibilities for the origin of all matter and energy:
1.) Matter and energy started at some point, and because of the laws of causality, the original force that brought all matter into existence must have been supernatural.
2.) Matter and energy are fundamentally eternal. They simply change form over time.
3.) The laws of causality do not apply to this question because the fundamental nature of existence is outside of the human understanding of time and the nature of physical laws.
Here's some physics 101 to explain why all three hypothesis's are – given what we know right now – equally possible:
Newtonian mechanics worked very well for a long while in theoretical physics. It worked so well that it is still used by scientists when calculating about big things, like people, planets, stars. However, we now know that fundamentally, Newtonian mechanics are wrong because when we attempt to use it at the molecular level, it doesn't work. For things at that scale, we must use Quantum mechanics. The problem is that Quantum mechanics has yet to be totally compatible with the fundamental force of gravity.
So we knew we were on to something with Newtonian mechanics because it worked at least on some level, and it helped us discover Quantum mechanics. And we know we are on to something with Quantum mechanics, but because we haven't come up with a theory of Quantum gravity that works, we know there is still much to discover. And theoretical physicists have been focusing their minds on this question for decades now, and while they've come up with some neat ideas (string theory), they have yet to propose any experiments to test those ideas, and so we don't have a true scientific solution to the problem.
What I'm saying here is that we have a big fat gap in our knowledge of the fundamental laws of nature. So any claims to know even that all matter and energy had a discreet beginning, or that it definitely didn't have a discreet beginning, is just foolish vanity.
Bill, you also ask us why we so easily dismiss your explanation, which indeed, many of us do. We aren't saying your hypothesis is impossible. We're saying it is improbable. So improbable, that we just regard it as silly.
To help you understand our point of view, I want you to consider the latest literary work by Sylvia Browne: Animals on the Other Side The book shares Ms. Browne's psychic visions of the afterlife, and she tells about how animals (except insects for some reason) live in the afterlife, but how there no one eats, so there are no conflicts between the animals that were once prey and predator. There is nothing falsifiable about Browne's claims. There are no experiments we could do to prove that she isn't actually seeing into the real afterlife. But do you believe her claims? Of course you don't. And how can you so easily dismiss her claims? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/22/2006 17:41:57 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 18:22:10 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
To help you understand our point of view, I want you to consider the latest literary work by Sylvia Browne: Animals on the Other Side The book shares Ms. Browne's psychic visions of the afterlife, and she tells about how animals (except insects for some reason) live in the afterlife, but how there no one eats, so there are no conflicts between the animals that were once prey and predator. There is nothing falsifiable about Browne's claims. There are no experiments we could do to prove that she isn't actually seeing into the real afterlife. But do you believe her claims? Of course you don't. And how can you so easily dismiss her claims? Why not give equal stock to her claims as you do to your Christian beliefs? Because you think they are silly and improbable.
There is a profound quote from a very smart guy that covers this particular situation:
quote:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
- Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-1971)
Bill will never get it.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 20:58:11 [Permalink]
|
Excuse me for butting in here so late, but I have two questions.
- What is the PM that Bill keeps referring? As used I can't for the life of me determine what it means.
- Why is Bill trying to use the first cause argument? He is aware of the conversation that typically follows such an argument.
Bill you have made over 250 post, many of which were in reply to other posts. Have you still not figured out how to use the quote tag. You replies, especially the long one, are very difficult to read. The use of the quote tag would allow me to quickly and easily see your response and what you were responding to. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 21:31:14 [Permalink]
|
| For those who are confused: PM refers to physical matter as Bill is using it. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 23:31:07 [Permalink]
|
Moak asked:
quote:
- Why is Bill trying to use the first cause argument? He is aware of the conversation that typically follows such an argument.
Bill jumped in and started demanding an "atheistic theory" for the origin of the universe.
We repeatedly told him no such thing exists, so he then started regurgitating the old failed cosmological argument for the existance of god (claiming it is the best explanation for the universe) all the while claiming that science has "failed" to provide an adequate explanation. He conveniently ignores that religion has had, literally, several more milennia than science to provide an explanation, yet the best one (in his opinion) is the failed cosmological argument.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 02:04:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
The use of the quote tag would allow me to quickly and easily see your response and what you were responding to.
You would still be wasting your time.
The posts of Bill scott has nothing to offer. |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 02:49:16 [Permalink]
|
Eroticon 5 is far away,
And orbiting a forign sun.
And the triple-breasted whore who lives there,
Is the best bang since the Big One.
So traveler comtemplate as you quaff,
Your Pan-Glactic Gargle Blast:
God's greatest gifts have ever been:
That laugh, that glass, and a fine piece of ass!
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 03:20:40 [Permalink]
|
Physical Matter is created by energy.
It happens on a regular basis at CERN.
I guess that scientists are Gods.
Bill, quantum mechanics allows effects without a cause as you see it. Vacuum is not empty, but in vacuum, pairs of virtual particles and anti-particles is created and destroyed almost instantly and continuously. This means that for an extremely short period of time there is matter from nothing. If something would happen to disturb the balance of these two particles, preventing them from negating each other, then they do not disappear and become real.
What about radioactivity, Bill?
If we decide to examine a carbon-14 atom it may decay with 48hours from when we started to examine it. It may decay 5000 years from now. Even though it is highly unlikely, it may not decay for a million years.
What makes the atom decay? The laws of physics and quantum mechanics as we know them sets the probability of its decay within a time period. But the actual event that sets off the decay has no cause, it is completely random. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/23/2006 03:21:51 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 06:40:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Bill wrote: quote:
(bill) This one is getting to you huh dude? I see that you yet again go off ranting and refuse to offer even your hypothesis to the existence of a materialistic universe and it's origin. Why? Because you can not even dream up a atheistic first cause let alone find one in reality apart from an eternal creator? I predict you will continue to rant and will still refuse to give even a hypothesis in support of your ramblings.
What am I, invisible? Bill, what do I have to do to get you to actually respond to my posts? Do I have to call you insulting names? I have answered your questions about suggested atheistic explanations for the original of all physical matter in several ways, and yet you just ignore all my posts and then attack Pleco and Dude and write those silly conversations between your imaginary atheist friend and yourself.
We have three logically consistent possibilities for the origin of all matter and energy:
1.) Matter and energy started at some point, and because of the laws of causality, the original force that brought all matter into existence must have been supernatural.
2.) Matter and energy are fundamentally eternal. They simply change form over time.
3.) The laws of causality do not apply to this question because the fundamental nature of existence is outside of the human understanding of time and the nature of physical laws.
Here's some physics 101 to explain why all three hypothesis's are – given what we know right now – equally possible:
Newtonian mechanics worked very well for a long while in theoretical physics. It worked so well that it is still used by scientists when calculating about big things, like people, planets, stars. However, we now know that fundamentally, Newtonian mechanics are wrong because when we attempt to use it at the molecular level, it doesn't work. For things at that scale, we must use Quantum mechanics. The problem is that Quantum mechanics has yet to be totally compatible with the fundamental force of gravity.
So we knew we were on to something with Newtonian mechanics because it worked at least on some level, and it helped us discover Quantum mechanics. And we know we are on to something with Quantum mechanics, but because we haven't come up with a theory of Quantum gravity that works, we know there is still much to discover. And theoretical physicists have been focusing their minds on this question for decades now, and while they've come up with some neat ideas (string theory), they have yet to propose any experiments to test those ideas, and so we don't have a true scientific solution to the problem.
What I'm saying here is that we have a big fat gap in our knowledge of the fundamental laws of nature. So any claims to know even that all matter and energy had a discreet beginning, or that it definitely didn't have a discreet beginning, is just foolish vanity.
Bill, you also ask us why we so easily dismiss your explanation, which indeed, many of us do. We aren't saying your hypothesis is impossible. We're saying it is improbable. So improbable, that we just regard it as silly.
To help you understand our point of view, I want you to consider the latest literary work by Sylvia Browne: Animals on the Other Side The book shares Ms. Browne's psychic visions of the afterlife, and she tells about how animals (except insects for some reason) live in the afterlife, but how there no one eats, so there are no conflicts between the animals that were once prey and predator. There is nothing falsifiable about Browne's claims. There are no experiments we could d |
"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 - 02/23/2006 : 06:42:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Physical Matter is created by energy.
It happens on a regular basis at CERN.
I guess that scientists are Gods.
Bill, quantum mechanics allows effects without a cause as you see it. Vacuum is not empty, but in vacuum, pairs of virtual particles and anti-particles is created and destroyed almost instantly and continuously. This means that for an extremely short period of time there is matter from nothing. If something would happen to disturb the balance of these two particles, preventing them from negating each other, then they do not disappear and become real.
What about radioactivity, Bill?
If we decide to examine a carbon-14 atom it may decay with 48hours from when we started to examine it. It may decay 5000 years from now. Even though it is highly unlikely, it may not decay for a million years.
What makes the atom decay? The laws of physics and quantum mechanics as we know them sets the probability of its decay within a time period. But the actual event that sets off the decay has no cause, it is completely random.
What about radioactivity, Bill?
If we decide to examine a carbon-14 atom it may decay with 48hours from when we started to examine it. It may decay 5000 years from now. Even though it is highly unlikely, it may not decay for a million years.
What makes the atom decay? The laws of physics and quantum mechanics as we know them sets the probability of its decay within a time period. But the actual event that sets off the decay has no cause, it is completely random.
(bill) Nice story doc, I have just one question? Where did the atom come from?
|
"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 - 02/23/2006 : 07:02:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) Nice story doc, I have just one question? Where did the atom come from?
Open the link in my last post, Mr. Straw.
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 07:12:14 [Permalink]
|
LMAO.
That's a sign of God being rude to his creation, no doubt. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 07:41:33 [Permalink]
|
I think that is a god being rude to just us, because it only looks like that from our position in the cosmos.
Or maybe a god is about to create something, and that is a large genitalia.
Reminds me of Bill in a way. The universe looks complex to him, so a god must have made it. Just the way it looks from his POV; doesn't make it an absolute truth. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 02/23/2006 07:53:37 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 07:53:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) I am sorry. I can't possibly address every post addressed to me.
Well you sure as hell better at least read them all before shooting your mouth of several times about how no one has offered an atheistic hypothesis for the origin of the universe.
quote:
(Martha wrote:) 2.) Matter and energy are fundamentally eternal. They simply change form over time..
(bill) It's always been here and never had a point in time when it began to exist. Yes, and as I have stated many times the atheist will fall back on this every time they are pushed into a corner for the origins of PM. I pushed the forum for any atheist to give me their hypothesis on the existance of PM , apart from an eternal agent that transcends the PM, and the silence was deafening. Finally dude pipes in with what? As predicted:
The silence was not deafening! Go back and read it; Dude piped in as did I almost immediately! The idea that matter and energy could NOT have always existed in some form is completely unfounded. Present us with one piece of evidence that matter and energy require a cause. If you cannot do that, you cannot claim that your position on the matter is more logical than this second possibility. Making fun of it is not going to make your position any more correct, Bill.
quote:
3.) The laws of causality do not apply to this question because the fundamental nature of existence is outside of the human understanding of time and the nature of physical laws.
(bill) This is just a smoke and mirrors attempt to brush off cause and effect theory, and therefore go back to the reworded position of:
"how can you prove PM is not eternal, bill?"
quote:
What you are saying in laymen's terms is, "Bill, the existence of PM is beyond what you or I can understand.
Wrong again. I am saying that it is beyond what the best minds of humanity DO understand. I'm not saying we can't understand it. Although that is indeed another possibility. Once again, these are POSSIBILITIES. The bottom line is that we do not have enough information, and no amount of thinking real hard about it is going to change that plain fact. Is thinking real hard going to allow us to learn facts of history that have no materials evidence? No! Is thinking real hard going to allow us to learn facts about the natural world that we have no evidence for yet? No!
I've said it before and I'll say it again, anyone who claims to know the answer to the question about the origin of matter and energy is an arrogant fool.
quote:
Look, the universe was created (first cause) or it is eternal, period. You can not add #3 and circumvent cause and effect theory just because you want to.
Try instead that I've read a lot of ideas in theoretical physics and have started to really grasp how much we don't know about the basic nature of matter and energy. The law of causality is something philosophers came up with because it applied to the natural world as humans experience it. But in the past century, there have been plenty of disc |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
