Do you believe in God?

[Mercifull]

Yes, I do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Off-topic: Why does it say Merciful is the author if Kryptix or whatever it is made it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yay, 400th post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bug with the merge topics option :P Ignore it

[BlueLancer]

 

By the way, some people that have died in the 21st century have arranged their bodies to be preserved cryogenically in the hope that they can be brought back to life when the techonogy enables it. If it becomes possible, these people can inform the world if there actually was a heaven or hell after death, and how they came back to the physical body if they claim there was heaven or hell. It would ultimately lead in churches collapsing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

let me say something---cryogenics is for people who have uncurable deseases, not people who are already dead!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They live in the hope that they can be brought back to life when the cure for what killed them is finally discovered.

[HugATree]

ya i do and really, i want someone to thouroly explain aethieism(or however u spell it) to me

 

 

 

 

 

 

Atheist is someone who doesn't believe in supreme being(s).

 

 

 

 

 

 

see, big bang-pinpoint of material-explades and eventually forms th universe but where did that matter come from?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matter is a form of energy, and energy can't be created or destroyed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

of course God, being a god, can do anything (according to every mythology ever written) so he can make himself live for ever

 

 

 

Or make people use circular logic.

[insane]

 

Ack I go away and this gets reborn...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause for its existence.

 

 

 

2. The universe had a beginning (Big Bang is widely accepted as true).

 

 

 

3. Therefore the universe had a cause for its existence.

 

 

 

4. The universe cannot have always existed... 2nd law of thermodynamics takes this out of consideration.... as well as evolution.

 

 

 

5. Therefore I believe God caused the Big Bang and the universe to come into existence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If evolution were true and the universe has always existed... then wouldn't everything be perfect by now? I mean, eternity is certainly enough time for evolution to perfect everything...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, don't bother starting arguments with me as I won't be able to check these boards nearly as much as I used to.... maybe once every two weeks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, I believe God exists. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is the cause of Gods exsistance? What caused God? The 2nd law of thermodynamics proves that God couldnt have always exsisted, so if he exsists he needs a creator and his creator needs a creator ad infinitum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you put the entire universe on a 24 hour time frame, the exsistance of humans makes up the last two seconds of that 24 hour time frame.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution is pretty slow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I"m sorry, but it says everything that has a beginning has a cause for its existence. God's current definition leaves him at beginningless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Chambochae, you didn't really offer any proof for your reasoning that physics doesn't apply to the universe...

[Mcqueen]

Yes and no

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No- he never seems to be there when i need him...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yes- hes there when im not looking for him...

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

Ack I go away and this gets reborn...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause for its existence.

 

 

 

2. The universe had a beginning (Big Bang is widely accepted as true).

 

 

 

3. Therefore the universe had a cause for its existence.

 

 

 

4. The universe cannot have always existed... 2nd law of thermodynamics takes this out of consideration.... as well as evolution.

 

 

 

5. Therefore I believe God caused the Big Bang and the universe to come into existence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If evolution were true and the universe has always existed... then wouldn't everything be perfect by now? I mean, eternity is certainly enough time for evolution to perfect everything...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, don't bother starting arguments with me as I won't be able to check these boards nearly as much as I used to.... maybe once every two weeks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, I believe God exists. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is the cause of Gods exsistance? What caused God? The 2nd law of thermodynamics proves that God couldnt have always exsisted, so if he exsists he needs a creator and his creator needs a creator ad infinitum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you put the entire universe on a 24 hour time frame, the exsistance of humans makes up the last two seconds of that 24 hour time frame.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution is pretty slow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I"m sorry, but it says everything that has a beginning has a cause for its existence. God's current definition leaves him at beginningless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Chambochae, you didn't really offer any proof for your reasoning that physics doesn't apply to the universe...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

says who?

 

 

 

The Queen of England?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P.S read my posts all of you; you just ignore them like the plague (because they have some meaning).

[Zealot]

Ok, I will try and give a response to you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Firstly the problem of physics is that we can not go to every location in the universe and test the laws of physics. We know that the law's of our physics work on planet earth and to a less of an extent the solar system and the galaxy and most likely the rest visible universe. However it is impossible to really know if other galaxies conform to ours. I would point out that this is meta-physics, not really hard science at all. In Geology, there's the principal of uniformatarianism, which says that what happens in the present is roughly analogous to what has happened in the past... That which can be observed (in real time) offers insights into that which can not be. (such as the formation of a unit of alluvial sandstone) It seems that a simmiler law would apply to all branches of science that deal with anything that can not be directly observed. That which can be observed directly should be refered to when studying that which can not. Maybe they consist entirely of anti-particles or maybe it exists in a slightly cooler part of the universe which has undergone another phase transition providing another force for it to play with. It is just really difficult to tell; and this is just INSIDE our visible part of the universe. There could be even more mysterious things lurking about (not to mention stuff inside our visible universe). There could be whole new universes inside our universe. The law may work now (because it is obviously what we observe) but it may fail in the future if the universe collapses. It's like saying the sun is this temperature so therefore it must alway be this temperature; further observation shows this is false and may happen for the second law of thermodynamics as well. that makes no logical sence... we have never seen energy spontaneously move from an aria of low potential to higher potential... where we constantly see energy moving from arias of high potential to low. Since one has been observed, and the other hasn't, at least for the moment, it makes sence to assume that the observed is at the very least dominant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see to get is that our laws of physics probably donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist OUTSIDE the universe. why exactly does what is outside the universe matter? There is no way of studying it, and probably never will be, so as far as I'm concerned, it is entirely meta-physical in nature, and should thus be treated as independent and insignificant to any of the sciences Therefore you can not use the second law of thermodynamics as proof for the universe having a beginning unless you prove that the law exists outside of the universe. Not neccicarily... Since the law of thermodynamics says that the amount of usable energy is decreasing in proportion to the amount of unusable energy, if you extrapolate back far enough, you come to a time when there was 100% usable energy, and 0%unusable energy. Since energy can not be created or destroyed, there can never be more then 100% energy in any form, so there has to be a beginning. It allows the possibility that universes may be created of destroyed at any time. It also means the big bang is plausible. So basically, what you are saying is that because the laws of physics aren't neccicarilly universal, there's no point in studdying them, because tomorrow, they may be totally different?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About objects and ideas having meaning and definition:

 

 

 

Why try to add Complexity (God) to the universe when the laws of physics are capable of creating everything you see here without the need for a higher power. How are the laws of physics capable of creating the universe, in and of themselves, if in fact those same laws say that no energy can be created or destroyed? You have to remember that before the Big Bang, there was nothing... No space, no time... Essentially, no reason why the universe should ever happen. (at least not without invoking metaphysics) If we didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist then there is no need for things to have a meaning, the universe will carry on "as is".

 

 

 

Unless I'm reading you wrong here... But why then are the only intelligent beings that science knows of so interested in applying meaning to things? And for that matter, why is there meaning in things that the only known intelligent beings didn't assign? Why is it, that pi should always be ~3.14, regardless of how large a circle you use? Why should anything exist (I'm applying a philosophical idea that existance, in and of itself, gives an object meaning.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Funny, isn't it, that throughout the Bible, prophets (people who speak on God's behalf) have backed up their words from Him with clear evidences (miracles)?ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Zealot]

 

 

 

Ack I go away and this gets reborn...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause for its existence.

 

 

 

2. The universe had a beginning (Big Bang is widely accepted as true).

 

 

 

3. Therefore the universe had a cause for its existence.

 

 

 

4. The universe cannot have always existed... 2nd law of thermodynamics takes this out of consideration.... as well as evolution.

 

 

 

5. Therefore I believe God caused the Big Bang and the universe to come into existence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If evolution were true and the universe has always existed... then wouldn't everything be perfect by now? I mean, eternity is certainly enough time for evolution to perfect everything...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, don't bother starting arguments with me as I won't be able to check these boards nearly as much as I used to.... maybe once every two weeks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, I believe God exists. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is the cause of Gods exsistance? What caused God? The 2nd law of thermodynamics proves that God couldnt have always exsisted, so if he exsists he needs a creator and his creator needs a creator ad infinitum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you put the entire universe on a 24 hour time frame, the exsistance of humans makes up the last two seconds of that 24 hour time frame.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution is pretty slow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I"m sorry, but it says everything that has a beginning has a cause for its existence. God's current definition leaves him at beginningless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Chambochae, you didn't really offer any proof for your reasoning that physics doesn't apply to the universe...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

says who?

 

 

 

The Queen of England?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P.S read my posts all of you; you just ignore them like the plague (because they have some meaning).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No... actually, that would be Jesus who said that, "Before Abraham was, I AM." :wink: Which is a claim to be unaffected by time if you really think about it. That which is unaffected by time, can not have temporal qualitiess such as a beginning. So if Jesus is indeed God, then it makes perfect sence to say that God has no beginning.

[Empror1]

Sometimes, you look at people and think, either god only created the first 2, or he was really drunk or stupid... maybe just a freak though, I mean, who has time to make 6-miljard people? Sounds like a no-lifer to me, but a well, he's probably a pretty nice guy. Anyway, I don't believe in him, but if he excisted I would ask him what his favorite beer is.

[Death_By_Pod]

Double Post

[Death_By_Pod]

 

see above

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uniformitarianism is an assumption and it works well in geology because the Earth is a small system living in 1 tiny part of the universe. Making an assumption in physics does not make it a law. However in classical physics we use symmetry to simplify things to describe what is law. Just because it works here doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean it works everywhere. If I asked you what you would weigh on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy you would use w = mg but if I were to say prove it you would cite examples within our galaxy. In order to truly prove it you would have to go to the planet in question and weigh yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We have not seen energy move from low values to high values is because we are living in a time when the universe is expanding. In a closed Universe eventually the universe will collapse on itself bringing energy to a higher value which is in conflict with the second law of thermodynamics.

 

 

 

Like you said when we observe is dominant and I agree however just because it is dominant doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean we can rule it out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why does the outside of the universe matter? Well it matters because it harbours our universe. Just like our universe harbours matter; if our universe does not exist then neither do our planets and if this place outside of our universe doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist then neither does our universe.

 

 

 

Current thinking has it that the reason why gravity is so weak is because of the number of dimension our universe contains (10/11) and the fact that gravitons may be able to escape our universe altogether.

 

 

 

If you want to treat this as meta-physics then you should treat the big bang as Meta physics (but you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t because it has a beginning as shown by red shifting stars) because you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t test the beginning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes you are right energy can not be created or destroyed at any time however if you create +ve energy and also create an equal amount of -ve energy, it cancels leaving no energy. It is shown that particles come to and from existence through quantum fluctuations (a particle and an anti particle pair form and then quickly cancel each other out and disappear). It could be extrapolated that the stuff outside of the universe would create a universe and an anti-universe (but due to the size the universe and anti-universe pair exists for a lot longer then atom pairs would) which would collide and disappear, cancelling each other out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So basically, what you are saying is that because the laws of physics aren't necessarily universal, there's no point in studying them, because tomorrow, they may be totally different? If we understand our current physics we can take advantage of them and make things easier for ourselves. Our laws of Physics did not always exist; just like the same reason water doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exists when its over 100 degree's c; our universe didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have things such as matter, Electricity, magnetism, and the weak force (If you go far back enough all forces act as 1) due to the fact is was too hot. If our universe is STILL cooling then it could be possible one day it gets cool enough so that the universe changes form again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The laws of physics can create itself is the total energy created = 0. This is done by +ve and -ve particle pairs, which can be extrapolated to the universe itself or if the universe is Closed the universe naturally cycles between being really big and being really small (much like a pumping heart).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The reason why things such like pi is always 3.142.... is because of geometry of the universe. If you draw a triangle on a piece of paper it's angles will add up to 180degree's but if drawn on a balloon it will add up to over 180degrees and drawn on a saddle shape will be less then 180 degree's.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you call a miracle and what do you call good luck (or chance). If you give the universe long enough anything can happen. The time it would take for you to "magically" appear on say Mars would take longer then the entire span of the universe to happen (it could happen but the probability that all your particles would appear on Mars would be extremely tiny) but like anything it can happen at anytime. Much like the half life of an unstable atom, we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know when it will become stable (and emit radiation) however we know the time when it half of the atoms will become stable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution stuff (I'm not a biologist so I canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t really talk too much about it on biology aspects but I can talk about the physical aspects such as probability):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amino Acids like everything else in the universe, if given enough time the acids will appear in the right order to support reproduction (however the majority of orders that you can put amino acids in will result in nothing, there are orders that will result in something).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Atheists are just as blind as theists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again with the time argument about 100million years of evolution; it may take a while to get going but once it does it improves rapidly (like our technology for a modern day example). A possible reason why we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see much evolution is because evolution on a large scale has basically levelled out and there is little use for any more evolution (one day computers will be as fast as possible because they reach the theoretical limits of optics and size).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And finally

 

 

 

Gravity DOES bring order out of chaos and because you seem to be rather stubborn about this point I will include Scanned Images of a part of a science book that describes this process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disclaimer:

 

 

 

The following scans are legal under Australian Copyright laws (which the reproduction has taken place). They are reproduced under the "fair use" laws which allow 10% or 1 chapter to be reproduced without authorisation for Non-commercial, educational purposes ONLY.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part Taken from Brian Greene's book, The Fabric of the Cosmos

 

 

 

All rights reserved; Published by Penguin Group.

 

 

 

(If mods want further information about this please PM me)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please click the thumbnails for full size, quality reduced images.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Missed a page.

[cammand]

Make it a poll so people don't flame.

[Death_By_Pod]

Make it a poll so people don't flame.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe you should stop spamming; there is little flaming going on in this thread.

[____]

Make it a poll so people don't flame.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The last one of these had a poll, didn't change the fact it was like 100 pages long...

[ericthecow]

bluelancer: we discussed cryogenic freezing in chemistry last year and the common assumption among scientists is that it will not work. the reason is that the human body is primarily made up of water. when water freezes it expands. therefore when a frozen object made of water (a human in this case) thaws, the cell membranes have been ruptured and a gelatinous blob similar to the senator in xmen would be the product. or so i would suppose.......eric

[Max]

yes yes yes

[Zealot]

 

 

see above

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uniformitarianism is an assumption and it works well in geology because the Earth is a small system living in 1 tiny part of the universe. Making an assumption in physics does not make it a law. However in classical physics we use symmetry to simplify things to describe what is law. Just because it works here doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean it works everywhere. If I asked you what you would weigh on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy you would use w = mg but if I were to say prove it you would cite examples within our galaxy. In order to truly prove it you would have to go to the planet in question and weigh yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We have not seen energy move from low values to high values is because we are living in a time when the universe is expanding. In a closed Universe eventually the universe will collapse on itself bringing energy to a higher value which is in conflict with the second law of thermodynamics.

 

 

 

Like you said when we observe is dominant and I agree however just because it is dominant doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean we can rule it out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why does the outside of the universe matter? Well it matters because it harbours our universe. Just like our universe harbours matter; if our universe does not exist then neither do our planets and if this place outside of our universe doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist then neither does our universe.

 

 

 

Current thinking has it that the reason why gravity is so weak is because of the number of dimension our universe contains (10/11) and the fact that gravitons may be able to escape our universe altogether.

 

 

 

If you want to treat this as meta-physics then you should treat the big bang as Meta physics (but you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t because it has a beginning as shown by red shifting stars) because you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t test the beginning.This is why I call string theory meta-physical and consider the Big Bang to be actual science: The Big Bang has after effects (like the red-shifting that you mentioned, or the cosmic microwave background radiation.) that can be scientifically examined and point to it... String theory is quite interesting, but as of this moment, there is no evidence that I'm aware of to support it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes you are right energy can not be created or destroyed at any time however if you create +ve energy and also create an equal amount of -ve energy, it cancels leaving no energy. I don't think that you understood what I was driving at... Everything that we see has a beginning (the big bang) and hencefar cosmologists have not confirmed that the sum of all the energy and negative energy in the universe is zero. (In fact it really doesn't look that way at all, observationally speaking) so either energy can in fact be created (because the big bang is the litteral beginning of everything, so before it that energy didn't exist) or else we're missing a very large puzzle piece. It is shown that particles come to and from existence through quantum fluctuations (a particle and an anti particle pair form and then quickly cancel each other out and disappear). It could be extrapolated that the stuff outside of the universe would create a universe and an anti-universe (but due to the size the universe and anti-universe pair exists for a lot longer then atom pairs would) which would collide and disappear, cancelling each other out. The problem with this extrapolation is it must assume that there are physical dimensions outside the universe... (which from my understanding of just the big bang, not anything that is still totally theoretical, doesn't make sence) Not only that, but it seems to me that if you are envoking this as an excuse for a steady-state multiverse (because it's clear that the universe isn't steady state) your logic is flawed... You see, logically, if the multiverse is infinite, and a universe has a chance of forming in any given point in it, then over the infinite past, the entire multiverse should be infinitely full of universes, one (or more) for every point in that multiverse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So basically, what you are saying is that because the laws of physics aren't necessarily universal, there's no point in studying them, because tomorrow, they may be totally different? If it's possible that tomorrow water will flow up hill, then what sence is there in saying that water always flows down hill? If we understand our current physics we can take advantage of them and make things easier for ourselves. Our laws of Physics did not always exist; just like the same reason water doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exists when its over 100 degree's c; our universe didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have things such as matter, Electricity, magnetism, and the weak force (If you go far back enough all forces act as 1) due to the fact is was too hot. If our universe is STILL cooling then it could be possible one day it gets cool enough so that the universe changes form again. I think that you're missing what I had intended to drive at... Yes, as you extrapolate back, or forward in time, the universe will act differently... But it will still be using the same rules; it's the universe itself, not the laws that govern it, that is dynamic. If in fact the laws that govern the universe are dynamic, then there is no sence in studying them because for one thing, we can never know for certian that they are true. What's the point of trying to understand a law that may not be true tomorrow? But there is very good reason to understand the law, if you know that it will be true tomorrow, even if it's effect on the universe may be somewhat different (because if the law is true, then you will be able to prepare for how it effects things in a different situation)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The laws of physics can create itself is the total energy created = 0. This is done by +ve and -ve particle pairs, which can be extrapolated to the universe itself or if the universe is Closed the universe naturally cycles between being really big and being really small (much like a pumping heart).My understanding is that even using this model, the universe is having "bigger" large phaises between implosions... In fact, if I remember correctly, if you extrapolate back about 100 cycles, it's large and small periods are identical... Please correct me if I'm wrong

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The reason why things such like pi is always 3.142.... is because of geometry of the universe. If you draw a triangle on a piece of paper it's angles will add up to 180degree's but if drawn on a balloon it will add up to over 180degrees and drawn on a saddle shape will be less then 180 degree's. But that doesn't change the fact that there is an inherent value that is pi in the universe. Where does that meaning come from?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you call a miracle and what do you call good luck (or chance). I like to say that luck is an unbeliever's excuse for God's goodness :wink: but seriously, I would consider things like deathbed healings (I've seen two, and am currently praying for a third... God will provide in His time) to be true miracles. Somebody doesn't just go from having stage four lukimia to being completely healthy litterally within minutes, but I've seen it. Nor does it make sence to chalk it up to "luck." The same is true of a man suffering a massive heart attack suddenly being completely fine, before my eyes. I don't have that power, neither does modern medicine... And quite frankly, neither does random chance. Less spectacular, but still convincing displays that I've had the honour of witnessing include broken bones being healed instantly, insanity being completely cured, and even such mundane things as a deer walking right up to a friend (who had been hunting all day, without even seeing one, and was exhausted) ten meters from his Jeep. Yes, you could chalk some of it up to luck... and yes, given long enough it's bound to happen. But quite frankly, I find it much easier to believe that there is a God who is personal and heavily involved in His creation, then I find it to believe that by random chance, when those who believe in God pray, their prayers are answered by random chance. HE simply makes sence of the situation. If you give the universe long enough anything can happen. The time it would take for you to "magically" appear on say Mars would take longer then the entire span of the universe to happen (it could happen but the probability that all your particles would appear on Mars would be extremely tiny) but like anything it can happen at anytime. Much like the half life of an unstable atom, we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know when it will become stable (and emit radiation) however we know the time when it half of the atoms will become stable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution stuff (I'm not a biologist so I canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t really talk too much about it on biology aspects but I can talk about the physical aspects such as probability):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amino Acids like everything else in the universe, if given enough time the acids will appear in the right order to support reproduction (however the majority of orders that you can put amino acids in will result in nothing, there are orders that will result in something).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Atheists are just as blind as theists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again with the time argument about 100million years of evolution; it may take a while to get going but once it does it improves rapidly (like our technology for a modern day example). Then why are we not observing evolution around us? God knows that we've thrown the ecology far enough out of order that there should be some major adaptation going on... but there are no examples of new genetic information being added to a species that isn't unicellular... There are examples of a formerly dominant trait becoming recessive, but this really isn't evolution, in an honest sence of the word. As I think I said, I believe that it is possible that God used a process simmilar to what we identify as evolution to create biodiversity, but in and of itself, evolution doesn't offer satisfactory explanation. A possible reason why we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see much evolution is because evolution on a large scale has basically levelled out and there is little use for any more evolution (one day computers will be as fast as possible because they reach the theoretical limits of optics and size). Evolution is supposed to happen whenever a species is moved from its ideal environment (whether that be because there's a new pest that can get past its defences or whatever) We've messed with the world enough that we should be seeing some pretty significant results... but as I said earlier, there is almost none.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And finally

 

 

 

Gravity DOES bring order out of chaos and because you seem to be rather stubborn about this point I will include Scanned Images of a part of a science book that describes this process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disclaimer:

 

 

 

The following scans are legal under Australian Copyright laws (which the reproduction has taken place). They are reproduced under the "fair use" laws which allow 10% or 1 chapter to be reproduced without authorisation for Non-commercial, educational purposes ONLY.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part Taken from Brian Greene's book, The Fabric of the Cosmos

 

 

 

All rights reserved; Published by Penguin Group.

 

 

 

(If mods want further information about this please PM me)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please click the thumbnails for full size, quality reduced images.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Missed a page.You're assuming that gravity can accomplish that from a state of utter chaos... I simply can not buy that. All gravity does is draw particles together, there is no reason in and of itself that gravity should cause these effects... But even assuming that gravity can bring a little order out of chaos, it really isn't enough to envoke it to explain why it is that a flagellum made of sixty-some-odd complex protine chains should be so much more efficient then the most advanced internal combustion engines in the world... yet the removal of even one protine would render it totally useless. It isn't a gradual increase in usefullness (nor are any cellular structures) it's all or nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One thing that I would like to point out here is this: I have a totally different starting point from you. I see the universe through the basic lense of, "God made it." You see the universe through the lense of, "It's always been here, is self existant, and is controlled ultimately by random chance." So of course we're going to come to different conclusions. I'm not trying to say that your lense is totally invalid; were I to say that, I would be the biggest fool of all, because I once looked through that lense. I stopped because things started not making sence to me. For example, why is it that our tree of life is more of a lawn? (All maner of different types of creatures within 10ma of the cambrian explosion, far lower biodiversity today) Other things that didn't make sence, how is it that I could not find even one piece of truely valid evidence to dissprove even one of the claims of this man, Jesus, who claimed to be God's Son? (and equal to the Father) How can He be the Son of a God that doesn't exist? Yet if I was truely honest, approaching the issue from a truely undecided position, there was nothing to discredit Him. My house of cards came tumbling down... In fact, I've had to shove my foot so far up my mouth at times that it's rather hard to breathe. :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right, and you're wrong (well, maybe just a little :oops: ) all I ask is that before you conclude that I'm just some nutcase, take an honest look at all the evidence you can find, both for and against the existance of God. I have a lot more respect for somebody who's willing to set aside their presuppositions and honestly examine the raw data... Though I must confess that it grows harder and harder with each passing day for me to do that... my explanation: as HE reveals to me more of HIS glory, it eclipses everything else more and more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh well, regardless of whether you believe in Him or not, may God bless all who happen to read this posting. :)

[Zealot]

 

 

see above

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uniformitarianism is an assumption and it works well in geology because the Earth is a small system living in 1 tiny part of the universe. Making an assumption in physics does not make it a law. However in classical physics we use symmetry to simplify things to describe what is law. Just because it works here doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean it works everywhere. If I asked you what you would weigh on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy you would use w = mg but if I were to say prove it you would cite examples within our galaxy. In order to truly prove it you would have to go to the planet in question and weigh yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We have not seen energy move from low values to high values is because we are living in a time when the universe is expanding. In a closed Universe eventually the universe will collapse on itself bringing energy to a higher value which is in conflict with the second law of thermodynamics.

 

 

 

Like you said when we observe is dominant and I agree however just because it is dominant doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean we can rule it out. However it does mean that in the grand scheme of things that which is secondary is of little relivance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why does the outside of the universe matter? Well it matters because it harbours our universe. But to science, it should be considered a moot point because we can not study it empirically... That's my point. Just like our universe harbours matter; if our universe does not exist then neither do our planets and if this place outside of our universe doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist then neither does our universe.

 

 

 

Current thinking has it that the reason why gravity is so weak is because of the number of dimension our universe contains (10/11) and the fact that gravitons may be able to escape our universe altogether.

 

 

 

If you want to treat this as meta-physics then you should treat the big bang as Meta physics (but you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t because it has a beginning as shown by red shifting stars) because you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t test the beginning. The big bang can be observed indirectly because of the redshifting that you mentioned, the microwave cosmic background radiation, and various other effects. what is beyond the universe is, as of this moment not something that can be emperically studdied, which I for one consider essential for something to be considered a true science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes you are right energy can not be created or destroyed at any time however if you create +ve energy and also create an equal amount of -ve energy, it cancels leaving no energy. What I was driving at is that observationally speaking, we're missing a lot of negative energy... which implies that either energy can be created (because before the big bang there was none) or we're missing a very large chunk of the puzzle. It is shown that particles come to and from existence through quantum fluctuations (a particle and an anti particle pair form and then quickly cancel each other out and disappear). It could be extrapolated that the stuff outside of the universe would create a universe and an anti-universe (but due to the size the universe and anti-universe pair exists for a lot longer then atom pairs would) which would collide and disappear, cancelling each other out. The problem with a continuous state multiverse scenario is that if it is eternal, and a universe can occure at any point on it, then there should be a universe for every point in this multiverse (including those points within the bounds of our universe) Why is it that we can't see any other then our own? (and equally important, why hasn't evolution perfected everything yet??? Isn't all eternity enough time for the perfect life form to be formed and take over the universe?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So basically, what you are saying is that because the laws of physics aren't necessarily universal, there's no point in studying them, because tomorrow, they may be totally different? sort of... see my next post If we understand our current physics we can take advantage of them and make things easier for ourselves. Our laws of Physics did not always exist; just like the same reason water doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exists when its over 100 degree's c; our universe didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have things such as matter, Electricity, magnetism, and the weak force (If you go far back enough all forces act as 1) due to the fact is was too hot. All that you have pointed out is that the universe itself is dynamic... not that the laws change with time. They may have a different effect with different energy levels and such, but it's still the same set of rules governing things. What I'm arguing is that if these rules can, themselves change, there's no point in studying them, because they are ultimately meaningless. If our universe is STILL cooling then it could be possible one day it gets cool enough so that the universe changes form again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The laws of physics can create itself is the total energy created = 0. This is done by +ve and -ve particle pairs, which can be extrapolated to the universe itself or if the universe is Closed the universe naturally cycles between being really big and being really small (much like a pumping heart). My understanding of this was that the distance between largest size and smallest size decreases as you extrapolate back in time... By the time you've gone back 100 cycles that distance has become zero... Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The reason why things such like pi is always 3.142.... is because of geometry of the universe. If you draw a triangle on a piece of paper it's angles will add up to 180degree's but if drawn on a balloon it will add up to over 180degrees and drawn on a saddle shape will be less then 180 degree's. But this doesn't explain why pi should have a set value. What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't make sence that anything should have meaning apart from intelligence, so why is there this value that you always get when you devide a circle's circumferance by its diameter? Why should there be meaning there before it was discovered by humans?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you call a miracle and what do you call good luck (or chance). If you give the universe long enough anything can happen. Point granted... but I've seen too many things that logically should not happen. Things like a friend instantly recovering from lukimia in such a maner that she went from her death bed to being released from the hospital in 24. I know a man who suffered a massive heart attack, and then, after a few friends prayed for him, he was instantly healed (like his heart went from heavily damaged from a previous heart attack to like new... Medically speaking, there is no explanation) I simply find it easier to believe that there is a loving, personal God who hears our prayers and answers when His children call to Him, then it would be to believe that by random chance, there is the illusion of the miraculous... but only linked to prayer. :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution stuff (I'm not a biologist so I canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t really talk too much about it on biology aspects but I can talk about the physical aspects such as probability):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amino Acids like everything else in the universe, if given enough time the acids will appear in the right order to support reproduction (however the majority of orders that you can put amino acids in will result in nothing, there are orders that will result in something). But 100ma isn't enough time to justify this happening by random chance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Atheists are just as blind as theists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again with the time argument about 100million years of evolution; it may take a while to get going but once it does it improves rapidly (like our technology for a modern day example). A possible reason why we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see much evolution is because evolution on a large scale has basically levelled out and there is little use for any more evolution (one day computers will be as fast as possible because they reach the theoretical limits of optics and size). Evolution is supposed to happen whenever a species is thrown out of equilibrium. The human race has caused enough meham around the globe that we should be seeing all sorts of adaptations going on... Yet from a practical position: nothing. Well, I'm exagerating a bit... there are a few strains of bacteria that have grown resistant to anti-biotics, and a few places where a dominant and recessive trait swapped... But the genes that made the bacteria capable of becoming resistant were already there... they just weren't active. And the traits swapping, well, the recessive trait still remained... It just became less common. There is no true evolution here, and from studying the fossil record, I'm a proponent of punctuated equilibrium... Right now it's punctuated, so where's the rapid adaptation to return to equilibrium?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And finally

 

 

 

Gravity DOES bring order out of chaos and because you seem to be rather stubborn about this point I will include Scanned Images of a part of a science book that describes this process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disclaimer:

 

 

 

The following scans are legal under Australian Copyright laws (which the reproduction has taken place). They are reproduced under the "fair use" laws which allow 10% or 1 chapter to be reproduced without authorisation for Non-commercial, educational purposes ONLY.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part Taken from Brian Greene's book, The Fabric of the Cosmos

 

 

 

All rights reserved; Published by Penguin Group.

 

 

 

(If mods want further information about this please PM me)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please click the thumbnails for full size, quality reduced images.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Point conceeded, though this isn't highly enough ordered to debunk my argument that complex organels can not be explained by evolution in and of itself... I would also point out that if you look closely, you don't see true ordering, you see more chaos (look at the earth for example... Believe it or not, gravity is one of the driving forces in plate techtonics, which is, I would argue a chaotic system.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Missed a page.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*steps up onto a soap box*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finally, one last thought: We view the universe through different lenses. Mine is something like this: "God made it." So I evaluate data through that lense. A true atheist views everything through the lense of, "There is no god." So he/she will more often then not come to radically different conclusions then I will... Not because the evidence we're looking at is different, but because our base assumptions about that evidence is different.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's absolutely impossible to ever truely get away from filtering information through some lense or another, so a truely objective look at things is not possible. The closest that we can come to true objectivity is to find which lense is true: either there is a God or there isn't. They can not both be true at the same time. If we choose the wrong lense, our view of existance will be faulty, because of a faulty base premise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I would argue that the most likely to be false is the lense of, "who cares if there's a god or not?" because if there is a God, you're going to offend Him, (rendering the view faulty) and if there isn't a god, then you're overcomplicating things. This leaves us with only the two premises, "there is a God," and, "There is no god." The issue now is which makes best sence of the world. I'm not going to go into great detail here... sufficing to say, I used to look through the lense of, "there is no god." but that leaves too many inexplicable events. (I've named a few earlier, and am not going to waste what remaining attention-spans may remain doing so over again :wink: )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I challenge you though to take a look at all the evidence you can find, both pro and anti-theism. Until you've looked at all of it, you're arguing from ignorance. Whether or not you choose to believe in God is your choice. But I have much more respect for somebody who's seriously looked at the evidence and is arguing from a solid base of knowledge then one who argues from ignorance. :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I must confess that I am not as open-minded as I once was... But if you bring to me a truely new scrap of evidence, I'll still try and examine everything else in light of it, rather then vice-versa... But I have to say that the truely miraculous carries a lot of weight... And even more weight is carried by the glory of God. As He draws me nearer, His light drowns out everything else. Oh, that you could know Him, that you could love Him and be loved by Him, as He has honoured me with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But regardless, God bless all who read this (or even just little parts of it) and may He reveal to you who He is. May you ever rest in His arms, bolstered by His strength, hopeful because of His promise, Joyous because of His eternal love. To Him who was, and is, and is yet to come be all the glory, honour, and praise for ever and ever. amen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Steps off of soap box*

[Faux]

i believe on God, so what?

[andyrules89]

umm, wouldn't it be easier if we just said that there was a supernatural force and God is only an illusion of that force :?:

[blank]

God can't be real.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I prayed many times that this type of thread was locked ages ago, and look now. ;)

[jackalope14]

God can't be real.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I prayed many times that this type of thread was locked ages ago, and look now. ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol youve got a point.

[aragornf14]

I do believe in God. Not a god but The God. The one and only God. And despite all you say about my post, my opinion will NOT be changed. :D

[insane]

 

God can't be real.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I prayed many times that this type of thread was locked ages ago, and look now. ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol youve got a point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A point? Yes. Illogical? Extremely so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He prayed many times that this type of thread was locked. God doesn't take commands from people. His answer to your request was no. Therefore, the thread was not locked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Furthermore, it sounds as if you were praying without faith. As if you were praying for the sake of getting the opposite answer.

[insane]

And regarding Miller's experiment - he used an atmosphere *fixed* to produce favourable results.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When compared to what the early atmosphere would have been like when the first cell "evolved", even Miller himself conceded that it was completely unlike the early atmosphere. Miller himself conceded that his experiment was reduced to merely scientific trivia due to this new information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, it remains to be just a tiny footnote in todays textbooks... I wonder why ;).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Furthermore, EVEN if his experiment was legitimate (which he himself conceded it wasN'T), all it does is produce amino acids... the mere building blocks for life, it doesn't produce a cell or show how a cell could be produced through this, just the building blocks for life. But it doesn't evne show that, since it's illegitimate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Until next time... and Zealot, nice to see you posting again :). I just wish I had the time to post more than 10mins a week myself... then I could actually read the posts in this thread.