|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,833 Year: 4,090/9,624 Month: 961/974 Week: 288/286 Day: 9/40 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 5 Questions... | |||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 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....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: seems to me I could make the same claim for a pre big bang singularity....apart from the "beyond our understanding and logic" part.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 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"...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 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.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 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.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 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.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024