|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 11/27/2006 : 09:42:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott...
Hey, I am just trying to figure out how you guys can make truth claims of knowing that their is no creator for all that exists. Not who the creator is or how your fantasy operates?
I, for one, haven't made any "truth claims of knowing that their [sic] is no creator for all that exists". As is the position of most people involved in this discussion, mine is that there is no evidence to support the existence of such a creator. And remember, Bill, those who believe in invisible magical beings are the ones with the fantasies. I'm not one of those.
quote:
Not only do I comprehend but your continued ranting only demonstrates my accusations that you do indeed rant.
Your continued description of my commentary as a rant shows that you indeed do not comprehend. But you've demonstrated many times in the past that you're unable, or maybe unwilling, to understand many of the clearly written replies to your posts. Apparently this is just another such incident.
quote:
Hey, the skeptic in me is just interested in where all these chemicals came from rather then accepting that they were just there.
You're not a skeptic, Bill. You've admitted that you believe in magic and shown that you're unwilling, or maybe simply unable, to understand the process of science. If you were a skeptic you wouldn't have that apparent need to continue misrepresenting what others say in response to your posts.
quote:
I never said one thing about the bogeyman.Quit trying to mis-represnt me and making up lies. Me thinks you had problems with the bogeyman as a little kid and this might explain your fixation with him.
A bogeyman is defined as an imaginary monster used to frighten children or a ghost-like monster that children often believe is real. Your Christian god seems to fit very nicely within those definitions. The fact that so many Christians carry that belief into their adulthood doesn't make my use of the term a misrepresentation or any less appropriate.
quote:
I can save you the time Gee. I will not be prestenting any evidence for the existance of the bogeyman.
Of course you won't. Whether you call it a bogeyman, god, holy spirit, lord, or master, or refer to various parts of your delusion by proper names like Jehovah, Allah, God, or Yahweh, no evidence for it exists.
quote:
But is is ok for you to do the same?
Your comment indicating that people take Dawkins to be some kind of high priest was a misrepresentation, a lie. I haven't lied, so your concern is irrelevant.
quote:
See, there you go again. Why don't you start by practicing what you preach? I bet you can't do it...
There I go again what? You don't like the term "sky daddy" to refer to your imaginary friend? Your position seems to be that life came into being through some kind of magical intervention by an invisible entity you call a creator. Isn't that creator regularly referred to by those who share your fantasy as your father (daddy) who art in heaven (above, up there, in the sky)? Oh, and when someone shows how you're misrepresenting what others are saying in these threads, that's not preaching, Bill. That's just pointing out a fact.
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2006 : 12:33:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
No, no chemicals have "held" any sort of "eternal existence."
1. Can you tell me how you know this?
The evidence we have supporting the best scientific explanation we have of the early times of this universe points to a time when everything in the universe was too hot for even atoms to form. You can't have chemicals if you don't have atoms.quote:
2. So they must have had a point in time when they began to exist, right?
Yeah, sometime between 300,000 and 400,000 years after the Big Bang.quote:
quote:
But even so, how do you intend to debunk "spontaneous abiogenesis, driven by random chance?"
Your right. I should have said, critique, rather then debunk
Even so, how do you intend to critique "spontaneous abiogenesis, driven by random chance?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2006 : 12:50:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I wonder..... if such a beast actually did create the universe, what would it be like. Would it be like us, as so many of the gods we've conceived have been? Or might it be so alien that we couldn't recognize it for what it is?
It (if "it" is an individual) is evidently keen on beetles and empty space. |
"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 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2006 : 13:42:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Gorgo:
Those people of "faith" who do not believe in the supernatural, do not believe in the supernatural. Otherwise, they are enemies of reality. That does not make them my enemy, that makes their ideas dangerous.
Where exactly did I say that we should not view the God question with skepticism?
What I am saying is that we should support those who take a dissenting view from within religion with regard to science. That is, those who support science as the best way to learn about our physical reality and are able to reconcile that with their beliefs.
To not do that would be stupid from a practical point of view. If you must view the guy who wrote the textbook that got the RR and the ID crowd's knickers in a bind as an enemy of reality first, then you are for sabotaging success on the science front. Being right and being practical are not the same thing and sometimes being practical is the best course of action…
|
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 - 11/27/2006 : 14:06:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Bill, no one knows whether or not some sort of conscious creator exists; I don't, you don't, Dawkins doesn't nor does Ken Ham and the Genesis Apple-Knocker Chorus. Of course, many claim, loudly and at length, that they do, one way or another, but, as they cannot empirically support the claim, they are full of, to use the vernacular: shit. After all, it is a vast universe and one speculation is as good as another, and none of them worth very much.
I wonder..... if such a beast actually did create the universe, what would it be like. Would it be like us, as so many of the gods we've conceived have been? Or might it be so alien that we couldn't recognize it for what it is?
Say, how come on one's ever seen Jehovah's smilin' phiz in a tortilla? It's always that chippy, Mary or her kid!
quote:
Bill, no one knows whether or not some sort of conscious creator exists; I don't, you don't, Dawkins doesn't nor does Ken Ham and the Genesis Apple-Knocker Chorus. Of course, many claim, loudly and at length, that they do, one way or another, but, as they cannot empirically support the claim, they are full of, to use the vernacular: shit.
On both sides of the isle that is and I agree with you to the point that no one has been able to put God in a bottle and say, there he is. Just as no one has been able to bottle up all that exists and then say, no God. We all take many things into account and then come to our own conclusions as to a infinite first cause being responsible for all that exists. We may conclude a creator, no creator or not sure, but these beliefs are just that, beliefs. And not based on any empirical demonstration(s). So our belief and our faith in our conclusion drives our position. So for one who claims, no God, or at least through some kind of statistical probability they have concluded, no God, this is a position based on faith and beliefs. Just as a position where there was an eternal first cause for all that exists is based on faith and beliefs. To say that one side is faith based and one is not when dealing with the God/no God debate is misrepresenting the structure of each side. To insist the opposing position is based on pure faith while insisting your position is not just demonstrates the ignorance of the one claiming truth but denying any faith or belief is involved in this truth claim.
quote:
After all, it is a vast universe and one speculation is as good as another, and none of them worth very much.
But yet others feel as if they are qualified and can give odds? Of course these odds usually line up with their preconceived faiths and beliefs. I am sure it is just by coincidence...
quote:
I wonder..... if such a beast actually did create the universe, what would it be like. Would it be like us, as so many of the gods we've conceived have been? Or might it be so alien that we couldn't recognize it for what it is?
The age old question. I do find it amazing when others try to belittle a creator position some of the imagery that flows through their thoughts and imagination. Old men in the sky, the bogey-man, some pasta monster etc... etc... They all have tangibles that finite man can relate too. Based on nothing more then my faith and belief that there must be an eternal first cause I would say that logic hints that the creator transcends his creation and therefore for that reason alone I would conclude the creator is like that of which we have never seen as finite man. It seems the more complex the effect then the more complex the cause. So again, my conclusion is that the creator would transcend all that exists and so nothing in our known world (old men with beards, bogeymen in the closet, pasta monsters or any other image that man has created in his mind) would compare to the creator. Could the finite fully comprehend the infinite?
There are two questions here and blending them only complicates the debate and muddies the water.
1. Is there an eternal creator who is the first cause of all that exist? Wether this be an old man with a beard or child fantasy in the closet is not considered, only if there is a first cause?
2. Who is the first cause?
quote:
Say, how come on one's ever seen Jehovah's smilin' phiz in a tortilla? It's always that chippy, Mary or her kid!
I would love to definitively answer that. If only I had the mind of 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.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2006 : 14:17:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott...
Hey, I am just trying to figure out how you guys can make truth claims of knowing that their is no creator for all that exists. Not who the creator is or how your fantasy operates?
I, for one, haven't made any "truth claims of knowing that their [sic] is no creator for all that exists". As is the position of most people involved in this discussion, mine is that there is no evidence to support the existence of such a creator. And remember, Bill, those who believe in invisible magical beings are the ones with the fantasies. I'm not one of those.
quote:
Not only do I comprehend but your continued ranting only demonstrates my accusations that you do indeed rant.
Your continued description of my commentary as a rant shows that you indeed do not comprehend. But you've demonstrated many times in the past that you're unable, or maybe unwilling, to understand many of the clearly written replies to your posts. Apparently this is just another such incident.
quote:
Hey, the skeptic in me is just interested in where all these chemicals came from rather then accepting that they were just there.
You're not a skeptic, Bill. You've admitted that you believe in magic and shown that you're unwilling, or maybe simply unable, to understand the process of science. If you were a skeptic you wouldn't have that apparent need to continue misrepresenting what others say in response to your posts.
quote:
I never said one thing about the bogeyman.Quit trying to mis-represnt me and making up lies. Me thinks you had problems with the bogeyman as a little kid and this might explain your fixation with him.
A bogeyman is defined as an imaginary monster used to frighten children or a ghost-like monster that children often believe is real. Your Christian god seems to fit very nicely within those definitions. The fact that so many Christians carry that belief into their adulthood doesn't make my use of the term a misrepresentation or any less appropriate.
quote:
I can save you the time Gee. I will not be prestenting any evidence for the existance of the bogeyman.
Of course you won't. Whether you call it a bogeyman, god, holy spirit, lord, or master, or refer to various parts of your delusion by proper names like Jehovah, Allah, God, or Yahweh, no evidence for it exists.
quote:
But is is ok for you to do the same?
Your comment indicating that people take Dawkins to be some kind of high priest was a misrepresentation, a lie. I haven't lied, so your concern is irrelevant.
quote:
See, there you go again. Why don't you start by practicing what you preach? I bet you can't do it...
There I go again what? You don't like the term "sky daddy" to refer to your imaginary friend? Your position seems to be that life came into being through some kind of magical intervention by an invisible entity you call a creator. Isn't that creator regularly referred to by those who share your fantasy as your father (daddy) who art in heaven (above, up there, in the sky)? Oh, and when someone shows how you're misrepresenting what others are saying in these threads, that's not preaching, Bill. That's just pointing out a fact.
quote:
I, for one, haven't made any "truth claims of knowing that their [sic] is no creator for all that exists". As is the position of most people involved in this discussion, mine is that there is no evidence to support the existence of such a creator.
Right. So your conclusion is faith based off of your own conclusion of the evidence as you have empirically demonstrated nothing.
quote:
And remember, Bill, those who believe in invisible magical beings are the ones with the fantasies. I'm not one of those.
But if old men with beards who live in the sky were invisible and magic then they could easily exist without you even knowing they exist, could they not? Say yes.
quote:
Your continued description of my commentary as a rant shows that you indeed do not comprehend. But you've demonstrated many times in the past that you're unable, or maybe unwilling, to understand many of the clearly written replies to your posts. Apparently this is just another such incident.
More ranting.
quote:
You're not a skeptic, Bill. You've admitted that you believe in magic
More lies and mis-repersetations from the master of such tactics.
quote:
and shown that you're unwilling, or maybe simply unable, to understand the process of science.
All I did is ask about the origin of the building blocks of life, rather then except that they were just there. Truly a skeptical position if there ever was one.
quote:
If you were a skeptic you wouldn't have that apparent need to continue misrepresenting what others say in response to your posts.
Well then by your definition your not skeptic
quote:
A bogeyman is defined as an imaginary monster used to frighten children or a ghost-like monster that chil |
"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 - 11/27/2006 : 14:21:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
No, no chemicals have "held" any sort of "eternal existence."
1. Can you tell me how you know this?
The evidence we have supporting the best scientific explanation we have of the early times of this universe points to a time when everything in the universe was too hot for even atoms to form. You can't have chemicals if you don't have atoms.quote:
2. So they must have had a point in time when they began to exist, right?
Yeah, sometime between 300,000 and 400,000 years after the Big Bang.quote:
quote:
But even so, how do you intend to debunk "spontaneous abiogenesis, driven by random chance?"
Your right. I should have said, critique, rather then debunk
Even so, how do you intend to critique "spontaneous abiogenesis, driven by random chance?"
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
No, no chemicals have "held" any sort of "eternal existence."
1. Can you tell me how you know this?
The evidence we have supporting the best scientific explanation we have of the early times of this universe points to a time when everything in the universe was too hot for even atoms to form.
Can you tell me more about this evidence?
quote:
You can't have chemicals if you don't have atoms.
So what predated the atoms?
quote:
quote:
2. So they must have had a point in time when they began to exist, right?
Yeah, sometime between 300,000 and 400,000 years after the Big Bang.
So what caused them to begin exist at this time?
quote:
But even so, how do you intend to debunk "spontaneous abiogenesis, driven by random chance?"
Your right. I should have said, critique, rather then debunk
Even so, how do you intend to critique "spontaneous abiogenesis, driven by random chance?"
Maybe I should just say that I remain skeptical of a spontaneous abiogenesis. I just find it hard to get past "they were just there" when it comes to the origin of the first building blocks. I know that science is still looking and searching for the origin of the first bulding blocks so I will probably remain skeptical of abiogenesis until "they were just there" can be empericaly answered.
|
"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.-
|
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2006 : 15:13:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
2. So they must have had a point in time when they began to exist, right?
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yeah, sometime between 300,000 and 400,000 years after the Big Bang.
So what caused them to begin exist at this time?
Do you realise that the "material" from which matter formed is irrelevant to the spontaneous abiogenesis discussion, as long as the matter did form? Otherwise you have to be "sceptical" of every scientific theory until we have complete knowledge of the origin of matter. Is this your stance?
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Based on nothing more then my faith and belief that there must be an eternal first cause I would say that logic hints that the creator transcends his creation and therefore for that reason alone I would conclude the creator is like that of which we have never seen as finite man. It seems the more complex the effect then the more complex the cause.
Bolding Mine. That's pretty much backwards to the way science observes things to happen. Incredibly complex behaviour results from interactions with fairly simple rules. We know quite a bit about fluid dynamics, temperature, pressure and that sort of thing, but accurately predicting the weather a month in advance is still beyond us. We certainly don't know all the rules yet, but scientists love looking for them.
This sort of thinking would also tend to suggest that something more complex than god created god, don't you think?
If you're happy with the eternal god idea, then why not eternal matter, or, more popularly, eternal pre-cursors to matter as we know it. The bigger problem is your infinite regression to "Well what was there before X." Time, to the best scientific knowledge we currently have, is a feature of this universe, not an absolute metric that transcends it. Read a little about space-time for some more context. Time itself didn't exist until the universe existed. The word "before" has no context outside of the known universe. It's like asking "how blue is a kilogram".
Cosmology is a complex field, and a relatively new scientific discipline. The fact that we don't have all the answers in one field shouldn't preclude us from forming useful theories in others.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2006 : 15:21:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
To not do that would be stupid from a practical point of view. If you must view the guy who wrote the textbook that got the RR and the ID crowd's knickers in a bind as an enemy of reality first, then you are for sabotaging success on the science front.
First, last, in-between, if they have ideas that are enemies of reality, then they have ideas that are enemies of reality. If they promote evolution against ID because Jesus said they ought to, then that idea is an enemy of reality. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2006 : 15:26:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Can you tell me more about this evidence?
I'm sure you've at least heard of the evidence in favor of the Big Bang theory. Is there something in particular you'd like to know more about?quote:
So what predated the atoms?
Free subatomic particles.quote:
So what caused them to begin exist at this time?
The universe had cooled enough so that protons and electrons could "bind" to one another.quote:
Maybe I should just say that I remain skeptical of a spontaneous abiogenesis. I just find it hard to get past "they were just there" when it comes to the origin of the first building blocks.
Whoever is saying that to you is focusing on the origins of life on Earth, and not the origins of matter. Some nine billion years went by between the two events.quote:
I know that science is still looking and searching for the origin of the first bulding blocks so I will probably remain skeptical of abiogenesis until "they were just there" can be empericaly answered.
The theory is sound, it has no scientific competition, and so the question has been empirically answered already (over 40 years ago!). What more do you want? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2006 : 15:27:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
I just find it hard to get past "they were just there" when it comes to the origin of the first building blocks. I know that science is still looking and searching for the origin of the first bulding blocks so I will probably remain skeptical of abiogenesis until "they were just there" can be empericaly answered.
But you have absolutely no problem accepting that a magical being "was just always there," correct?
You see, Bill, if one goes back far enough, we have to assume that something either just appeared or came from something which has always existed. Since Occam's Razor tells us that we shouldn't assume more than we have to (in so many words), the most logical thing to suppose just appeared or came from something that's always existed is the Universe itself.
If you wish to posit a creator of our Universe, well then you need to explain his origin. If you can't do any better than "he just appeared or always existed," then it's a shit explanation. It doesn't increase our understanding of anything by making that assumption. We still would have no idea how a magical being would have poofed the Universe into existence. So saying "goddidit" is not a real explanation of anything. It's a psuedo-explanation that goes absolutely nowhere. We might as well not make that unnecessary leap and just assume the Universe just appeared or came from something which always existed.
If the "something just appeared" line of reasoning seems unsatisfying to you concerning the origin of complex life forms, then you should be equally dissatisfied with the god hypothesis, since it offers absolutely no explanation for how a complex being came into existence either.
Why aren't you expressing any skepticism toward the god hypothesis, which is logically unnecessary?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/27/2006 20:01:28 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2006 : 15:31:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
2. Who is the first cause?
So you still cannot help yourself antropomorphizing... |
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. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2006 : 17:28:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Those people of "faith" who do not believe in the supernatural, do not believe in the supernatural. Otherwise, they are enemies of reality. That does not make them my enemy, that makes their ideas dangerous.
Well put. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2006 : 18:00:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
On both sides of the isle that is and I agree with you to the point that no one has been able to put God in a bottle and say, there he is. Just as no one has been able to bottle up all that exists and then say, no God. We all take many things into account and then come to our own conclusions as to a infinite first cause being responsible for all that exists. We may conclude a creator, no creator or not sure, but these beliefs are just that, beliefs. And not based on any empirical demonstration(s). So our belief and our faith in our conclusion drives our position. So for one who claims, no God, or at least through some kind of statistical probability they have concluded, no God, this is a position based on faith and beliefs. Just as a position where there was an eternal first cause for all that exists is based on faith and beliefs. To say that one side is faith based and one is not when dealing with the God/no God debate is misrepresenting the structure of each side. To insist the opposing position is based on pure faith while insisting your position is not just demonstrates the ignorance of the one claiming truth but denying any faith or belief is involved in this truth claim.
No one can really call themselves a skeptic and conclude that there is a god or that there definitely is not one. The point you may be missing is that it is unnecessary and often impeding to science and knowledge to assume a creator or supernatural cause without evidence. A state of denial over whether any of the sky gods or unicorns or malevolent trolls that trick us into thinking that there is a benevolent sky god as they torture us or even the speghetti monster (sorry guys even she is not real, but she is a female I assure you! ) is the default and intellectually sound position. This state is not a state of faith. Because it is default. Positive claims require evidence.
quote:
But yet others feel as if they are qualified and can give odds? Of course these odds usually line up with their preconceived faiths and beliefs. I am sure it is just by coincidence...
This is false so much in science history, but I will just say two words. Charles Dawkins.
quote:
The age old question. I do find it amazing when others try to belittle a creator position some of the imagery that flows through their thoughts and imagination. Old men in the sky, the bogey-man, some pasta monster etc... etc... They all have tangibles that finite man can relate too. Based on nothing more then my faith and belief that there must be an eternal first cause I would say that logic hints that the creator transcends his creation and therefore for that reason alone I would conclude the creator is like that of which we have never seen as finite man.
It is interesting to note that all gods of all religions ever postulated have surprisingly and even overtly man-like characteristics. It seems that man is very unimaginative with the gods he creates.
quote:
It seems the more complex the effect then the more complex the cause.
DNA is so absurdly simple that it was laughed at as the holder of the information of life yet is. All atoms are made of three particles the proton neutron and electron when placed together in different ratios create incredibly diverse elements and those then even more diversity within molecules and molecular families.
quote:
Could the finite fully comprehend the infinite?
This is what you are doing by envoking a god. You admit you cannot comprehend god yet pretend that there is something to be learned from the God Hypothesis?
quote:
1. Is there an eternal creator who is the first cause of all that exist? Wether this be an old man with a beard or child fantasy in the closet is not considered, only if there is a first cause?
No. Lol. Actually, we cannot know the first cause because nothing existed before it. T-1 second before the big bang there were no seconds!
quote:
2. Who is the first cause?
Why who? Why not what. Why not the eternal energy rather than eternal God. As I showed earlier simple things have complex emmergent properties. Post Einstein and Quantum mechanics, we can postulate the energy is the most simple thing from which all other things are created. Thermodynamics shows that energy is eternal in that it cannot be created nor destroyed. We may never know for sure what happened to initiate the Big Bang and may even falsify that claim altogether, but certainly envoking a supernatural unknowable thing force or personhood does not help the matter any more than Newton giving up on the cause of the planetary plane of orbit. He could have figured it out like childsplay considering his genius with math.
quote:
Say, how come on one's ever seen Jehovah's smilin' phiz in a tortilla? It's always that chippy, Mary or her kid!
I would love to definitively answer that. If only I had the mind of God...
|
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 11/27/2006 18:03:41 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2006 : 18:15:49 [Permalink]
|
I find it interesting Bill that you cannot accept that energy has always existed but have no problem accepting that God has always existed just because god has that property of always existing tagged onto her. Cannot energy just as easily and maybe even more easily have that property?
Here is a cool story. Two friends a creationist and an atheist walking through the woods find a computer. This computer upon close examination they find adds 1 to whatever number currently held in its memory every hour. They note that the display reads 999002823743648498493. The Atheist then conludes that this process of addition has taking place for a long time and will if given enough time continue to all numbers following the digits on the display. The creationist says this cannot be known for sure and it could have only been made a second before they arived with the datta already present. In any case what do you make of the creator the creationist asks. The atheist then says (playing devils advocate) what makes you think it has been created. "It must have a creator," says the creationist "Look how complex it is! And I know who it is." "Who?" asked the atheist. "Sam 3p0." he replies. Sam 3p0 the creationist explains not only can add but subtract multiply divide and perform incredibly more complex functions that mankind cannot even conceive of and on top of that can create any other thing it wishes to manufacture. "What created this amazing Sam 3p0?" asked the atheist. To which came the reply "Silly atheist, Sam has always existed." |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
