|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 02/23/2006 : 18:28:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
(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.
Science cannot "see" backward past the point where the Big Bang was a singularity. Noone can. Some theories say a quantum fluctuation initiated the BB.
When I say "see" I don't want you to misinterpre it. With that I mean evidence and inference through scientific theories. As per Quantum Mechanics, QM fluctuations doesn't have to have a cause.
Also, in science we use Occam's Razor. I'm sure you are familiar with it.
We now have to contending hypothesis:
1) BB was caused by a quantum fluctuation.
2) BB was caused by a quantum fluctuation, and that fluctuation was caused by an eternal Creator.
Now we have two contending, equal theories. We can't see past the quantum fluctuation to determine if it was caused by something or if it just fluctuated. But one of them contains an entity wich is superfluous. Occam's Razor states that the explanation with the superfluous entity may be eliminated.
Thus a non-theistic, or as you prefer atheistic, explanation of the beginning of the universe is the only one that concerns science.
If that is enough for science, it's enough for me.
quote:
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?
I think she is.
Randomness and a few physical laws working together can produce very complex patterns and emerging properties, which I think is very cool. |
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. |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 19:00:56 [Permalink]
|
Filthy, thank you for the links. The one on protein sequences in various species was especially terrific stuff. I knew of this only in general. Scanning the "spellings" of the proteins across species was a wonderfully enlightening experience.
Any "scientific theory" that wants to replace evolution must first somehow overcome that mountain of undeniable natural evidence. No wonder Hovind, Gish and Co. make up lies about protein sequences. The truth of the matter is too much for them, while their bald lies are lent a "sciencey" ring to con the rubes, through using the names of proteins.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 19:27:12 [Permalink]
|
| Bill, why don't you want to discuss my logical atheistic causes for life and PM (these being LIEs and "atheistic deviation around the mean model")? You complain when people don't supply you with these, so shouldn't you then take the time to respond to people who do supply them? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2006 : 19:46:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
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.
Bill you rely upon one uncaused cause, your first cause, your theistic fantasy, as the foundation of your argument. You have not provide one piece of evidence to support your eternal agent and yet you continue to use it as if it were obviously true. You claim logic and reason and probably even consider yourself clever. But you are incapable of taking that one step back to sincerely consider the flaws of your uncaused cause argument. Your mind has been poluted by the nonsense of your theistic fantasy.
Your are flawed nomad exercise your prime directive. |
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 - 02/23/2006 : 20:08:45 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse wrote: quote:
Who created God?
Since God created the Universe, something must have created God. That's the law of Cause and Effect.
In this scenario, the definition of “God” is apparently “an agent which transcends nature”. It may only transcend nature in that it can defy the law of causality. From this view, “God” could simply be a totally impersonal and/or unintelligent force that only got matter and energy going in the first place, and then went inert or even out of existence itself. There is no way of telling.
If indeed such a force is empirically proven to exist, then it would be considered part of the natural world, and thus, not a god. The ultimate problem with Bill's argument is that he is trying to prove religion using logic and science. But by its very definition, theology cannot be understood by such means. If theology could be understood by those means, spiritual beliefs would not be spiritual, they would be natural.
I would like to thank Dr. Mabuse for his further and accurate explanation of the complexities of my possibility #3.
That said, Mab also wrote: quote:
#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.
While I think the second possibility is easy to grasp, I do not think this of the first.
Concepts of “God” and “gods” has varied widely over the centuries. The only consistency is that he/she/they created the universe and that he/she/they are supernatural. To be supernatural is to be beyond scientific understanding. If we could prove with science that god's exist, they would not be god/s. So #1 is basically a claim that the law of causality shows nature contradicting itself, and thus, there must be something not natural interfering.
Bill latches on to the law of causality as having some authority. I can only assume that authority is based on consistence. But scientific natural laws are also consistent. Just as there is no reason to believe that causality can be broken by nature, there is no reason to believe that gravity or the laws of thermodynamics can be broken. We see their consistency, and so we trust that they are actually natural laws. Therefore, the most simple and logical explanation of Bill's question about matter and energy is #2, as implied (but not claimed) by Dude because #2 does not defy the law of causality (which #3 does), nor does it defy scientific laws of nature and the law of causality (which #1 does).
Bill wrote” marf is trying to build a case for PM being eternal, period.
That is bullshit. Do not put words in my mouth. Mabuse elaborated on my #3 possibility quite well, and in my personal belief system I find both #2 and #3 to be strong candidates for the truth about matter and energy in the universe. I find your #1 possibility to be the true “smoke and mirrors” because your “God” essentially boils down to something so vague, it is akin to “I don't know.” But because you can semantically mix it with contemporary and specific understandings of the Judeo-Christian capital-G God, you can then move on from there to justify more unsubstantiated pseudo-philosophical bs.
By the way, you sound like a damn moron with your phrase “physical matter”. Matter is physical, and so you are being redundant. Just say “matter”. Also, energy is not matter, but both exist, so you have to mention both.
Bill wrote: Ahhh.... #3 is just the |
"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 02/23/2006 20:27:51 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2006 : 02:58:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Filthy, thank you for the links. The one on protein sequences in various species was especially terrific stuff. I knew of this only in general. Scanning the "spellings" of the proteins across species was a wonderfully enlightening experience.
Any "scientific theory" that wants to replace evolution must first somehow overcome that mountain of undeniable natural evidence. No wonder Hovind, Gish and Co. make up lies about protein sequences. The truth of the matter is too much for them, while their bald lies are lent a "sciencey" ring to con the rubes, through using the names of proteins.
De nada.... Just something I had laying about in a dusty corner of my cyber closet.
How would you like be the one to debunk the Theory of Evolution? I mean, absolutely rip it to shreds, humiliate all of it's supporters, burn all the textbooks concerning it, and piss on Darwin's grave?
Me, I'd love it!
I'd love to discover the Devonian Bunny. I grow weak with yearning at the thought of finding a fossil of Icthyostega, or similar of the age, with a 500 myo, knapped, stone spearhead associated with it.
I would become famous. I would be handsomely paid for blithering away at seminars and lectures, and become disgustingly wealthy. My name would replace the fraud Darwin's in the hallowed halls of science, and I could hop over to Sweden and pick up my Nobel Prize at my leisure. Hell, the committee would probably deliver it to my door, bowing and tugging at their forelocks. My honored place in history would be assured.
Yes, I'd love it and so would every evolutionary scientist in the world. Toppling Darwin's theory is one of the greatest prizes in science and they would kill for it. As would I. But hey, ain't nobody even close to winnin' that bad boy because -- sorry 'bout that, guys -- the ToE is the correct theory and all of the emperical evidence found thus far supports it. Further, the likelihood of my precious fossil lagomorph, or something similar, turning up is about the same as that of God inviting me over to his house for dinner and drinks, and to smoke a little hash whilst watching the WWE Smackdown. It ain't very fuckin' likely.
It just ain't on, Bill. All of the yammer, blather, and outright bullshit that you have put forth on these boards is not the measure of a single sentence in Origin of Species, which I suggest you read so that you will, at last, know at least a little of whereof you speak.
Did you hear that, Ham? Sarfati? Are you paying attention Weiland, Hovind, Baugh, Gish, and all the rest of you YEC fundidiots?
It just ain't on!
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2006 : 06:11:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Much to my suprise.... Bill continues to choose to not answer my questions.
I don't believe that for a second. I don't believe you are surprised. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
pfretzschner
Skeptic Friend
USA
67 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2006 : 07:59:51 [Permalink]
|
| Has anyone noticed how wildly Bill scott's spelling and grammar vary from sub-literate to quite functional? My guess is that someone's writing some of his posts, or else he's cutting and pasting from somewhere. |
| Edited by - pfretzschner on 02/24/2006 08:02:29 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2006 : 08:08:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
These are no wild fantasies that we are talking about. Didn't you ever learn anything about Einstein's theories that were later proven with empirical evidence? Don't you know that time and space aren't even discreet dimensions, and are now referred to as “spacetime”? Don't you know that relativity and quantum physics (which both have much empirical evidence to prove their validity) have already shaken up our philosophical thoughts about causality?
These are simply parts of the alleged atheistic model of the universe which are used to justify the atheist's point of view that god doesn't exist and cannot possibly exist. How do you know the empirical evidence wasn't fudged by atheist scientists? And quantum mechanics, string theory, virtual particles - just atheistic philosophy and dreams to try to fit the god made universe into a godless worldview.
Sound about right, Bill? :-)
<edit for spelling> |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 02/24/2006 08:09:18 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2006 : 08:11:25 [Permalink]
|
The universe exists, I think most of us will agree to that. It is not an illusion, it is not located inside some acne prone teenager's Ipod. Since we know the universe i.e. physical matter exists we know that
A: It is eternal. It may have changed with time, but it has no beginning or point in time when it began to exist.
or
B. It had a point in time when if began to exist.
If it had a point in time when it began to exist then cause and effect theory dictate that the effect we see as the universe had a cause. Any matter used in the creation of the universe would either be eternal or have a first cause as well. The first cause of matter would have to transcend space-time continuum and would retain the attributes of eternal existence and would be the first cause of all the reality we all see before us.
Rather then just come out and say that they will try to build a case for eternal mater the atheist tend to toss out the smoke and mirrors first. They will try to set the stage for an uncaused caused by hypothesizing about the scenario in which:
"all dimensions break down and becomes indistinguishable. That means that time and space loose its definitions. With it also: Cause-and-Effect.".
and,
"The ironic consequence of this is that the Big Bang may not have a cause."
They dream up a scenario in time where the effects of time and space are eliminated, therefor they can finally get rid of the pesky cause and effect theory, and this is supposed to make it look rational when they claim it is possible for the BB to be the uncaused creative agent in a purely materialistic existence of the universe and matter . Of coarse they ignore the fact that the "definitions" of time and space as well as cause and effect must first have had to exist before they could be suspended or circumvented. As I predicted I am sure they will just claim that time and space is eternal. They always do, because that it is all they have.
So in the end we see that, just as I predicted, it comes down to eternal existence and the first cause.
I contend that all matter has a first cause. The first cause of this matter transcends all that it caused. The first cause of all matter, which I believe to be a deity, would have the attribute of eternal existence, as this is an attribute of deity.
While the atheist try's his/her best hypothesis for the existence of eternal matter in one form or another, as predicted. They will laugh and call the notion silly and simple minded for the creationists to give the attribute of eternal existence, to of all things, a deity, they in turn then and have no problem giving the attribute of eternal existence to matter in one form or another and then say it's existences can be explained with out a first cause while they chide the creationist in the very next breath for giving the attribute of eternal existence and being the uncaused first cause of all matter, and life for that fact, to off all things, a deity. *sigh*
One more time. The atheist will chide the creationist for giving attributes of deity to a, well, of all things, a deity as improbable and silly and in the next breath they give the attributes of deity to physical matter and say it is the uncaused first cause of itself and totally self-sufficient in all dimensions as a very probable and un-silly position. *sigh*
marf wrote
"Mabuse used real science to back up my #3 claim. The law of cause and effect is dependent on our current conception of time. But our conception of time may only apply from our point of view, "
(bill) That is one big "may" your assuming there sister. This is the worn out story of where the atheist dream up a scenario where five dimension down and three dimensions up, or maybe somewhere off in the bazzaro world there consists of a universe where cause and effect do not exist nor does the effects of time and space and in this far off existence all PM was birthed for the rest of the known universes who operate under cause and effect and are effected by time and space continuum.
Again, and I as predicted from day 1, this is nothing more then the atheist trying to somehow and in someway, build a logical hypothesis for the existence of eternal physical matter in some form or another somewhere.
Dr. Mabuse wrote
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.
(bill) Funny how the atheist will lambaste the creationist as a simpleton for giving the attributes of deity to, of all things, a deity and implying that said deity was the uncaused first cause of matter and therefor eternal, but they have no problem what so ever giving the attributes of deity to physical matter and claiming that PM is the uncaused first cause of itself and is therefore totally self sufficient and in need of no god. *sigh*
Dr. Mabuse wrote
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".
(bill) Funny how the atheist will lambaste the creationist as a simpleton for giving the attributes of deity to, of all things, a deity and implying that said deity was the uncaused first cause of matter and therefor eternal, but they have no problem what so ever giving the attributes of deity to physical matter and claiming that PM is the uncaused first cause of itself and is therefore totally self sufficient and in need of no god.
|
"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 - 02/24/2006 : 08:29:08 [Permalink]
|
Bill: no one said here that a god created universe isn't possible. What is the problem with that???? Stating that as a FACT is not logical and science cannot be used to justify that. Science will continue to try to find explanations for the beginning of the universe, etc., using the tools at its disposal. Period. Science is not going to say "well, it is a complicated problem, so let's say god did it and not worry about it."
You want to call it an atheist conspiracy - that is your own paranoia or self-fed propoganda. I'm sorry you see it that way. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 02/24/2006 08:30:08 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2006 : 08:29:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pfretzschner
Has anyone noticed how wildly Bill scott's spelling and grammar vary from sub-literate to quite functional? My guess is that someone's writing some of his posts, or else he's cutting and pasting from somewhere.
Thanks. Now that one really brought a smile to my day. I have been trying to get better with my poor grammer. By your comments it looks as if I have made some improvment, but need to work on consistency |
"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 - 02/24/2006 : 08:39:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) Funny how the atheist will lambaste the creationist as a simpleton for giving the attributes of deity to, of all things, a deity and implying that said deity was the uncaused first cause of matter and therefor eternal, but they have no problem what so ever giving the attributes of deity to physical matter and claiming that PM is the uncaused first cause of itself and is therefore totally self sufficient and in need of no god.
Ok then, identify and produce this deity. Drag the bitch out in the light where all can see it, and tell us it's name. Or at least provide evidence of it's existance beyond your less than informed opinion.
|
"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 - 02/24/2006 : 08:51:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
(bill) Funny how the atheist will lambaste the creationist as a simpleton for giving the attributes of deity to, of all things, a deity and implying that said deity was the uncaused first cause of matter and therefor eternal, but they have no problem what so ever giving the attributes of deity to physical matter and claiming that PM is the uncaused first cause of itself and is therefore totally self sufficient and in need of no god.
Ok then, identify and produce this deity. Drag the bitch out in the light where all can see it, and tell us it's name. Or at least provide evidence of it's existance beyond your less than informed opinion.
Ok then, identify and produce this deity. Drag the bitch out in the light where all can see it, and tell us it's name. Or at least provide evidence of it's existance beyond your less than informed opinion.
(bill) Sure. You want me to stuff him in a mason jar and ship out to your shack for some observation? Or would a digital pic of me with God in headlock work for ya?...
Oh yeah, can you in return, box up some your eternal matter and ship it to me so that I can have the exicement, as well, of waiting for a package from the UPS man |
"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 - 02/24/2006 : 09:24:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
(bill) Funny how the atheist will lambaste the creationist as a simpleton for giving the attributes of deity to, of all things, a deity and implying that said deity was the uncaused first cause of matter and therefor eternal, but they have no problem what so ever giving the attributes of deity to physical matter and claiming that PM is the uncaused first cause of itself and is therefore totally self sufficient and in need of no god.
Ok then, identify and produce this deity. Drag the bitch out in the light where all can see it, and tell us it's name. Or at least provide evidence of it's existance beyond your less than informed opinion.
Ok then, identify and produce this deity. Drag the bitch out in the light where all can see it, and tell us it's name. Or at least provide evidence of it's existance beyond your less than informed opinion.
(bill) Sure. You want me to stuff him in a mason jar and ship out to your shack for some observation? Or would a digital pic of me with God in headlock work for ya?...
Oh yeah, can you in return, box up some your eternal matter and ship it to me so that I can have the exicement, as well, of waiting for a package from the UPS man
More idiotcy from Bill, even worse than my own. It is to be noted that he again has refused to identify this alledged deity and hurled the red herring as high and far as he could.
But ok. I shall now violate a rule of mine, and risk the ire of the moderators while I'm at it, again, so that he can't possibly miss it.
Bill, as you show a marked aversion, bordering upon the pathological, to opening links, I am posting this paper en toto.
quote:
Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein present:
THE BIG BANG:
It sure was BIG!!
The Hubble Telescope's deepest view of the universe teaches us about the beginning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION
We certainly know that our universe exists, however, this knowledge alone has not satisfied mankind's quest for further understanding. Our curiosity has led us to question our place in this universe and furthermore, the place of the universe itself. Throughout time we have asked ourselves these questions: How did our universe begin? How old is our universe? How did matter come to exist? Obviously, these are not simple questions and throughout our brief history on this planet much time and effort has been spent looking for some clue. Yet, after all this energy has been expended, much of what we know is still only speculation.
We have, however, come a long way from the mystical beginnings of the study of cosmology and the origins of the universe. Through the understandings of modern science we have been able to provide firm theories for some of the answers we once called hypotheses. True to the nature of science, a majority of these answers have only led to more intriguing and complex questions. It seems to be inherent in our search for knowledge that questions will always continue to exist.
Although in this short chapter it will be impossible to tackle all of the questions concerning the creation of everything we know as reality, an attempt will be made to address certain fundamental questions of our being. It will be important to keep in mind that all of this information is constantly being questioned and reevaluated in order to understand the universe more clearly. For our purposes, through an examination of what is known about the Big Bang itself, the age of the universe, and the synthesis of the first atoms, we believe that we can begin to answer several of these key questions.
Most of the text deleted due to possible copyright infringment. Please use the provided link..
Kil
So Bill, any unscrambled thoughts on it....?
|
"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!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
