Questions for Atheists

The one written in the Torah. There is actually a passage in the Torah which states that there is only one G-d. G-d is just referred to by many names.

So you are saying that the Torah says that there is only one God who wrote that he is the one god because he wrote the Torah. Circular reasoning

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

I am just proving that the many names in the Torah that refer to G-d are all referring to the same G-d. This can be proven based on the Torah. You asked me which god I am referring to, and my answer to you is: The G-d that is written in the Torah.

Open MInd writes:

quote:

---

What is the cause of the difference between the six types of quarks and their corresponding anti-quarks?

---

What does this have to do with atheism? Are you saying that god is the difference?

quote:

---

What is the nature of Dark Energy, and how did it evolve?

---

Why does the existence of god affect the nature of dark energy and who said it evolved?

quote:

---

What would happen if a quark would knock into another quark?

---

This is generally handled by the Standard Model. What does the existence of god have to do with it? Only atheists can describequantum mechanics?

quote:

---

Would it be cut in half?

---

Huh? Interactions between quarks are described by the Standard Model. What happens depends upon which kind of quark you're dealingwith. Quarks are generally unstable outside of their triplet state when combined with gluons to form baryonic matter, but there are some particles that are made of pairs called mesons:Quarks

quote:

---

If quarks can be cut in half, what would you call a half of a quark?

---

Scientists are very clever at coming up with names. For example, "quark." After all, it was thought that you couldn't divide an atom and then it was found that atoms are actually made of sub-atomic particles: Protons, electrons, and neutrons. So then those became the smallest units until we found that they were made up of quarks and gluons. If we find that quarks and gluons are made of up of even smaller bits, we'll come up with new names for that.What does the existence of god have to do with this?

quote:

---

What would you call half of that?

---

Same thing. We'll come up with new names. At the moment, we have been unable to create any free quarks...they like to stick together. The theory of asymptotic freedom explaining why quarks splitting apart from their groups results in a stronger attraction from the strong nuclear force was given the Nobel Prize in 2004.One of the possible things that the new LHC might be tried to carry out is the creation of quark matter.Why does the existence or non-existence of god change this?

quote:

---

If the whole universe could theoretically be broken down into the most elementary thing (force, energy, matter, anti-matter, wave, partical, time, space, or concept)

---

This is literally nonsense. Many of the things you mention are the same thing.But what does this have to do with the existence of god?

quote:

---

how would this simple thing possibly do anything without interacting with another thing (same as before)?

---

Huh? You seem to be indicating that interactions require interaction and are amazed by this tautology, as if physicists had never considered the possibility despite the fact that Newton's Third Law of Motion is precisely that: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Too, the entire concept of conservation is that everything has to go somewhere.But again, what does this have to do with the existence of god?

quote:

---

Why do laws of physics breakdown during the Big Bang?

---

Well, they don't because the physics is the physics. What breaks down is our model of the Big Bang.But what does this have to do with the existence of god?

quote:

---

What laws did nature follow?

---

You've got the question wrong. Nature is the law. It follows itself.But what does that have to do with existence of god?

quote:

---

And finally, how does gravity really work?

---

We don't know. This is in marked contrast to evolution, for which we have an actual mechanism that we can manipulate directly. And yet, nobody seems to call gravity "just a theory" or propose that we "teach the controversy" regarding the standard description of gravity and the "tiny, invisible rubber band theory."That's right: Evolution is more solidly grounded and better understood than gravity, and yet it's evolution that gets all the hyperventilation.At any rate, what does that have to do with the existence of god?You seem to be indicating that is science is accurate, that means god cannot exist. Why?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Open MInd writes:

quote:

---

a theist would admit that the world cannot be understood completely by human beings.

---

Says who? Don't confuse your theology with a universal trait. Your god may say that you can't know the world but don't you dare presume to speak for anybody else.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Open MInd writes:

quote:

---

It is obvious from reading an elementary textbook in physics that there are still some problems with the current ideas.

---

Yes...and? Why is this considered problematic? If there was nothing else to learn, science would stagnate.

quote:

---

What I meant to question was whether it is possible to put all the laws of nature into something understandable to the human brain.

---

Well, since everything we do know about the laws of nature was the result of humans using their brains, it would seem that your question is self-evident. But methinks you're looking for something like, "Because E = mc², everything else follows." Well, the world is much too complicated for that. Just as a practical matter, there is too much to know for a single person to truly be able to understand it all.

quote:

---

To start, I show that everything can be broken into smaller things.

---

But you haven't. You have asserted that quarks can be broken down into smaller particles, but you haven't given any evidence that they can or how.

quote:

---

And, any two things with different properties must have a cause for the difference in property.

---

You seem to be attaching philosophical significance to this "difference." Why are physical differences not enough?

quote:

---

Then I show how it is not possible to break everything down into a most elementary thing that would be understood by humans.

---

But if you know this, then you have just defeated your own claim.At any rate, you haven't shown this at all. Assertion is not proof.

quote:

---

I also want to show that if it is not possible to explain the entire universe in terms of physical properties, a force, not comprehendable to human logic must be used to explain it.

---

Um, do you mean that there are things in the world that cannot be explained by science? Well, of course. Science can tell you lots of things about an acoustic waveform: It's frequency, wavelength, modulation, shape, how much energy it has, how far it will propagate in various media, etc.What it cannot tell you is if it is music. And it doesn't even try.You're playing a game of gotcha, here, and I get the feeling you're trying to handwave past a troublesome part where you equivocate things that are amenable to scientific inquiry and things that aren't.

quote:

---

This lends itself to the theistic point of view.

---

And here it is: You are trying to say that because we don't know everything, this means we don't know anything, and there we find god.I dare say there are many people who believe in god who would disagree with you.

quote:

---

Theism does not attempt to explain the universe.

---

And yet, the very existence of this discussion board proves that claim wrong. Clearly there are those who believe in god who quite strongly insist that their theism explains the universe.

quote:

---

Rather, it uses logic to conclude that an all powerfull Being, not comprehendable to humans, must exist.

---

There are some who would say that.Others would disagree. As the cliche goes, "Proof denies faith."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Open MInd writes:

quote:

---

I don't think science can ever understand the cause of the Big Bang.

---

People have said that about a lot of things. What will you do when that becomes yet another false claim?This is what makes science such an effective field: It doesn't throw its hands up in the air simply because things seem too hard. It simply accepts that we don't know for right now and keep on plugging away, searching for new and different ways of looking at things.

quote:

---

Assuming the cause of the Big Bang was the all-powerful G-d, it can be assumed that G-d set forth the Big Bang with precise calculations.

---

No, it can't. Why would god necessarily set the Big Bang up with any sort of precision? Perhaps god was curious and wanted to find out what would happen. Perhaps universe creation is a random process and god wouldn't know what happened until afterward.

quote:

---

G-d would be able to know exactly what the out come of the Big Bang will be.

---

Why? This flies in the face of what we know about the nature of existence: It is inherently random. Newton and the rest of the 18th Century crowd certainly believed in the clockwork universe, but we have since come to learn that things are much messier.Einstein may have said in jest that god does not play dice with the universe, but Hawking jokingly replied that not only does god play dice, sometimes he throws them where we can't see them.

quote:

---

Since G-d wanted life to exist

---

Says who? You? Why should we believe you? Why would god want life to exist? Again, perhaps god was just curious and life was just a happy accident. Does the phrase "emergent property" mean anything to you?

quote:

---

He would have set the Big Bang in precisely the exact parameters that would cause life to eventually form.

---

Why? Why would god necessarily have created a universe to create life? Why can't it have been a surprise?

quote:

---

In fact, G-d could set the Big Bang to exactly the correct parameters in order for anything to happen that He so desires.

---

Again, this is in direct contradiction to what we know about the universe: There is no way to do this for the universe is quantum.

quote:

---

All you need is for G-d to know all of the possible outcomes of the Big Bang, and G-d is actually controlling the entire world from its beginning.

---

But you can't know all the possible outcomes as the universe is quantum and doesn't play that way.

quote:

---

Also, since G-d must not be in the realm of time

---

This means that god is incapable of interacting with the universe for the universe is of time. As we know, interactions require interacting. Since we are of time, everything that interacts with us must also be of time.

quote:

---

G-d controlling the world from the beginning is the equivalent of G-d controlling the world right now.

---

Why? Where is the evidence that god was in control from teh beginning?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

No, he was not talking about the most elementary particle, he was talking about the most fundamental entity. It may well be the case that the most fundamental entity is something akin to the quantum field. The point being that the most fundamental entity interacts with itself much like a wave might be said to do.

Open MInd writes:

quote:

---

You asked me which god I am referring to, and my answer to you is: The G-d that is written in the Torah.

---

And when was it decided that the Jewish god was the one that truly existed? I should think the Hindus, who have an older religion, might have something to say about that.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Dawkins is an infamous atheist who uses science to support atheism.His claims are usually fallacious. The one about not requiring God is illogical because he pre-supposes there is no motive for anything, at all, despite the substance of anything - at all.So a human being who thinks and feels, has no baring on his argument. This means that he conflates cause with motive and then pretends that it's all fine.My washing machine doesn't require me to wash my socks, but there is a motive as to why the socks are being washed. It doesn't mean I am not needed therefore don't exist, or that there is no reason to wash them, present within any other party.Some atheists would have argued as you have said they do - and some don't. But what is clear is that they don't own thought, so I would agree that you should think for yourself, and not be brainwashed by the likes of Dawkins.

Hi Mike, Which one? It's no use you arguing against quotes that you don't produce. Both Open Mind and yourself seem keen to argue against Dawkins' arguments, without ever establishing what they are.I can't really answer your points if I don't know what you're referring to.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

If you were honest, you could just do a bit of self-analysis and come out with something like:"I don't like Dawkins because he offends my desires for a comforting imaginary friend." If you want to make such assertions, do feel free to back them up with quotes giving the reference for the quote and the complete context.Now. Let's have a list of Dawkins' fallacious claims, just to show us that you're not a Christian liar. I'm not a "Dawkinsite", and I haven't read most of his work, so I'll certainly agree if you find the ones you claim exist.As for science supporting atheism, it doesn't really. What it does is clash with obviously false gods and creation mythologies that describe non-existent universes. Tell me, thinking Mike, why is it that Brazil is a predominately Catholic Christian country, and Egypt is majority Sunni Muslim country, and the U. S. is a majority Protestant Christian country, and India is a majority Hindu country, and Iran is a majority Shia Muslim country, and I could have said exactly the same thing about all those countries 100 years ago, and I can tell you that the same will apply to the children born next year in those countries when they are 20 years old, in 2030.Concentrate your wizard theistic thinking brain on all that, try being honest with yourself, and tell me where the brainwashing is really going on. Who is it taking young children as soon as they can speak, and indoctrinating them with mumbo jumbo?

Dawkins' propositions are well known. I often see him on TV regurgitating his usual ad nauseum vacous tangeants.The particular argument to which I refer is the one that basically states that because science has found that natural processes answer as a cause of all things, then there is no requirement for a God.Unfortunately for him, Creationists such as myself disregard the former and the latter. That is to say - I reject evolution, and I reject his conclusion, but even if I accepted the former, that by no means would compel me to accept the latter; that being a false inference.

Hello again.I feel we are disagreeable about great many a thing young skywalker. I apreciate your difference to myself, but in this instance, I can confidently say that having conversed with you for but a minute, I have a shedload more respect for you than I do Dawkins.You are correct, he infact mis-uses science in order to promote his own agenda, and he doesn't do atheism any good for it! Without experience of this guy, you must try and be impartial towards me. I actually don't mind people challenging my beliefs, what I dislike is people mis-using their position to promote something which is not sound. In this case, Dawkins is clever and educated in science but I confess to having found him wanting, when it comes to his claims.I shown this when I said that he conflates cause with motive/purpose. It is not enough to jump on science's back, one has to be able to show that one is interested in sound wisdom. In this case, he is mistaken about his statements. I refer to the program of recent, "The genius of Darwin", where his jumping to conclusions escalates to the absurd, by stating that evolution caused us to forget supernatural explanations, as if abiogenesis was just a side-issue.LOL

That may be so, but it is still unfair to represent others views without some kind of citation. Oh, you mean the argument that Dawkins never made! Sorry Mike, but I call bullshit. He has never said that natural processes can answer everything. He makes similar arguments, but less fallaciously phrased. If you want to prove me wrong, find a quote. Well of course it is, that's obvious. It is however an answer to the God of the Gaps who has been so enthusiastically promoted in this thread.If we have naturalistic explanations for observed phenomena, we don't need to insert God as a flimsy explanation. What on Earth is fallacious about that?

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade