Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   can science accept assertive law?
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 34 of 78 (444944)
12-31-2007 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by tesla
12-31-2007 1:57 PM


Perhaps if you replaced the word "existence" with the word "Universe," there would be less confusion. You seem to be using the word as a synonym for Universe, but when you say something "exists in existence"... well, remember back in grade school when your teacher told you that you couldn't use another form of the same word when writing a word's definition?

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by tesla, posted 12-31-2007 1:57 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by tesla, posted 12-31-2007 2:11 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 54 of 78 (445172)
01-01-2008 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by imageinvisible
01-01-2008 8:10 AM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
Energy cannot be created or destroyed by any natural means, therefore it should not exist. Energy does exist and it must have a cause, but the cause cannot be natural, because energy cannot be created or destroyed naturaly. Logical/reasonable conclusion, energy didn't occure naturaly. Ergo; because energy exists it must have occured by unnatural means. Therefore God, by logical conclusion, must exist.
Your logic is flawed - you assume that a cause is necessary for the existence of matter and energy.
Nothing in science, particularly Big Bang Theory cosmology, postulates that there was ever a point at which matter and energy did not exist - it simply postulates that they existed in a different form at the singularity. We know that matter and energy can change forms - it happens all the time.
This is the result of a brainbug from High School level science classes, popular science magazines, Creationist lying websites, and general misunderstandings of scientific theory.
You're right - matter and energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. But they have always existed, in one form or another. The Big Bang is simply how we refer to the moment that the dimensions we experience (length, width, height, and time, that last being the most relevant) expanded from the single point of the singularity. The Big Bang does not in any way state that there was a "begining" moment that magically "poofed" everything in the Universe into exisetence.
That's what you mythology-believers think. Stop projecting your brainbugs onto science, please.
You should really do a search and read one of our Big Bang threads - your false premise leads you to make a whole host of silly conclusions, and demonstrates gross ignorance regarding the scientific Theories you claim to refute.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by imageinvisible, posted 01-01-2008 8:10 AM imageinvisible has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by imageinvisible, posted 01-02-2008 1:38 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 55 of 78 (445173)
01-01-2008 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by tesla
01-01-2008 11:59 AM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
because God is superior intelligence, doesn't make him supernatural ACCEPT by the fact we cannot understand him.
God is regarded as supernatural for two reasons:
1) there is no evidence of his existence. This puts him in the same category as the other gods worshiped before him, fairies, and the monsters under your bed.
2) "Goddidit" is not an explanation. It proposes no mechanism be which a process operates. Even if one were to say "God created the Universe," that doesn't tell us at all how the Universe formed. It's like saying "Jim fixed my car." We have no idea what Jim did by that statement - only that the car is now fixed, and Jim is somehow responsible. Therefor "Goddidit" is the response of the intellectually weak and lazy - it proposes no mechanism, and is the same as saying "Zeus did it" or "the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it."
You are correct that everything that exists in the Universe, and every process working therein, is natural, by definition. Should evidence of God's existence appear, he would no longer be a supernatural entity; similarly, if the processes by which he is supposed to work his "miracles" were to be defined and explained, they too would be regarded as natural. But until those things can be proven to exist in reality, they exist only in the imaginations of a few billion human beings. Like fairies, and the boogeyman.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 11:59 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 12:56 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 64 of 78 (445190)
01-01-2008 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by tesla
01-01-2008 12:56 PM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
God is regarded as supernatural, because existence is regarded as supernatural.
define existence, you define God.
Are you trying to say that the Universe as a whole is the entity you identify as God, and that as a whole it is an intelligent being?
"Existence" is not supernatural. Existence is a state of being.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 12:56 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 1:38 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 66 of 78 (445197)
01-01-2008 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by tesla
01-01-2008 1:20 PM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
but like the law of conservation of energy, we can at least deduce the energy is there.
curently there is no ability to measure "existence"
there is however enough evidence to understand it is there.
You're literally speaking nonsense, tesla. "Existence" is not a thing. Please read a dictionary entry for the word.
Existence is the state of existing. The definition of the word "exist" is
quote:
ex·ist /gzst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ig-zist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-verb (used without object)
1. to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.
2. to have life or animation; live.
3. to continue to be or live: Belief in magic still exists.
4. to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world.
5. to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter: He's not living, he's merely existing.
To exist is a binary operator - either a thing exists, or it does not. You cannon study that, any more than you can study "yes" or "no."
Similarly, we cannot study that which does not exist - there is nothing to study. Much like God.
You can study a thing if it exists - but you cannot study the state of existence, any more than you can study "yes." To say otherwise is nonsense, which we've all been trying to tell you for a few pages now.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 1:20 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 1:50 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 68 of 78 (445199)
01-01-2008 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by tesla
01-01-2008 1:38 PM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
without existence, being is impossible. which is not a state of being, but how being is possible.
Gibberish. You are not making any sense. Rereading your previous posts will not lead to enlightenment - you simply aren't making any sense.
Perhaps you should rethink what you're trying to say - either you are failing to communicate effectively, or you've tangled your thought processes in something you think is esoteric until it appears to be madness to an outside observer.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 1:38 PM tesla has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 73 of 78 (445209)
01-01-2008 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by tesla
01-01-2008 1:50 PM


Re: Operational Science versus Origin Science
by saying God you admitted that God exists. that's the parable that i use for my signature to attempt to keep this debate grounded. you cannot say "not being" at at the same time it "not be"
I'm going to attempt to keep that drivel from becoming the topic of this post.
trying to understand the concept of existence philisophically is not the same as looking at it from a scientific standpoint.
scientifically, nothing can be unless something first was. the best noun we have is: existence. by reason of my last posts i have been very clear that i cannot accept that anything can have "being" and not be a part of "existence". this being said, that all things are natural by my belief, that existence is natural, not just as a state of rational, but physically as well, because physical things do not exist on the bases of something insubstantial.
therefore: existence is energy, and had to be. because without it, nothing is.
i arrived to the conclusion by asking: what was first of all things in the natural world? and found that as long as two things are, the question "before that?" is still relevant.
A monster under tesla's bed that will eat him tonight.
Ut oh. Now a monster is under your bed, tesla.
More seriously, your entire post is again meaningless garbage. You seem to really believe you are pointing out a great, esoteric truth about reality, but you're simply not making any sense to anyone but yourself.
Take this line for example:
scientifically, nothing can be unless something first was.
This is either circular logic (nothing can be true unless something is true), or an insane jumble of words. Either way, it doesn't make sense. Also, I don't think you understand the word "scientifically." You can't just add that word to a meaningless mash of nonsense and expect it to suddenly be related to science in some way.
therefore: existence is energy, and had to be. because without it, nothing is.
Clearly you don't understand the words "existence" or "energy." These words have actual meanings, and their definitions do not match the way you are using them. Please stop.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 1:50 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by tesla, posted 01-01-2008 2:42 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024