It appears that RenewedMind has been raptured by the Almighty Spaghetti Monster and will no longer be able to grace us with his presence.
Mebbe so, Dallas.
I'll give him a little more time though. Then I'll say my piece about the "superior" brand of "science" that he's advocating. Not here though - I'll need a fresh thread for that.
Maintain a holding pattern to see more. Ok?
BornAA.
Biblo Confident Learner
Joined: Sep 08, 2009
Posts: 79
Posted:
Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:26 am
BornAgainAthiest wrote:
The God of the Bible, by supposedly permitting us free will and supposedly granting us the ability to choose to believe in Him or not, is therefore not a tyrant of the same order as Troy Brooks. With Troy you have no choice at all. You
must
conform or face instant condemnation. With Troy there is no, "Come let us reason together..." because with him there can be no reasoning. Does that read better?
Why don't you feel you have a number of choices before you at any particular moment? Jesus said He would be killed and mocked even called evil, so will those who love Him. The world is jealous of us and they joy of the Spirit in our lives. Jesus said you are "condemned already" (John 3.1 for good reason, because you call Jesus a liar. He makes a liar out of you. Don't sin bearing false witness but come to the table and discern the facts. What naturalistic theory do you have to account for the resurrection data? What makes you think the universe could just happen all by itself?
How can you be born-again atheist? Isn't that a contradiction, since you can only been born physically once? Atheists are naturalists. But you can be born-again in Christ, because your spirit is given eternal life.
iPondR Graduate Thinker
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
Posts: 534
Location: Aussie Prawn Facility; District 10
Posted:
Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:42 am
Biblo wrote:
you can be born-again in Christ, because your spirit is given eternal life.
actually isn't the spirit eternal to begin with?
if you look at the Hebrew origin of the concept
surely, what you mean to say is that Christ will give an eternal life in his presence i.e. heaven
_________________ I take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance, any day... - Douglas Adams
Biblo Confident Learner
Joined: Sep 08, 2009
Posts: 79
Posted:
Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:34 am
Your spirit is eternally existing but devoid of eternal life: ability to know God and eternal blessings.
"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" (John 17.3).
You know what's neat? It's like there is a verse for every ailment of thought, feel, volition, body, conscience, communion and intuition problem a person can have.
Please do not feed this troll. Reggie will be banning him (again!) asap. Thank you.
_________________ Nietzsche was wrong - god never lived.
ExposeNWO Just Arrived
Joined: Sep 02, 2010
Posts: 1
Posted:
Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:46 pm
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6811FN20100902
God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book
MockingGods Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5693
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Thu Sep 02, 2010 8:38 pm
Welcome to the forums ExposeNWO
ExposeNWO wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6811FN20100902
God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book
Great article, thanks for the link
_________________ Believing Yahweh could send someone to hell is just like believing Zeus could strike someone with a lightning bolt.
Religion: Born of human imagination, sustained by unapproachable dogma.
kurdistan101 Confident Learner
Joined: Sep 02, 2010
Posts: 67
Posted:
Sat Sep 04, 2010 1:08 pm
I have been reading these post, and its given me hell trying to make sense, maybe I'm not as intelegent as you guys, but there has to be a simple way to explain this, so I went to wikipidia and got the following:
The argument for a Prime Mover is based on a foundation of Aristotelian metaphysics. Some physicists[who?] feel that the development of the laws of thermodynamics in the 19th century and quantum physics in the 20th century have weakened a purely scientific expression of the cosmological argument.
Physicist Michio Kaku directly addresses the cosmological argument in his book Hyperspace, saying that it is easily dismissed by the law of conservation of energy and the laws governing molecular physics.
He gives an example— "gas molecules may bounce against the walls of a container without requiring anything or anyone to get them moving except the walls of the container."
According to Kaku, these molecules could move forever, without beginning or end. So, there is no need for a First Mover to explain the origins of motion.
It is argued that a challenge to the cosmological argument is the nature of time, "One finds that time just disappears from the Wheeler–DeWitt equation" - Carlo Rovelli.
The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time. Then, the question "What was there before the Universe?" makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time. This has been put forward by J. Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, and Beatrice M. Tinsley, who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole.
_________________ ''By simple common sense I don't believe in God, in none" ~ Charlie Chaplin
"I am at peace with God. My conflict is with Man"
Charlie Chaplin.
MockingGods Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5693
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:40 pm
kurdistan101 wrote:
Physicist Michio Kaku directly addresses the cosmological argument in his book Hyperspace, saying that it is easily dismissed by the law of conservation of energy and the laws governing molecular physics.
He gives an example— "gas molecules may bounce against the walls of a container without requiring anything or anyone to get them moving except the walls of the container."
According to Kaku, these molecules could move forever, without beginning or end. So, there is no need for a First Mover to explain the origins of motion.
I just love Michio's approach to physics... he's a personal favorite and also an early guest on Reggie's show
Quote:
The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time.
This concept is loosing some ground to multiverse theory, in my opinion. Inflation theory also discounts the "Big Bang" as the originator of "ALL" space and time. I'm still of the opinion there is no limit to existence and "Big Bangs" are simply localized events, be they caused by quantum fluctuations, brane collisions, or something else.
_________________ Believing Yahweh could send someone to hell is just like believing Zeus could strike someone with a lightning bolt.
Religion: Born of human imagination, sustained by unapproachable dogma.
BornAgainAthiest Graduate Thinker
Joined: Jun 16, 2008
Posts: 669
Location: Here.
Posted:
Tue Sep 07, 2010 8:25 pm
Quote:
The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time.
This concept is loosing some ground to multiverse theory, in my opinion. Inflation theory also discounts the "Big Bang" as the originator of "ALL" space and time. I'm still of the opinion there is no limit to existence and "Big Bangs" are simply localized events, be they caused by quantum fluctuations, brane collisions, or something else.[/quote]
I'd just like to add my 50cents worth here, you guys.
All of the competing theories that are currently being examined by scientists
have
to agree with the detected evidence. If they fail to do so, they are discarded. So agreement with evidence is vital. Another test of a theory's explanatory power is it's ability to make a prediction that is later confirmed by data.
The standard Big Bang model is well supported by many independent lines of evidence and confirmed data. However, what the Theist's don't like to say openly is that it's also incomplete.
They concentrate on those aspects of the theory that line up nicely with their religious beliefs and either don't mention or downplay those that don't. AlphaOmega did this recently in the, "Who created God?" thread. He didn't look at the full ramifications of what Inflation did to the early universe and came away with some misconceptions about it. He's yet to respond further, so I'll say no more about this.
However, I would like to make some points about the 'incompleteness' of current Big Bang Theory.
1
.
If it were complete, the Theists would have a much stronger case. They could point to it being the real origin of all things. Right now, they cannot do that - because we cannot confidently say that the Big Bang IS the origination of everything. It might be or it might not. Theists will naturally want it to be so. But it's up to us to wag a cautionary finger at them when they say it is and point out that it is not proven so. The jury is still out!
2
.
Cosmologists have proposed new theories, incorporating the Big Bang event in one way or another. For example, there's the Ekpyrotic theory of Brane collisions. Another adaptation is Chaotic Eternal Inflation theory (a Multiversal theory). Loop Quantum Gravity theory is another. There are many more, but what all of these competing models
must
do is to successfully incorporate the observed data of the Big Bang event. I covered this and the necessity of prediction and confirmation in my first paragraph, above.
3.
So, my understanding of these matters runs like this.
If Ekpyrotic theory is correct, then we would still observe a Big Bang event and conclude that it happened 13.7 billion years ago. If Chaotic Eternal Inflation theory is correct, ditto. If Loop Quantum Gravity theory is correct, ditto. In fact, any over-arching theory that incorporates the Big Bang event
must
do this. I know that it sounds blindingly obvious, but there are two important conclusions that can be drawn from this point.
4.
Firstly, this puts all competing theories on a level playing field. So when a Theist says that the Big Bang theory is the best supported one, we should then point out that...
A. It's incomplete and doesn't stand on it's own - it has to be part of a larger, over-arching theory.
B. Which over-arching theory are they referring to? There are many. Please specify.
C. They should also differentiate between the Big Bang event and the Big Bang theory. The theory (as mentioned earlier) is incomplete because it simply describes the event. It says nothing about what, if anything, might have caused the event. Current theories are striving to do just that.
5
.
Secondly, because all competing theories must fit with the observed data (they would have been discarded if they didn't) nobody can legitimately say which one is correct. Any of them could be the right one. Theists are jumping the gun if they say that Theory 'X' is the right one or
must be
the right one. Any cosmologist who says the same is just as guilty. That's not how it works. The theory that best fits the data and makes the best predictions is the one which should be considered the best description of reality. That is the acid test.
Thanks,
BAA.
_________________ Nietzsche was wrong - god never lived.
MockingGods Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5693
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Wed Sep 08, 2010 5:16 am
BAA wrote:
Any of them could be the right one.
or none of them
_________________ Believing Yahweh could send someone to hell is just like believing Zeus could strike someone with a lightning bolt.
Religion: Born of human imagination, sustained by unapproachable dogma.
iPondR Graduate Thinker
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
Posts: 534
Location: Aussie Prawn Facility; District 10
Posted:
Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:24 am
MockingGods wrote:
BAA wrote:
Any of them could be the right one.
or none of them
and... just to make life even MORE interesting, the following for consideration;
"It also puts a new slant on the question of why the laws of physics seem to be so fine-tuned for life. It could be that it's only fine-tuned in this corner of the universe."
fine tuned-ness may well be a 'localised' phenomenon i.e. the disposition of 'matter' in the universe seems to be important in how cosmologists direct their observations and interpret them...
I would not be surprised if these were the after effect of some gravity-wave type phenomenon, but that's just IMHO... i.e. NOT designed!
Take home message (theists!) 'don't make cosmic leaps before you look' [that's if you have the psychological need for science to validate your theism]
[PS] - if this localised (ie still on a vast scale) fine structure constant fine-tunedness is true, this would also have an effect on the SETI type of estimates etc, so I'm going to cross post this on the 'Dawkins believes in Aliens' thread... OK?
_________________ I take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance, any day... - Douglas Adams
BornAgainAthiest Graduate Thinker
Joined: Jun 16, 2008
Posts: 669
Location: Here.
Posted:
Wed Sep 08, 2010 12:50 pm
Hmmm.... (Thinks)
A quick read thru of the ABC article prompts a number of thoughts.
1
.
To a degree, this
does
play into the Theist's hands.
They've already co-opted the Fine-Tuning evidence for their own purposes and now they'll want to play the God-favors-only-the-Earth card. Once again, it falls to us to put them right. The astronomers are talking about minor differences to the Fine Structure Constant over scales of anything up 24 billion light-years, that is, 12 billion to the celestial North (for Keck) and the same to the South for the VLT. So we are not talking about a small volume of space like the Milky Way, the Local Group of galaxies it belongs to or even the nearby Virgo Supercluster. No sireee!
This page... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe ...states that the distance to the edge of the observable universe is calculated to be 46.5 billion light-years, in any direction. So, doing the maths, we can see that Webb is right, the measurements
do
cover a significant portion of the observable universe. Therefore, we can safely say that tho'
some
of the universe isn't so well tuned for life, a lot of it still is. Many thousands of superclusters of galaxies. Each galaxy containing billions of stars. Many of those stars having planets. Many of those planets having the right conditions for life.
So, the fat lady hasn't sung yet and it's too early (and plain wrong) for the Theists to cry, "Victory!"
2
.
How about this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB Please read the section, 'Low multipoles and other anomalies'. Are these polarities real or just an artifact of foreground contamination? If they are real, then maybe there is some ultra-large scale structure to the universe. Please note that I'm not implying anything that causes the space-time continuum to diverge from it's observed 'flatness'. That's a different issue altogether, related to the interplay of mass, gravity and the curvature of space-time. The Fine Structure Constant, as I understand it, has to do with the strength of the electric charge in Electromagnetic interactions at the atomic and quantum scales. As far as I can see, the only time that these two things (the FSC and the curvature of space-time) would have interacted was in the very earliest phases of the Big Bang event. The four fundamental forces (Gravity, the Strong and the Weak nuclear forces and Electromagnetism) split away from each other thru the process of symmetry-breaking and have been distinct and separate things since then.
5
.
re: SETI estimates...
The Drake Equation was drafted to deal with conditions in the best known galaxy to science - our own! Applying it to other galaxies
may
be viable, but I reckon that the further away you go, the less reliable it becomes. There's a whole raft of reasons for this. Too many to cover adequately here. (But I will elaborate, if asked to. ) The question that comes up in my mind tho' is, 'So what?' E.T.'s in other galaxies are (imho) irrelevant. It's the nearby aliens that interest me - the ones that we can detect within my lifetime. Yes, I know that's selfish. But that's my p.o.v. on this.
6
.
Whoops! I've hopped over to the wrong thread. I should be elsewhere. Bye!
BAA.
_________________ Nietzsche was wrong - god never lived.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
for good reason, because you call Jesus a liar. He makes a liar out of you. Don't sin bearing false witness but come to the table and discern the facts. What naturalistic theory do you have to account for the resurrection data? What makes you think the universe could just happen all by itself?
(Thinks)
) The question that comes up in my mind tho' is, 'So what?' E.T.'s in other galaxies are (imho) irrelevant. It's the nearby aliens that interest me - the ones that we can detect within my lifetime. Yes, I know that's selfish. But that's my p.o.v. on this.