Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   5 Questions...
joz
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 107 (547)
12-10-2001 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by hoostino
12-07-2001 2:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by hoostino:
1. Explain the origin of all matter in the universe, and don't use the Big Bang. That is only what dispersed it.
Not sure if this will help but look it over
http://home.xnet.com/~raydbias/meta08.htm
this one may help as well...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/cosmology.html
Of course one of the best arguments here is that...
"1st law, law of conservation. Matter and energy can neither be created not destroyed. They can only change form."(this is a statement of the 1st law from a creationist site, a better definition is that the amount of mass/energy is constant.)
therefore any act of Creation is a violation of physical law...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hoostino, posted 12-07-2001 2:41 PM hoostino has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 107 (551)
12-10-2001 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by redstang281
12-10-2001 3:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
God just is. God is above science and above scientific explanation for himself. This of course is a justifiable answer to a creationist. However, if you bind yourself completely by the laws of science and deny religion then how can you conceive of a definite beginning or even an indefinite beginning for that matter? By scientific law everything has to come from something.
Nothing just is. Consider this what is god? matter? energy? a combination of both?
If God is none of the above how can he interact with the universe?
If God is one of the above then God is theoretically (read as with correct apparatus) observable and therefore a scientific study of God could be made.
In other words the only things unobservable by science are those that have absolutely no interaction with the universe so either your "above science" God is a an impotent observer or he is observable counter to your claims OR God does not exist at all.....
Oh and once again I refer you to:
http://home.xnet.com/~raydbias/meta08.htm
for a theoretical solution to the origin of the mass energy in our universe...
[This message has been edited by joz, 12-10-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by redstang281, posted 12-10-2001 3:38 PM redstang281 has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 107 (558)
12-11-2001 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by redstang281
12-10-2001 9:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
You are missing the point. The point is, God does not comply with the laws of science and man. Which is to be expected because God created science and is above science. Being that with science everything has a beginning and an end it is scientifically impossible for science to explain a definite beginning. Because I can always ask "what was before that?"
No I think you are missing the point:
1)If Allah/God/Yahweh/Ahura Mazda/Odin/Mithras etc (from now on referred to as the big fella) were to interact in any way with the universe especially in a way that is a violation of physical laws it would be observable.
2)If such observations are made then the subject of big fellas existence becomes permissive of scientific inquiry.
3)Hence either:
a)The big fella doesnt interact with the universe = impotent observer.
b)The big fella interacts with the universe = scientifically observable.
c)The big fella doesnt exist at all.
and once again I refer you to:
http://home.xnet.com/~raydbias/meta08.htm
for a theoretical explanation of the origins of the singularity at the start of the big bang....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by redstang281, posted 12-10-2001 9:54 PM redstang281 has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 107 (563)
12-11-2001 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by redstang281
12-11-2001 8:47 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
"1)If Allah/God/Yahweh/Ahura Mazda/Odin/Mithras etc (from now on referred to as the big fella) were to interact in any way with the universe especially in a way that is a violation of physical laws it would be observable. "
Not necessarily, God could make it so it was observed, or he could decide not to and cover it up. But it is likely that it would be misinterpreted or misunderstood by man. His power is limitless.
What's the highest number?

The only way he could cover it up in a way that was entirely unobservable would be to reverse the interaction entirely. If the big fella influences the universe in any way the effect of that interaction and therefore the interaction and the big fella are observable. Ergo if God interacts with the universe in a way which affects it in any way, i.e obliterating cities, turning people into pillars of salt,it IS observable...
Oh and the highest number is whatever anyone else can think of raised to its own power.....plus 1 (pointless as there is always a higher no. as the set of real no.s is a limitless set extended each time by plus 1)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 8:47 AM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 11:23 AM joz has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 107 (565)
12-11-2001 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by redstang281
12-11-2001 9:26 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
I ask again. What was before the big bang? If lightning created life in the earth's oceans then how did the lightning get there? If life is just a continuous loop and continually regenerates itself then how did the loop get here? You can always go farther back until you reach the beginning, but how can science have a beginning? The only way is through super natural forces.
And I say this is an arguement from ignorance "I don`t know so it must have been God".
Thats an arguement that has been applied to every gap in scietific knowledge at one time or another, problem is some smart fella always comes along eventually shines a metaphorical flashlight into the hole and says "No God here, I think it works like this Though."
[This message has been edited by joz, 12-11-2001]
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 12-11-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 9:26 AM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 12:05 PM joz has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 107 (572)
12-11-2001 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by redstang281
12-11-2001 11:23 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
I believe God could
"turn people into pillars of salt" but often enough he chooses to accomplish his handy work in other manners, as does his adversary. I believe that all actions taken by an individual are inspired by the direct spiritual hand of good or evil. But by no means is God limited only to use things which would reveal his presence. He either merely chooses not to yet, or we are just to blind to see.
"Oh and the highest number is whatever anyone else can think of raised to its own power.....plus 1 (pointless as there is always a higher no. as the set of real no.s is a limitless set extended each time by plus 1) "
Expecting to understand God is like knowing what the highest number is.

And if something has any effect on the universe it (through its effects) is observable. It doesnt matter what the mechanism of the interaction is, it (and therefore whatever is causing the interaction) CAN be observed.
Oh and I can think of at least one use for expanding the set of real no.s...Cryptography where High primes (the higher the better the encryption) are used to create cryptographic "keys"...what's the point of your God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 11:23 AM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 1:51 PM joz has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 107 (573)
12-11-2001 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by redstang281
12-11-2001 11:52 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
The answer is God always existed. God is a being who is infinitely past our understand and logic, so of course his existence is as well. You can claim whatever you want to have started life, but you always have to conceive of what was before that. There has to be something that just existed without anything else before it. And that is God.
seems to me I could make the same claim for a pre big bang singularity....apart from the "beyond our understanding and logic" part.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 11:52 AM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 1:59 PM joz has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 107 (575)
12-11-2001 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by redstang281
12-11-2001 12:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
So you presume to tell me that because science can not answer it now, that they will one day?
Science can not disprove the existence of God in any context. Maybe thousands of years ago a volcano erupted and killed thousands of people and maybe it was blamed on God killing them. Nowadays scientist say that volcanos' erupt due to some natural force. But that doesn't mean God doesn't use that natural force to make the volcano erupt and to kill those people. All science discovers is the force that God uses to perform with.

Not necessarily, what I am saying is that I disapprove of the tactic of using the big fella as an explanation of things for which there is no data...
an equally valid view to "there is no evidence so God did it" is "there is no evidence so we know that it was farted out of the arse of a large purple hamster."
A yet better view is "there is no evidence so we will wait for some before jumping to conclusions."
[This message has been edited by joz, 12-11-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 12:05 PM redstang281 has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 107 (584)
12-11-2001 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by redstang281
12-11-2001 1:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
Even if everything science has observed in the universe can be contributed by a pure scientific factor that doesn't mean God didn't do it. Just because we can't look in space and see an old man with a white rob push a meteor around the earth doesn't mean he didn't push the meteor around the earth. I think it's arrogant for anyone to assume we know and understand everything about the universe with our 5 senses we have been given.
You are missing the point:
1)If something interacts with the universe it is observable
2)If it is observable it can be studied experimentally.
Ergo a "big fella" who interacts with the universe in any way is not as you claimed "above science"...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 1:51 PM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 2:23 PM joz has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 107 (586)
12-11-2001 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by redstang281
12-11-2001 1:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:

Ah, my friend but science can not work like that. Science can not abide by the excuse that it just is. That will never be justifiable by any scientific law now, or anyone to ever be invented, created, or discovered. The only law of something just existing is God's law for himself For if you could believe that science could just exist, than how can you not believe in God?

Firstly I never said I believed anything of the sort, given the lack of data I reserve judgement..
secondly (and I hope you dont misinterpret this as a personal attack) I suggest that you are confused between science and pre big bang singularity (which I suggested was an equally viable candidate for the "it always existed coz it did" club.)...
[This message has been edited by joz, 12-17-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 1:59 PM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 2:34 PM joz has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 107 (590)
12-11-2001 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by redstang281
12-11-2001 2:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
You are missing the point:
1)If something interacts with the universe it is observable
2)If it is observable it can be studied experimentally.
Ergo a "big fellow" who interacts with the universe in any way is not as you claimed "above science"...
I understand what you're saying. You are saying that you think God doesn't exist because all of science's observations of the universe indicate scientific explanations. I am offering up two answers to that. 1) Man has not observed everything he thinks he has. 2) What man has observed has been inline with science because God did his manipulation in a scientific way. So therefor is unnoticed by man.

Actually I am saying that if the your God (or any of the other big fellas) exist and interacts with the universe it would be observable so any hypothetical big fella is Not above science...
I actually take the position that a lack of evidence means that one should avoid subscribing to any opinion until some data is available....
Also you seem to think that I am postulating current science as a complete explanation. I am well aware of the expansion of the boundaries of what is observable.
And once again you miss the point that if God interacts with the universe and has any effect then a complete enough set of measurements will show a result that could not be attributed to the starting conditions of the system....And that this interaction is necessarily observable.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 2:23 PM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 3:08 PM joz has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 107 (591)
12-11-2001 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by redstang281
12-11-2001 2:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
secondly (and I hope you dont misinterpret this as a personal attack) I suggest that you are confused between science and pre big bang singularity (which I suggested was an equally viable candidate for the "it always existed coz it did" club.
I don't take this as a personal attach. I understand you are more than likely frustrated with me. I would just like Athiest to seriously think about the theories that scientist conjure up to deny the existance of God. Just ask yourself how it can be possible for something to just exist and further things to spring up from it. It's not. So therefor whatever it was that started everything had to be considered impossible by science. God is the only thing can just exist. I don't care what kind of singular big bang theory they can up with there always has to be something that put it there. If you deny everything I am claiming you really have to ask yourself why you deny it. Do you deny it because you think it's wrong, or because you just don't want to accept it. Because he who creates the world has the right to create the rules. Human nature doesn't like to follow rules.

And once again my answer is that it is wrong to take a situation where there is no data and attribute any explanation to it.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 2:34 PM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 3:12 PM joz has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 107 (592)
12-11-2001 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by redstang281
12-11-2001 11:52 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
"It's interesting that your question is specifically aimed at scientists - "What was before the Big Bang?" But phrase it another way - "What was before the creation of the universe?" - "
My friend, this is exactly my point. The answer is God always existed. God is a being who is infinitely past our understand and logic, so of course his existence is as well. You can claim whatever you want to have started life, but you always have to conceive of what was before that. There has to be something that just existed without anything else before it. And that is God.
"To say "BEFORE" the beginning of time is like saying "NORTH of the north pole.""
The north pole ends, just as the beginning of time ends (or shall I say begins.)
[This message has been edited by redstang281, 12-11-2001]

Just realized that there may be a problem with this analogy in that it depends if you are talking about true or magnetic north....
if its magnetic north then the "pole" described by the unattached field line extends out to infinity.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 11:52 AM redstang281 has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 107 (594)
12-11-2001 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by redstang281
12-11-2001 2:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
Of course time can be defined just as the numerical system with no beginning and no end, but how did time get here? Don't limit yourself to 2nd dimensional thought.
what thinking only in terms of length and breadth?
or do you mean 4 dimensional?
[This message has been edited by joz, 12-12-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 2:12 PM redstang281 has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 107 (597)
12-11-2001 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by redstang281
12-11-2001 3:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
It sounds to me like you have something we Christians refer to as "faith." However yours is directed to science and something coming from absolutely nothing.
Really I would have said that the reluctance to take a position without data was indicative of a LACK of faith, please explain how it is otherwise?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 3:08 PM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 3:51 PM joz has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024