|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
 Posted - 02/23/2006 : 08:12:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
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.
But don't forget WE are the special ones. |
"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
|
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 08:57:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
(bill) Nice story doc, I have just one question? Where did the atom come from?
Who created God?
Since God created the Universe, something must have created God. That's the law of Cause and Effect.
|
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 08:58:38 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 09:20:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
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 causa |
"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 : 09:39:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
(bill) Nice story doc, I have just one question? Where did the atom come from?
Who created God?
Since God created the Universe, something must have created God. That's the law of Cause and Effect.
God would not be bound by time and space as he is the one who created time and space. |
"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 - 02/23/2006 : 09:41:02 [Permalink]
|
| That didn't answer the question. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 09:56:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
That didn't answer the question.
What would you know about answering the question? Your last 10 posts were all about avoiding the question becuase you thought I might not be very nice to your hypothesis. |
"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 - 02/23/2006 : 10:06:25 [Permalink]
|
| <nevermind> |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 02/23/2006 10:07:48 |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 10:22:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
(bill) Nice story doc, I have just one question? Where did the atom come from?
Who created God?
Since God created the Universe, something must have created God. That's the law of Cause and Effect.
God would not be bound by time and space as he is the one who created time and space.
Why do you dismiss the brane theory, then, and favor your god theory? |
"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
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 10:55:38 [Permalink]
|
(to borrow Halfmooner's style for a moment)
Bill barfed:
quote:
(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:
"how can you prove the universe i.e. physical matter is not eternal, Bill?"
The atheists realized that to explain the exists of PM, without trying to claim it was eternal, or was the cause of an eternal agent that transcends the universe, was a rather difficult task and ended up in catch 22. Every scenario the atheist ran through in his mind on how PM exists starts with PM already in existence. To explain the existence of PM apart from the PM having an eternal existence, or an eternal first cause requires the atheist to begin his hypothesis with, literally, nothing, and then explain how nothing turned into PM, which turned into life... Judging by their silence this was not an easy task for them to do.
You are laughably idiotic.
You obviously don't understand this topic well enough to have an informed discussion about it. Your infantile objections are nothing more than a combination of various creationist straw-men, all refuted/debunked/etc for decades. Your "best" argument is the failed cosmological argument, and you clearly don't comprehend THAT argument either, or you'd notice the obvious gaping holes that render it an impotent and terminally flawed bit of work.
You can't even answer a simple question put to you, you just respond with ridicule and a slew of strawmen and red herrings.
Siberia said:
quote:
Why do you dismiss the brane theory, then, and favor your god theory?
Bill doesn't even have a clue what "brane" theory is.
Bill said:
quote:
God would not be bound by time and space as he is the one who created time and space.
Yet another unevidenced assertion. If your god created this universe what evidence do you have (other than idle speculation) that it is not bound by the rules of space/time? Oh... my bad, you don't even have any evidence that your god exists so you can't possibly attempt an answer to that first question.
quote:
(bill) But yet that was the hypothesis offered up by dude when I pressed the forum for origin to PM in their universe.
dude: Prove the universe is not eternal bill
Yours is just a reworded version of dudes...
Listen, jackass, scroll back through these two threads and show me where I told you to "prove the universe is not eternal Bill".
When you create these straw-men, you do realize that you are telling a lie, right Bill? And that lying is a sin and all that? Bet that is earning you big points with the creator.
I'll ask you the question once more.
I want to know: How do you know that physical matter is not eternal?
|
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 - 02/23/2006 : 11:11:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
(bill) Nice story doc, I have just one question? Where did the atom come from?
Who created God?
Since God created the Universe, something must have created God. That's the law of Cause and Effect.
God would not be bound by time and space as he is the one who created time and space.
That certainly is convenient and ironic. You hold others to a rather high standard for empirical evidence for the origin of physical matter while postulating an entity that you can't possibly substantiate through anything other than faith. In essence your god is an uncaused cause. How do you know this? By faith. Now take a step back for a moment. You believe in one uncaused cause. Don't limit the logic you seem so proud of.
edited: misspelled back as bake |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 02/23/2006 11:13:44 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 13:11:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
(bill) Nice story doc, I have just one question? Where did the atom come from?
Who created God?
Since God created the Universe, something must have created God. That's the law of Cause and Effect.
God would not be bound by time and space as he is the one who created time and space.
So you're applying double standard.
This argument is not much different than Marfknox third alternative from the previous page which you rejected.
Let's have a look at them again, shall we? quote:
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.
#1 states that God created space and time and everything that is in it.
#2 states that matter and energy has always been, just in different shapes.
These two concepts are easy to grasp, and should pose no problem.
#3 however is much more complex. I can see that you have a problem working you mind around this one, and I guess that is the reason for you to reject it.
The Big Bang theory says that the Universe started in a singularity. In a singularity all dimensions break down and becomes indistinguishable. That means that time and space loose its definitions. With it also: Cause-and-Effect. The ironic consequence of this is that the Big Bang may not have a cause.
One of the problems with singularities is that the mathematics become ambiguous, and thus allows for several interpretations. One of them is that the Universe is self-sufficient, bent around itself.
Steven Hawking writes about this in his book "A Brief History of Time".
|
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. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 13:34:42 [Permalink]
|
So Bill, I was expecting you to have a comment or two on this link. quote:
Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology
The Big Bang model of cosmology rests on two key ideas that date back to the early 20th century: General Relativity and the Cosmological Principle. By assuming that the matter in the universe is distributed uniformly on the largest scales, one can use General Relativity to compute the corresponding gravitational effects of that matter. Since gravity is a property of space-time in General Relativity, this is equivalent to computing the dynamics of space-time itself. The story unfolds as follows:
As I see that you do not, it must be that your knowledge of the topic is so formidable that even considering such an insignificent, scientific trifle is beneath your dignity. I should apologize for insulting such a Jovian intellect.
Yes, yes, so I should....
But no matter; we can simply pass it by in favor of
this one. I'm sure you will find it a bit more challenging, as it concerns a peer of yours.
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 14:24:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
(bill) Nice story doc, I have just one question? Where did the atom come from?
Who created God?
Since God created the Universe, something must have created God. That's the law of Cause and Effect.
God would not be bound by time and space as he is the one who created time and space.
So you're applying double standard.
This argument is not much different than Marfknox third alternative from the previous page which you rejected.
Let's have a look at them again, shall we? quote:
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.
#1 states that God created space and time and everything that is in it.
#2 states that matter and energy has always been, just in different shapes.
These two concepts are easy to grasp, and should pose no problem.
#3 however is much more complex. I can see that you have a problem working you mind around this one, and I guess that is the reason for you to reject it.
The Big Bang theory says that the Universe started in a singularity. In a singularity all dimensions break down and becomes indistinguishable. That means that time and space loose its definitions. With it also: Cause-and-Effect. The ironic consequence of this is that the Big Bang may not have a cause.
One of the problems with singularities is that the mathematics become ambiguous, and thus allows for several interpretations. One of them is that the Universe is self-sufficient, bent around itself.
Steven Hawking writes about this in his book "A Brief History of Time".
Who created God?
Since God created the Universe, something must have created God. That's the law of Cause and Effect.
(bill)God would not be bound by time and space as he is the one who created time and space.
So you're applying double standard.
This argument is not much different than Marfknox third alternative from the previous page which you rejected.
(bill) marf is trying to build a case for PM being eternal, period. I am building a case for a infinite deity (not infinite physical matter) which is the first cause of physical matter. Big difference.
I have stated from day that my position was that an eternal agent was the first cause, which would be best described by #1. The infinite deity would not be bound to time and space because he is the creator of time and space. The infinite deity would not be bound to the laws of his creation because he is the creator of the laws to begin with.
Let's have a look at them again, shall we?
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.
#1 states that God created space and time and everything that is in it.
#2 states that matter and energy has always been, just in different shapes.
These two concepts are easy to grasp, and should pose no problem.
#3 however is much more complex. I can see that you have a problem working you mind around this one, and I guess that is the reason for you to reject it.
(bill) Ahhh.... #3 is just the attempt by the atheist to brush off cause and effect so that they can attempt to make the case for physical matter being eternal at least a possibility, as I predicted the atheist would. They always revert back to the position that somehow this PM has to be eternal and dagnabit we are going to come up with a hypothesis where eternal matter is plausible even if that means suspending cause and effect theory which is such a pesky little critter to our eternal physical matter hypothesis.
The Big Bang theory says that the Universe started in a singularity. In a singularity all dimensions break down and becomes indistinguishable. That means that time and space loose its definitions. With it also: Cause-and-Effect.
(bill) Of course it does. If it didn't loose time and space, and cause and effect then that makes it much harder for the atheist to explain the existence of the physical universe without it being eternal or having a first cause. So I would expect them eliminate time and space, and cause and effect in their hypothesis. As I have stated many times now without a first cause all the atheist has is an eternal universe. Well unless they can somehow eliminate the laws of time and space, oh yeah and cause and effect theory. Once those pesky critters are out of the way an atheistic universe is now starting to take shape.
Now again, I implying eternal attributes to an infinite deity who is the creator of all that exists, while marf is applying eternal existence to purely materialist physical matter, and I do not believe that she is implying that this eternal matter is the creator of all that exists either, or maybe she is?
|
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 17:39:51 [Permalink]
|
Much to my suprise.... Bill continues to choose to not answer my questions.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 18:20:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
God would not be bound by time and space as he is the one who created time and space.
So when a theist suggests a god (with no proof or rationalisation beyond faith) and says that cause and effect don't apply, this is OK.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
(bill) Ahhh.... #3 is just the attempt by the atheist to brush off cause and effect
But when an atheist proposes a situation in which there are reasons for cause and effect not to apply, because the context in which we define them, and to which they apply, does not yet exist it's somehow "brushing off" and unacceptable.
Interesting (though hardly surprising) logic Bill.
By the way, you really should try to learn to use the quote functionality of the board. It really isn't that hard, and would make you're text (if not your logic) much easier to comprehend. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
