20 of 30
20
The NEW 4 Step Proof for God
Posted: 11 February 2011 06:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 286 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9284
Joined  2006-08-29
Dead Monky - 11 February 2011 06:03 PM

Can anyone actually make any sense of what he just wrote?

You read it?  gulp

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2011 06:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 287 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4622
Joined  2007-10-05
noselfwilling - 11 February 2011 05:57 PM

Something Can’t Come From NothingIt’s true, that which does not exist can’t cause anything. It doesn’t it. You’re trying to violate the 1st lawy of thermodynamics. Silly. That which does not exist has no existence or energy to cause anything. You’re believing in fairy tales.

You are discussing my main interest right now, and showing a complete lack of knowledge regarding physics and cosmology.

The net energy of the Universe is zero. Energy and mass are interchangeable according to Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity. The Universe did not have a cause, it is just a special case of nothing. How can that be? Simple, really. As shown in Quantum Mechanics, nothing is unstable. Elementary particles are constantly popping up out of nowhere and annihilating each other. This does not violate the First Law of Thermodynamics because it all happens in Planck Time and the total net energy is always zero. No god necessary, just reality at work.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2011 06:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 288 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3024
Joined  2010-04-26
George - 11 February 2011 06:31 PM

You read it?  gulp

Most of it.  Yeah.

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2011 07:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 289 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  120
Joined  2011-02-05
DarronS - 11 February 2011 06:35 PM

The net energy of the Universe is zero. Energy and mass are interchangeable according to Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity. The Universe did not have a cause, it is just a special case of nothing. How can that be? Simple, really. As shown in Quantum Mechanics, nothing is unstable. Elementary particles are constantly popping up out of nowhere and annihilating each other. This does not violate the First Law of Thermodynamics because it all happens in Planck Time and the total net energy is always zero. No god necessary, just reality at work.

No, Krauss is a quack scientists. The universe is brooming with energy, it is not net zero. If it was net zero it would not exist, for non existence can’t cause anything. It doesn’t exist. Since God has infinite power or energy if you like, He can apporting some for His creation.

When you split nothing guess what you get? Nothing. Nothing always leaves nothing from nothing. 0 - 0 = 0 and 0 + 0 = 0. Nothing pops out of non-existence except in fairy tales.

Sorry, there is no One Billion Pound Gorillas. That’s quite a monkey you have on your back.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Parture?feature=mhum#p/c/1677F740D2266D89/3/YfpgOKtiZDM

Let Jesus take that weight you place unecessarily on yourself, for His yoke is easy, His love is kind, and His righteousness just. God would never ask you to have such blind find faith in what you believe. No Christian has such great a faith as you. That’s why we are Christians, since we prefer to go with the flow of the evidence, e.g. something can’t come from nothing and there is no naturalistic explanation to account for the origin of the disiciples’ beliefs. Praise the Lord! Amen. “Prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5.21).

[ Edited: 11 February 2011 07:06 PM by noselfwilling ]
 Signature 

Repent and give your life to Christ. Come to the cross as a helpless sinner and receive the Lord Jesus as Savior and so shall you be saved. 12 groups saw Jesus resurrected.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2011 07:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 290 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5187
Joined  2010-06-16

Again, Noself, you mathematics is limited to second grade elementary school.  The proper math logic is as follows:

1. The probability of something (a universe) forming from nothing at any minute is zero.

2. The amount of time an empty universe existed with nothing in it was infinity.

3. The product of any number and zero is zero   n * 0 = 0

4. The product of any number and infinity is infinity   n * ∞ = ∞

5. The product of zero times infinity is neither zero nor infinity.  Rather is it undefined.

Therefore, the product of 1. and 2. above is not zero, but rather undefined.  That means that god is not necessary.  While the probability may be undefined, it can easily be a number betwen zero and one, so the universe COULD easily form from nothing and without any outside interference.

god is an unnecessary complication that offers nothing but gets in the way of intelligent reasoning.  As such, we must all work to eliminate this waste of time from the minds of all people if we are to have a truly loving, mutually helpful society.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2011 07:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 291 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  114
Joined  2010-12-03

Oh boy, what have I gotten myself into now…

Whether there is an infinite amount of time between two events or not makes no difference, if there was an inifnite regress, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Infinite regress is riff with problems and contradicts itself further, for if there was an infinite regress you also would never come into existence because a past eternity would still be going on for eternity thus, never reaching this point. Infinite regress is a self-contradictory faith. Christians don’t have as much faith as you have to believe in something that is so utterly false.

Once again, you are conflating an infinite regress with an infinite amount of time between events, which are TOTALLY different concepts.  Think of a number line ending at zero, and going back infinitely.  At no point on the line is there an infinite distance between itself and zero, yet there is no “smallest number” either.  That is an infinite regression, and not contradictory at all.

It’s true, that which does not exist can’t cause anything. It doesn’t it. You’re trying to violate the 1st lawy of thermodynamics. Silly. That which does not exist has no existence or energy to cause anything. You’re believing in fairy tales.

An “event” implies a cause since it is an event. All events were caused as evident by the fact we see trillions and trillions of caused events in nature, and no hard evidence of something from nothing; whereas God is not event but our uncaused Creator or uncaused cause—He causes us to come into being.

First, we do not directly observe causality.  What we observe is an event B occur consistently when an event A is observed repeatedly; a correlation.  There may be a causal link between them, but we can not know for certain.  Also, even if we could observe causality directly, and we were certain that all observed events so far had been caused, that still does not mean that they always were caused in the past, before we were here to observe them, or always will be in the future.  You are blatantly committing a fallacy of inductive reasoning if you claim causality as necessary.

The argument is not that the mind comes from another event, for your parents copulated and here you are. Rather, the ultimate source of a mind needs to be a mind, since bouncing particles can’t bring into existence that which is greater such as a mind, for those particles themselves have no self-consciousness, God-consciousness, mind, will, emotion, communion, conscience, intuition, etc. These are attributes that require a mind which God has or is.

No matter how long your fanciful infinite regress were to go on for it could still never produce a mind. Likewise the universe can’t by itself produce even the simplest replicating organism without the hand of God because there is simply not enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe to take something from the elemental table and producing a living creature.

Please tell me how you arrive at the claim that “there is simply not enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe to take something from the elemental table and producing a living creature”.  How do you know that is true?

As for a response to your “evidence” of Jesus’ resurrection, David Fitzgerald explains things much better than I can:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvleOBYTrDE

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2011 07:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 292 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  263
Joined  2008-11-10
Mingy Jongo - 11 February 2011 07:37 PM

Oh boy, what have I gotten myself into now…

Whether there is an infinite amount of time between two events or not makes no difference, if there was an inifnite regress, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Infinite regress is riff with problems and contradicts itself further, for if there was an infinite regress you also would never come into existence because a past eternity would still be going on for eternity thus, never reaching this point. Infinite regress is a self-contradictory faith. Christians don’t have as much faith as you have to believe in something that is so utterly false.

Once again, you are conflating an infinite regress with an infinite amount of time between events, which are TOTALLY different concepts.  Think of a number line ending at zero, and going back infinitely.  At no point on the line is there an infinite distance between itself and zero, yet there is no “smallest number” either.  That is an infinite regression, and not contradictory at all.

It’s true, that which does not exist can’t cause anything. It doesn’t it. You’re trying to violate the 1st lawy of thermodynamics. Silly. That which does not exist has no existence or energy to cause anything. You’re believing in fairy tales.

An “event” implies a cause since it is an event. All events were caused as evident by the fact we see trillions and trillions of caused events in nature, and no hard evidence of something from nothing; whereas God is not event but our uncaused Creator or uncaused cause—He causes us to come into being.

First, we do not directly observe causality.  What we observe is an event B occur consistently when an event A is observed repeatedly; a correlation.  There may be a causal link between them, but we can not know for certain.  Also, even if we could observe causality directly, and we were certain that all observed events so far had been caused, that still does not mean that they always were caused in the past, before we were here to observe them, or always will be in the future.  You are blatantly committing a fallacy of inductive reasoning if you claim causality as necessary.

The argument is not that the mind comes from another event, for your parents copulated and here you are. Rather, the ultimate source of a mind needs to be a mind, since bouncing particles can’t bring into existence that which is greater such as a mind, for those particles themselves have no self-consciousness, God-consciousness, mind, will, emotion, communion, conscience, intuition, etc. These are attributes that require a mind which God has or is.

No matter how long your fanciful infinite regress were to go on for it could still never produce a mind. Likewise the universe can’t by itself produce even the simplest replicating organism without the hand of God because there is simply not enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe to take something from the elemental table and producing a living creature.

Please tell me how you arrive at the claim that “there is simply not enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe to take something from the elemental table and producing a living creature”.  How do you know that is true?

As for a response to your “evidence” of Jesus’ resurrection, David Fitzgerald explains things much better than I can:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvleOBYTrDE

Interesting video

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2011 09:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 293 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  118
Joined  2011-02-05
Affluenza - 11 February 2011 06:25 PM
The_Au_Mean - 10 February 2011 07:54 PM
Write4U - 10 February 2011 06:42 PM

And what is this arrogant assumption that man has the ability to attain a higher meaning in life? So far higher meaning is expressed in going to the bar on friday night and having a few drinks with your buddies.
Explain this “Higher meaning”, other than worshipping an “idea” that gives you “personal” comfort?

W4U, I don’t know if Affluenza was actually asserting that humans/religious folk can experience “higher level meaning,” of if they were just engaging in some type of rhetorical exercise. When I made a case for the “higher meaning” thing being invalid, they just said thanks, so I think maybe they were just hoping to start a discussion…?

I never really mean’t for my post to digress/branch off into another discussion…

Your responce is what I expected so not much to discuss really…

gotcha.

 Signature 

“Ah! How cheerfully we consign ourselves to Perdition!”
-Melville-

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”
-Pynchon-

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2011 09:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 294 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  118
Joined  2011-02-05
Gnostikosis - 11 February 2011 04:57 PM
The_Au_Mean - 11 February 2011 02:10 PM

Or acknowledge that belief in god, or at least the portrait of god presented by western, dualistic, monotheistic faiths is irrational.

The way the concept is reasoned out in eastern traditions, god is a little bit more difficult to dismiss as it tends to be fundamentally naturalistic. Or, maybe more accurately, a metaphysical nuance to a naturalistic concept.

Perhaps a primitive adoption of by run away slaves who were never trained in metaphysical nuances. The Hebrew ran around in the desert and passed down a half-baked ideology from some Egyptian monotheistic religion. An enforce irrational belief about reality for 2500 years.

Hard to believe that few questioned the rationality of it. Obama is a Christian, Bush is a Christian. If they weren’t they would never be elected. That how a-matter-of-fact people are about accepting this irrational belief.

Yeah, I meant eastern as in Asiatic, not Mesopotamian. Though it isn’t that accurate for me to do so, I usually intend to capture the Abrahamic faiths with “western religion.”

And, just to point out, early Judiasm was polytheistic, as was most Egyptian spirituality. One of the best anthropological studies I have ever read goes into that with exhaustive detail:
Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in Western Religion by Alan Segal

I’m talking about the concept of god in Asiatic spirituality being more dynamic and more naturalistic (closer to pantheism or decentralized “collective” spirituality), and thus harder to descend upon with the same skeptical tools as can be used to dispense of the fundamentally metaphysical supernatural wink gods of the western/Abrahamic faiths (whose modern forms tend to be very informed by Aristotle).

 Signature 

“Ah! How cheerfully we consign ourselves to Perdition!”
-Melville-

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”
-Pynchon-

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2011 09:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 295 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  118
Joined  2011-02-05
Occam. - 11 February 2011 07:15 PM

While the probability may be undefined, it can easily be a number betwen zero and one

The ln of the function for that cardinality is super steep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor’s_theorem

Sorry…I’m currently working on a refinement of a huge mathematical model for an extremely chaotic system, so I just see maths everywhere. Cantor is awesome, though.

Okay, back to za fractals.

 Signature 

“Ah! How cheerfully we consign ourselves to Perdition!”
-Melville-

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”
-Pynchon-

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2011 09:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 296 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  338
Joined  2011-01-17
Mingy Jongo - 11 February 2011 07:37 PM

As for a response to your “evidence” of Jesus’ resurrection, David Fitzgerald explains things much better than I can:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvleOBYTrDE

Thanks, that was super terrific awesome with sprinkles.

 Signature 

“You can tell me that it’s gospel but I know that it’s only church.”

Tom Waits

“I take a simple view of life. It is keep your eyes open and get on with it.”

Laurence Sterne

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2011 09:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 297 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  120
Joined  2011-02-05

It’s a beautiful thing that atheists can’t find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples’ beliefs believing they had seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings, and atheists can’t explain how a universe came into being from nothing (non-existence) or always existed even though we would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so if infinite regress were true.

 Signature 

Repent and give your life to Christ. Come to the cross as a helpless sinner and receive the Lord Jesus as Savior and so shall you be saved. 12 groups saw Jesus resurrected.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2011 10:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 298 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2011 10:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 299 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  118
Joined  2011-02-05
PLaClair - 11 February 2011 10:06 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw

“all right…we’ll call it a draw.”

 Signature 

“Ah! How cheerfully we consign ourselves to Perdition!”
-Melville-

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”
-Pynchon-

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2011 11:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 300 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  120
Joined  2011-02-05

I win.

 Signature 

Repent and give your life to Christ. Come to the cross as a helpless sinner and receive the Lord Jesus as Savior and so shall you be saved. 12 groups saw Jesus resurrected.

Profile
 
 
   
20 of 30
20