|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
posted November 10, 2009 04:14 PM |
|
|
TED talk - A new way to explain
This is pretty interesting talk about how one should support and argument his ideas. Certainly worth the time spent watching.
just thought I'd drop by and leave the link here 
____________
none of my business.
|
|
wog_edn
Promising
The Nothingness
|
|
posted November 10, 2009 08:10 PM |
|
|
I am just curious, Elodin. Considering what you've said and stuff it seems that everyone who has been killing and stuff (despite it being in the name of God), it means that all those people who made Christianity so huge (pretty much all of them went to war and murdered alot) weren't true Christians? Christianity is built by people going to hell, because theirs weren't the "right" Christianity? 
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 11, 2009 06:23 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 06:29, 11 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
I am just curious, Elodin. Considering what you've said and stuff it seems that everyone who has been killing and stuff (despite it being in the name of God), it means that all those people who made Christianity so huge (pretty much all of them went to war and murdered alot) weren't true Christians? Christianity is built by people going to hell, because theirs weren't the "right" Christianity?
There is no need for me to answer that again. Read my posts in this thread. According to the Bible no Chrisitian is capable of murder.
Quote:
Elodin, I don't see anything about thermodynamics in there anywhere.
Van Wylen, then Dean of Engineering (University of Michagan), senior author of Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, most widely used thermodynamics textbook and Richard E. Sonntag
Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics [New York: Wiley, 1982]
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2575
Quote:
Quite obviously it is impossible to give conclusive answers to these questions on the basis of the Second Law of thermodynamics alone. However, we see the Second Law of thermodynamics as a description of the prior and continuing work of a creator, who also holds the answer to our future destiny and that of the universe (1985, pp. 232-233).
The above was the conclusion at the end of the chapter dealing with the second law of thermodynamics and the concept of entropy.
John M. Cimbala
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
The Pennsylvania State University
Quote:
In this short article, I summarize my ideas about the second law of thermodynamics, and why I believe it points to a creator God.
Clicky for article
Robert J. Spitzer, S.J, PhD, (physicist)
Quote:
“Every single Big Bang model shows the existence of what scientists call a ‘singularity,’ and the existence of each singularity demands the existence of an external ‘element’ to the universe,” Fr. Spitzer said.
The priest physicist then proceeded to explain the different, complex versions of the various Bing Bang theories.
He quoted Roger Penrose, the world-famous English mathematician and physicist, who corrected some of the theories of his friend and colleague Stephen Hawking to conclude that every Big Bang theory, including the one known as Quantum theory, confirms the existence of singularities. Therefore, said Spitzer, the need to find an explanation to the universe’s existence drives us to seek “a force that is previous and independent from the universe.”
Fr. Spitzer also quoted the 2003 experiments by three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, who were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.
“The concept at this point is clear: nothing is nothing, and from nothing, nothing comes, since nothing is... nothing!” Fr. Spitzer said, to explain the fact that contemporary astrophysics demands “something with sufficient power to bring the universe into existence.”
“It sounds like a theological argument, but is really a scientific conclusion.
“There is no way to ignore the fact that it demands the existence of a singularity and therefore of a Creator outside space and time,” he added.
Quote:
As I'm not tired to repeat - we have no clue about "all of existance" nor do we have a clue about "the entire physical universe" which isn't necessarily (and very likely) not the same thing.
Can you quote some scientists who say the laws of thermodynamics only apply to our corner of the universe please? Thanks.
So it is your belief then that matter and energy in other parts of the universe is eternal and did not need a cause? Entropy does not exist in those parts of the universe?
It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 11, 2009 07:07 AM |
|
|
It takes a lot of faith for you to be a Buddhist also Elodin. I am glad you have so much faith in Buddha. Now if you are wondering why I made the statement, let me clarify.
You are classifying everybody who doesn't believe in YOUR god as an Atheist. ((Lately all your arguments include the 'takes a lot of faith to be an atheist (ad nausium))). I am as much an Atheist as you are a Buddhist. Now before you go off on some tangient on how that is not what you meant, etc etc...lets not forget that you do tend to take things people say differently then what they actually said.
Let us assume that A) you are correct and that some outside force did create the universe. B) The outside force IS something outside of time and does not need a cause (which I find hard to believe, and there is a disturbing lack of PROOF). and C) That it is a single force/entity and not many.
Even assuming ALL of that, despite lack of proof, you have not proven that the being/entity YOU believe in is the cause of such. While you certainly do not have to prove any such thing, your arguments lose any validity until you do so. Every other religion from A to Z has JUST as valid an argument.
Which is where again you will respond with, but the bible is a historical text etc. That doesn't mean it is not pure fiction. Again, let me explain.
Many fictional books take real events and use them, often embelishing the actual details. So while the events of the bible may have taken place (arguably) does not mean that the son of a god actually walked amoung us. Could have just been some loony person with delusions of grandeur.
Which of course will break out the "But he HEALED people." So does sugar pills today. People BELIEVE it will heal them, so it does. Doesn't mean he had any actual divine power. Heck if I remember right there was a tv evangelist who healed many many people, and then went to jail for fraud. Heck, I've actually healed somebody..does that mean I am God in human form? Hardly.
Which brings us to the prophecies. Lets take a few of them. Like the "The sun will become as black as satcloth (spelling?)" often prophacies are phrased in such a manner they could mean A LOT of things, so the chances of them NOT coming true are slim. For instance, this could easily mean an eclipse. How many eclipses have we seen in the past 2000 years?
"The moon will become as blood." Ever seen a harvest moon? Well there have been about 2000 in the last 2000 years, and it sure does look like the moon 'has became like blood'.
So please enlighten me on as to which prophecies you speak of, and how exactly they came true. I am sure I can point out a dozen alternate meanings at least.
Now before you the vein in your head explodes, I am not saying that this is the case. The Bible might actually be a ligitimate 'holy' text. Just that your arguments so far are less then convincing. You are right, you don't have to convince me, however. Just pointing out a few things.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted November 11, 2009 07:54 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Can you quote some scientists who say the laws of thermodynamics only apply to our corner of the universe please? Thanks.
So it is your belief then that matter and energy in other parts of the universe is eternal and did not need a cause? Entropy does not exist in those parts of the universe?
It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist.
I think you misunderstand JJ. What he means (afaik) is that none of us can be sure. Science is ever changing, evolving, different theories replace others. It doesn't come to a conclusion and stick with it.
He's not trying to prove that thermodynamics are wrong, he's trying to make you realize that it isn't an absolute truth.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 11, 2009 09:45 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 09:48, 11 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
You are classifying everybody who doesn't believe in YOUR god as an Atheist.
Totally false. I've said in this thread for example that some Buddhits beieve in gods [more than one.] I did not say they were atheists. In fact I made the opposite statement that Buddhism is not an atheist religion but a non-theistic religion as Buddha said nothing about whether God exists or not.
As for JJ, he has argued quite a few times that God does not exist so I think he would be classified as an atheist. I asked Corribus how he would define himself. He says he does not believe God exists but for some reason saying he is an atheist offends him.
So please stop with the false allegations.
Quote:
Even assuming ALL of that, despite lack of proof, you have not proven that the being/entity YOU believe in is the cause of such. While you certainly do not have to prove any such thing, your arguments lose any validity until you do so. Every other religion from A to Z has JUST as valid an argument.
Nope. I already said why the book of Mormon is a fake. Large parts of it were copied from the King James Version of the book of Isaiah. Certain of those verses in Isaiah had been not quite translated correctly in the King James version.
But I don't like to go around saying this or that religino is not correct in general. I only said that about Mormons becuase of your previous claims.
I have only been arguing for theism, not that thermodymaics proves the God of the Bible is in fact the true God. God as described in the Bible would certainly fit the bill though.
The Bible teaches that God is eternal, self existant, transcends the universe, created time and space, all-powerful, and other things that are consistant with what would be required.
You are the one continually bringing the Bible and Jesus into this discussion. I've only been arguing for theism. I've made a few comments about your comments about "old scroll/books"/whatever.
Quote:
So please enlighten me on as to which prophecies you speak of, and how exactly they came true. I am sure I can point out a dozen alternate meanings at least.
No, I won't waste my time. You already said you won't accept them. And previously you said you believe a god [or maybe more than one] exists but that he/she is not the God described in the Bible. You said you won't believe in any God that teaches homoexual sex is sin.
So no, I'm not going to waste my time putting together such a list of prophecies as there is no point.
Quote:
Now before you the vein in your head explodes, I am not saying that this is the case.
I'm a very calm person. No exploding veins for me.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 11, 2009 10:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You already said you won't accept them. And previously you said you believe a god [or maybe more than one] exists but that he/she is not the God described in the Bible. You said you won't believe in any God that teaches homoexual sex is sin
Close, but not quite. Missed by >.< much. It could very well be the one described in YOUR bible (there are others), or it could be the Cadbury bunny for all I know. Also I never said I would not accept the prophecies, just that ALL prophecies are made so as to have many interpretations so that their is very little chance of them ever being wrong.
Also, I said I would not believe in a God that holds Double Standards. Which the God of your bible does. Actually even that much is not true. With enough proof, I would believe in that God.
I am not out to disprove any deity, but seek proof of a deity. So far, I have not found that. Seems I am not the only one who can be accused of 'putting words in peoples mouths'.
Your so called proof that the Mormon bible is false is a bit sketchy. It could very well be that YOUR version was wrongly translated. Of course, there will be the "But this text..." or "No this person..." or "We have the original documents...." which can indeed be accurate..but since we were not around at that time, and others claim otherwise..well..I'll leave it at that.
Every other 'sect' of Christianity that does not believe exactly as you do would/will use the same claim. That your version is not translated correctly, or not interpreted correctly, or outright mistaken. Which is interesting to me. As you would think a 'divine book' would not leave ANY possible confusion, possible misinterpreting, or improper translations. Yes, I know..I know .. here comes the .."Each verse can only mean one thing, etc..etc..etc" Which of course is only what YOU think it should mean.
Also as a 'theist' I can say that you are not arguing for me. Because I know there may be another reason for the creation of the universe besides a divine force (although I certainly HOPE not). It may be yet beyond our meger human knowledge to know, understand, or even guess at what..but that does not mean it isn't out there by any means.
We may find out in 1000 years that the rule about matter and energy not being able to be created is FALSE. That it can happen naturally under very specific circumstances that we havn't even began to consider yet.
A claim of a being outside of space and time, not limited by that space and time is all well and good. That is faith. An uncaused cause is fine, because again that is faith. Trying to pass it off as FACT is another thing entirely.
____________
Message received.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted November 11, 2009 10:17 AM |
|
|
Eli-kins, to my mind, Jesus was a man, a mortal man, who had some brilliant ideas and great charisma. he was able to persuade people that loving thy neighbour is a great philosophy. and he died fighting for his cause.
to my mind, he is one of the greatest examples of human acheivement, the martyr who never backs down from his beliefs. and because of that, what he did and what he said means more, to me. if he were the son of god, that would seem like a cop-out, saying "oh yes, he's divine and he preached these messages, so that means he was destined and blah de blah."
To me, jesus is a greater person because he was human and did amazing deeds. the idea of miracles, to me, is bunk, so what he said "blessed are the meek," and so on, make him more important than a semi-dvine brat on earth because his dad knocked up a 14 year old girl.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 11, 2009 10:32 AM |
|
|
Elodin, you still doesn't seem to grasp that the laws of Thermodynamics need a CLOSED system to be valid. The word CLOSED does even appear in all phrasings. And since I'm sick of repeating the same thing over and over again, this time I'll do it step by step.
Step A) The laws of Thermodynamics are valid only for CLOSED systems. Agreed, yes or no?
Step B) Step A means, that the Laws of Thermodynamics can be valid for the system "universe in its entireness" (whatever that may be) only if said system is a CLOSED one. Closed means, that nothing gets in and nothing gets out.
Step C) If you start looking now for an EXTERNAL force with an influence on it - like god -, the system IMMEDIATELY becomes EITHER open (to god) which would make the laws of Thermodynamics invalid for the universe OR it makes god PART of the universe in its entireness - but then god wouldn't be an external force anymore.
You see that logical problem?
ALTERNATIVE A:
If you - or anyone else for that matter - is postulating an OUTSIDE force responsible for universe creation, whether it's called god or something else, it makes our universe an OPEN system (that force can become active any time again, invalidating the laws of Thermnodynamics, for example by creating something more, lengthening or shortening living time of the universe, calling up judgement day, you get the drift). In short, you proclaim the existance of a force than can, and does or did invalidate the laws of Thermodynamics.
ALTERNATIVE B:
If you postulate an INSIDE force which is PART of the universe, the universe IS closed, so the Laws of Thermodynamics DO apply to that system - but then you had the problem that
EITHER the universe would have had created itself indeed "out of nothing" OR had no end and no beginning OR was a mix of these.
{sidenotes]Note, that BOTH alternatives seem to amount to something like the conclusion that there "never" has been nothing (or always has been "something", whether you call that god or differently. As an additional note, the German philosopher Schelling did try in his system of transcendental idealism 200 years ago to explain how something may come from nothing. As a third note I think we see a comparable principle at work in mathematics. The body of Q - integers and their fractions - the ratioonal numbers are simply a very dense chain of points, with a point having zero dimensions. This changes when adding the irrational numbers, roots and infinitesimal numbers and so on. This body - as a line - has one dimension because the irrational numbers cannot be "fixed" to any specific point. It's comparable with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. If you take square root of 2 and determine the value up to 4 digits to 1.4142 the next digit may be anything from 0 up to 9 and as long as you do not determine the next digit the value is there somehow, but UNCERTAIN. This makes it possible to draw a line instead of having an infinite number of unconnected points. [/sidenotes]
[sidetrack]
Of course things are one hell of a lot more complicated than that. Personally I think that the entropy concept would be one of the most abused concepts ever. I suppose Corribus will be the first one (I suspect, in this point he's thinking along similar lines than me). That life and consciousness is obviously combatting entropy: remember, entropy is a measure of how ordered (or more correct, chaotic) a system is, and the vision of "the end of time" with the highest possible entropy would see the universe uniformly tempered, and uniformly dense, a random chaotic shuffle of stuff devoid of anything organized that would basically look the same at any randomly chosen point.
Conscious life is obviously the exact opposite of that tendency. For all we know "life" organizes itself to ever more complex (that is, higher organized) forms. The stuff that is supposed to have the tendency to "disorganize" seems to be intent on organizing itself, which is a property of the stuff itself: there are lots of ways for stuff to interact with each other to form stable, orgamnized stuff.
In any case it certainly is possible for life, provided it's highly enough developed, to locally stop and even reverse entropy. Life itself does this, it's happening on Earth, meanwhile on a bigger level, and Science Fiction basically does nothing else than showing how higher developed life does keep the entropy - locally - on a low level. You might say the system provides the means to offer entropy a tough battle at least.
The interesting part is of course anti-matter. That one is fact, sealed and proven, no way around that. Nor around the fact that anti-particles are - for all practical purposes - are travelling backwards in time. Is it so far off to suspect a universe out of anti-matter? If particles are always created in PAIRS - and that's the case -, since there is a universe of matter there necessarily MUST be one out of anti-matter - but where is it? They would destroy each other on contact, wouldn't they, so the logical conclusion is that there IS NO contact. One possible logical conclusion is a separation in TIME. Time would run in the opposite direction.
Of course this is staggering and pretty mind-boggling, but it's pretty logical as well. No one said we have to be able to understand everything at this point of our development.[/sidetrack]
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 11, 2009 10:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
As for JJ, he has argued quite a few times that God does not exist so I think he would be classified as an atheist.
I don't think so. What I said was, that I'm dead certain IF a god exists it is UNLIKE the one described in the bible. I don't think an entity that WANTS or DEMANDS to be worshipped is WORTH being worshipped, which means, that I'm willing to bet my immortal soul on the fact that a being that could do all the things the bible says he can - eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful, and so on - wouldn't ACT like the bible describes it, because that being would be, well, smart enough to realize that. There would be no eternal hell either, there would no fury, no killings and so on. No necessity to worship.
In other words - I think that the combination of traits and properties described in the Bible does not exist. That doesn't make me an atheist, albeit I could be one.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 11, 2009 01:27 PM |
|
|
Ah well, you have certainly said quite a few things that would be rather strange for a theist or agnostic to say. Here are a couple. I really can't be bothered in making an extensive list.
Quote:
"God" is simply a different name for "we have not the slightest at the moment how things really work, what we live in, how it has come to pass, what the basic elements of reality are and some couple billions other questions".
I agree with Corribus in the other thread. "Odd" is not really a fitting label for a belief because that would suggest there are reasonable ones.
So just to clarify your position. Do you now say God (or gods) exist, does not exist, or that you don't know if a diety exists or not.
As for the universe, it is a closed system by definition. The universe consists of all the matter and entergy that exists. If you claim there are multiverses, then insert that word.
As for saying there is no closed system if God exists, that is not so. Science deals with matter and energy not Spirit.
And certainly I quoted scientists who say the laws of thermodynamics imply the existence of God.
@dixie-chick
In Jesus we see God existing as a man. So yes, Jesus is human. He is God living a human life. When God began to exist as the man Jesus he did not cease to exist as the Eternal Spirit who fills and transcends all of space and time. In Jesus God lived and experienced life as a real man. And yea, during the 3.6 years of his teaching ministry he did do miracles.
You are of course entitiled to your beliefs.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 11, 2009 02:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So just to clarify your position. Do you now say God (or gods) exist, does not exist, or that you don't know if a diety exists or not.
Just to clarify my position. I'm DEAD CERTAIN that THE GOD THE BIBLE DISCRIBES does not exist, and I believe that it's unreasonable to believe in such a being. However, since people do unreasonable things all the time, myself included, I have no general problem with that.
For whether there is ANY god or gods, I haven't got the slightest clue - and frankly I do see no compelling reason to believe SOMEthing, just so I can complete the picture or something. I don't feel obliged to "decide" on something. You might say that I don't like to believe - or more accurately guess - ildly around, if there is no necessity or "gain" obvious.
Quote:
As for the universe, it is a closed system by definition. The universe consists of all the matter and entergy that exists. If you claim there are multiverses, then insert that word.
As for saying there is no closed system if God exists, that is not so. Science deals with matter and energy not Spirit.
Well, that's nonsense, sorry. You cannot order science what it is supposed to deal with, nor can you order the universe what it is supposed to consist of or be. Nor do you define whether the universe is a closed system or not, because it either is or it is not. IF, I say IF, a creator-god exists he's either part of his creation or not, internally or externally. If he's internal the laws of thermodynamics have no absolute validity because in this case the universe was created out of itself in some unknown way. If the creator-god is external, the system isn't closed, because there's something beyond the universe that influences it. and it doesn't matter at all how you call that, god, spirit, or whatever.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted November 11, 2009 04:17 PM |
|
|
Eli-kins. I mean it's much more special is Jesus christ has no connection with god. it shows the power of human acheivement, against all odds. This is much better than saying that he is god in human form, as god would do these things anyway as he is all powerful, all knowing and all benevolent (supposedly).
if jesus is a man who stands up and says "sharings good, loving your neighbour is good, respect everyone", that not only makes him bold and great, but an example to follow. he sents an example for people to follow, whatever creed they may be, because of the fact he is human. if he is gods son, then that seperates from the people, and thus distances his message.
that's one of the reasons why I think there were no miracles, as your attention is drawn to Jesus's trick and powers, rather than what the guy was actually saying, which is the important message. I don't care that he died for our sins and rose from the dead, but his messages about pseudo-communism and respect for others, that I can care about.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 11, 2009 04:54 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 16:55, 11 Nov 2009.
|
@Elodin
Quote:
I asked Corribus how he would define himself. He says he does not believe God exists but for some reason saying he is an atheist offends him.
First, whatever I happen to believe in, I do recognize the limitations of belief.
Second, what I do not care for is being pigeonholed into a category by virtue of a label that someone chooses to give me. As soon as you tell people "I'm an atheist", they make all sorts of assumptions about what you're required to believe in. Same thing goes for political parties. I am officially registered as a Republican, although I only vote that way probably about 50% of the time. One time someone asked me if I was a democrat or a republican, and I answered republican, and before I could say anything else they were chastizing me for supporting the war in Iraq. So now, when someone asks me what my religion is, or what my political party is, or what I am, I just say, "I am me."
Just taking a look at some of your cosmologists/astrophysicists that you claim support the idea of thermodynamics justifying God:
Quote:
Van Wylen, then Dean of Engineering (University of Michagan), senior author of Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics
Quote:
John M. Cimbala
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
The Pennsylvania State University
Engineers? I said cosmologist/astrophycists. I want you to give me a reputable expert in cosmological theories and relativistic thermodynamics who has stated in a scientific forum that thermodynamics proves that God created the Universe and not the Big Bang.
Quote:
Robert J. Spitzer, S.J, PhD, (physicist)
*buzzer sound* Robert J. Spitzer is a catholic priest and his Ph.D. is in philosophy, not physics. He has held university professorships, but they weren't in any scientific discipline. He was a professor of business ethics and philosophy. And he doesn't have a single publication in any scientific journal. So, his opinion here isn't really relevant; hardly an expert in science, let alone cosmological thermodynamics, and certainly not a physicist.
You can see his curriculem vitae here: http://www.robertspitzer.org/curriculum-vitae.htm
Is this the best you can do? Not really impressed. And certainly if you're going to lie about the credentials of the people who allegedly support your point of view, you can't really expect that anyone is going to take what you say seriously, can you?
@JollyJoker
Quote:
Personally I think that the entropy concept would be one of the most abused concepts ever. I suppose Corribus will be the first one (I suspect, in this point he's thinking along similar lines than me).
Yes, most people don't really understand it. I always laugh when people see a dirty room and they say, "Well, that's entropy for you!", but that's not really what entropy is.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 11, 2009 08:29 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 20:33, 11 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
Is this the best you can do? Not really impressed. And certainly if you're going to lie about the credentials of the people who allegedly support your point of view, you can't really expect that anyone is going to take what you say seriously, can you?
You are the liar if you say I am lying about anyone's credentials. The articles I pulled up about him refered to him as a physicist.
I've listed plenty of scietists. Oh and mechanical engineers are something of experts in thermodynamics. Not to mention that Van Wylen was the dean of engineering at Michagan University and wrote the most widely used thermodynamics textbook out there.
The fact is entropy means the universe is not eternal, as do observations. And everything of matter and energy needs a cause. If you claim everything maternial does not need a cuase, pleas go back to college and take some refresher courses.
Oh, you seem to be ignorant that all the scientits I have refered to in the thread say God caused the singularity that resulted in the Big Bang (everything that has a begining needs a cause dispite you seemingly thinking otherwise.)
Oh, and in my previous quotes Smoot (astrophyicist) said "“There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”
And Davies said, "But if the phenomenon is all of existence the entire physical universe then clearly there is nothing physical outside the universe (by definition) to explain it. So any explanation must be in terms of something non-physical and supernatural. That something is god."
So Davies (astrophysicist) said the universe needs something outside it as a cause and that the cause is God.
There. He said God caused the Big Bang.
I've already provided what you initially asked for.
Next you'll be asking for an astrophysicist whose last name is Dudly, has a nickname of BoBo and dyes his hair purple, goes to a polka dance every third Monday in June, has a dog name Elmo, 4 kids, and a wife named Bebe.
Quote:
Just to clarify my position. I'm DEAD CERTAIN that THE GOD THE BIBLE DISCRIBES does not exist, and I believe that it's unreasonable to believe in such a being. However, since people do unreasonable things all the time, myself included, I have no general problem with that.
You are entitled to your unreasonable beliefs.
Sorry, all things that have a beginning do need a cause and we knot the universe had a beginning.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 11, 2009 09:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
[
There. He said God caused the Big Bang.
Which makes him a preacher but no scientist.
Quote:
Sorry, all things that have a beginning do need a cause and we knot the universe had a beginning.
Sorry to disappoint you, but we know nothing of that sort.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 11, 2009 09:43 PM |
|
|
Still waiting for the name of an astrophysicist or cosmologist who says that the big bang theory is flawed due to the laws of thermodynamics, and that the same laws support God as the scientific origin of the universe.
...waiting....
...waiting....
...waiting....
...waiting....
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted November 11, 2009 10:42 PM |
|
Edited by dimis at 22:50, 11 Nov 2009.
|
You might find it handy Corribus ...
____________
The empty set
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
posted November 11, 2009 10:53 PM |
|
Edited by dimis at 22:53, 11 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
I've listed plenty of scietists. Oh and mechanical engineers are something of experts in thermodynamics.
Sure, that's why we call them engineers and not scientists in the first place.
Why am I posting anyway ? *runs away*
____________
The empty set
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 11, 2009 11:24 PM |
|
|
*runs after in an attempt to drag dimis back to his doom*
Also, I don't understand how it matters who says something, isn't it what they actually say (their attempt to convince) that matters?
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
