|
2 registered members (TipmyPip, Ayumi),
773
guests, and 3
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: ICEman]
#76237
06/19/06 11:19
06/19/06 11:19
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
You assume automatically that the default position is your position; namely that it makes more sense that an 'infinite' nothingness created the universe than an 'infinite' something. You're trying to control the argument by making me assume you're right and thus forcing me to argue against your position.
You are reading the wrong things between the lines I think. I'm not trying to control anyone, infact you seem to dodge the whole point(s) I made. I don't force anyone to belief anything, infact if you think so, then you should think about it. Why did you think that I was 'forcing you into believing something'? Not only is this untrue in my opinion, but if you really think so, then you should ask yourself wether I'm not simply right, but you don't wish to give in...  
By the way, there's no 'default position' involved, since science has proven that 'something can come from nothing', but yeah you don't believe that obviously, since it would contradict your belief. 
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: PHeMoX]
#76238
06/19/06 15:44
06/19/06 15:44
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 535
Michigan
ICEman
Developer
|
Developer
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 535
Michigan
|
@ Phemox
Where has science proven something can come from nothing? The basis of science is matter and energy.. all things that are something are either matter or energy.. or if you like..anitmatter.. all are composite of "something" regardless of its infinitessimal smallness (which I suppose is what we term as "nothing" after a certain point of immeasurability to us). Neither comes from nothing. Sporatic neogenesis is not physically possible for matter or energy (springing forth from nothingness) and neither is it possible for more complex arrangements of matter/energy, such as radio isotopes.. Roentgen rays, DNA sequences, living tissue.. to spring forth..from absolutely nothing ("nothing"..cannot suddenly become.. Phemox..or ICEman or X Rays or Muon Neutrinos.. all of those are composite of noncomplex matter or energy..which granted beyond our scale of detection.. are not "nothing".)
I'm ICEman, and I approved this message.
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: GhostwriterDoF]
#76240
06/19/06 18:01
06/19/06 18:01
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
They're created by chemical processes, energy, and so forth. Science can't prove that something can come from nothing. The creation of matter in vacuum energy still requires a vaccuum (space, time, but no matter). Science can only prove that we don't know the cause. But that doesn't rule out the fact that we might find a cause in the future. What if we had said, "We don't know what causes the weather, and we'll never know." That would be the end of reason. Quote:
You are reading the wrong things between the lines I think. I'm not trying to control anyone, infact you seem to dodge the whole point(s) I made. I don't force anyone to belief anything, infact if you think so, then you should think about it. Why did you think that I was 'forcing you into believing something'? Not only is this untrue in my opinion, but if you really think so, then you should ask yourself wether I'm not simply right, but you don't wish to give in...
There's a psychology to debate. One major pattern I've noticed is that evolutionists try to control the debate, for one reason or another, because that way they can decide where the debate goes, and change the subject quickly if things get too difficult.
It seemed to me that you were trying to control the debate. By ignoring our comparison of logic and instead asking me to prove that there is something supernatural, you were trying to distract me away from the real discussion, and control the argument by forcing me to argue in an arena where I can't possibly win.
Quote:
By the way, there's no 'default position' involved, since science has proven that 'something can come from nothing', but yeah you don't believe that obviously, since it would contradict your belief.
Something coming from nothing isn't a problem for my belief. Because technically even if matter can be created out of a vacuum, there's still something in place. Otherwise where or when does the matter go?
My qualm is with the idea that an infinite nothingness could somehow create our universe. It defies logic. But since you seem to have given up on the logic portion of our discussion, I guess we don't need to bother with that.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: testDummy]
#76241
06/19/06 19:50
06/19/06 19:50
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Quote:
No buddy that is wrong... Eden or heaven is actually in the new game we are making. <see screenshot below>
What makes you think there are pirate kitties in heaven? If you are going to use heavenly pirate kitties I hope you are working them into the storyline properly. (If done incorrectly there might be loop holes in the plot and, shockingly, some parts of the story might not make sense.) "Yaarg, er, I mean meow. Hand over the kitty treats, the tuna fish, and the Purina Cat chow or walk the plank, and get swatted at like a ball of yarn. Yaarg, there be treasure in my litter box, if ye scoop it."
Wow ...funny! Whas the deal with the pirate dog?
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: ICEman]
#76242
06/19/06 23:12
06/19/06 23:12
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
@ Phemox
Where has science proven something can come from nothing? The basis of science is matter and energy.. all things that are something are either matter or energy.. or if you like..anitmatter.. all are composite of "something" regardless of its infinitessimal smallness (which I suppose is what we term as "nothing" after a certain point of immeasurability to us). Neither comes from nothing. Sporatic neogenesis is not physically possible for matter or energy (springing forth from nothingness) and neither is it possible for more complex arrangements of matter/energy, such as radio isotopes.. Roentgen rays, DNA sequences, living tissue.. to spring forth..from absolutely nothing ("nothing"..cannot suddenly become.. Phemox..or ICEman or X Rays or Muon Neutrinos.. all of those are composite of noncomplex matter or energy..which granted beyond our scale of detection.. are not "nothing".)
The part in italics is an assumption. And science has already proven it to be in error, unless I've misunderstood something.
Don't want to be rude, but it has already been discussed;
Quote:
The same goes for the science proof for things without cause - we've already discussed Bell's theorem and radioactive decay of single atoms here.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: PHeMoX]
#76243
06/20/06 00:23
06/20/06 00:23
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 535
Michigan
ICEman
Developer
|
Developer
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 535
Michigan
|
If things..especially complex things could come from nothing (as opposed to apparent nothing), nothing in the physical universe would make sense scientifically. Cause and effect would coincidence as opposed to fact, mathematics practically moot as a tool of understanding the patternities that make up our universe. If things could spring from nothing, that could just as much prove the possibility of an omniscient creator (an all powerful god) as it could disprove it. How?.. If things could spring forth from nothing.. then it could be argued that a first being.. sprang from nothing.. and created the universe.. from nothing using only his magic.. I suppose I could submit that noncomplex things come from "nothing".. but then how do you explain the more complex things that exist in our universe. I could be persuaded to believe that the subatomic quarks that make up earth and humanity couldve sprang from nothing (tho I believe they are composite of still lower levels of composition that we have lazily classified as nothing) but the molecular arrangements that compose me..my car..the food I eat..the animals that were my food?.. These things are far too well designed to have come from an infinite nothingness and have come to be without influence.. just as nothing we've created couldve come forth without our making it. Either way, we're still too young to do anything but guess. Things like simple springing forth from nothing just so we can feel a sense of complete understanding (a false sense)....as well as us writing everything we cant explain of as made by an all powerful magic being.. prove that taking on such a large scale inquiry..even for us is.. the same as cavemen trying to pin point a murder suspect using DNA evidence.. even though I'm probably being too generous still with that parallel. IMHO, all of humanity have the wrong ideas about creation.. our origins, orthodox scientists, the deeply religious, athiests.. you all have exactly one thing in common: You bend and twist fact to suite your belief.. and to those who believe as you do, it makes as much sense as they need it to..but where your positions dont make sense you cannot hold it up consistently to all tests (mostly because we dont have all or nearly all the facts and wont know whos right, who isnt right, or if anyone is right at all until we do,..whichll be a long time from now). The only people who truly know something in this world..know that we know nothing at all.
I'm ICEman, and I approved this message.
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: ICEman]
#76244
06/22/06 06:05
06/22/06 06:05
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Radioactive decay is RANDOM, but not causeless. I looked into it a bit more, and unless I've been mislead, its caused by the 'strong' and 'weak' forces in a nucleus.
Bell's theorem, is a bit over my head at this point, so I can't refute what its implications are in depth for the time being. But as far as I know, it only involved things reacting to no cause whatsoever. I don't see the relevance.
Vacuum energy is matter appearing out of a vacuum (a vacuum that includes energy, space, and time). So it does nothing to explain how an infinite nothing could have caused time or space, or for that matter useable energy to be converted or to create matter.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/22/06 06:07.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#76245
06/22/06 07:30
06/22/06 07:30
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
If things..especially complex things could come from nothing (as opposed to apparent nothing), nothing in the physical universe would make sense scientifically.
Such a possibility may well be entertained in theoretical physics. Even if such a proposition were true, how would this render everything senseless to science?
Nothing is essentially a linguistic concept anyway.
|
|
|
|
