Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
...If what you say is true why did Einstein introduce the cosmological constant into his equation? Why didn’t he just leave it as is? Einstein had an agenda because his calculations disproved his belief that the universe was eternal, static...
Static does not mean eternal, and dynamic does not mean temporal. You can have dynamic and eternal together, and something that is static can be temporal.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Okay.If what you say is true why did Einstein introduce the cosmological constant into his equation? Why didn’t he just leave it as is? Einstein had an agenda because his calculations disproved his belief that the universe was eternal, static.
But…the question was simple: do springs wind themselves? The answer is no. This is elementary physics (and you know this).
Skyscrapers don’t create themselves and neither do springs wind themselves. Again, simple physics (that you are aware of).
So…in your mind are quantum fluctuations a type of god? They are eternal or self-created, govern themselves, come and go as they please, and obey no precedent or set of laws/rules? They have the power to create space, time, and matter from nothing, expand it beyond the speed of light (which is unfathomable according to Einstein i.e. E=mc^2), then author other powerful laws (i.e. the fundamental forces) that seemingly preside over and sustain the entire cosmos with mathematical precision and intelligence/wisdom?
This sounds like a god if I ever heard one.
The invisible attributes (i.e. that which we cannot see such as the abstract qualities of God, His omnipotence, omniscience, omnipotence) are manifested by creation (just take a look around at nature).
Which is more difficult to ponder, fathom, or conceive, creating from no preexisting material (not possible except through supernatural means) and creating from already existing material (this happens daily)?
I refuse.
The question is shouldn’t I be weary now.
he introduced the cosmological constant because the rate of expansion of the universe seemed to him, to be faster than the gravitational force should allow it to be. he didnt have an agenda, and the cosmological constant has NOTHING to do with the question of there being or nor being a big bang or a biblical stance on the subject.
yes that is the the answer, springs do not wind themselves, but this universe is not a spring and the analogy, as ive shown does not hold for the universe, it only holds for already present mass and energy INSIDE the universe.
yes, and that again has NOTHING to do with the universe, since your talking about already present mass and energy changing form due to dynamic processes and the creation of mass, energy, space, time and forces out of NOTHING. dont bring this up again
i never said they were god, they rise out of other universes with different cosmological constants{just as they rise at a quantum/sub quantum scale in our space/time} they are the building blocks of existance, and each has a certain frequency and certain characteristics, when they meet another string/fluctuation, they implode and based on their unique patterns, create their reality/dimensions with its cosmological constants which are different from our. however, they are not uncaused causes, as they arise as a DIRECT result of our dimension's EXISTANCE. and einstien's theory of the speed of light refers to things INSIDE the universe, not universe ITSELF, which may be exploding or imploding. i beleive i have told you this literally a hundred times now. mathematical precision exists in all realities based on equivalence and consistancy of dimensions, its an axiom having nothing to do with god. wisdom however, is a creation of your own fantasies.
and were back to square one.how do you KNOW they are being manifested by creation when they are , as you say, INVISIBLE?!?!?!?!?!!?!? forcing the issue wont solve the pradox. and all three of those qualities are neither visible in this world, nor are they consistant with each other and free will and the state of the world. please stop it jia
so what is your point. creating from nothing is impossible to ponder. just as there is POSITIVELY NO evidence that it ever happened. all im asking you to do is stop making fallacious arguments due to the vagueness of the word CREATE, which you apply without prejudice to both creation from nothing and ASSEMBLING from already present materials. leading to false analogies in favour of your point.
i beleive you are wary, not having convinced even one person here, and having most, visibly distance themselves more from your point of view then prior, your involvement. but the insanity of relegion and persecution complexes seem to be enough to keep you coming back for more. have you honestly ever put your relegion away and thought about WHAT youre doing with your life?!
Originally posted by leonheartmm
he introduced the cosmological constant because the rate of expansion of the universe seemed to him, to be faster than the gravitational force should allow it to be. he didnt have an agenda, and the cosmological constant has NOTHING to do with the question of there being or nor being a big bang or a biblical stance on the subject.yes that is the the answer, springs do not wind themselves, but this universe is not a spring and the analogy, as ive shown does not hold for the universe, it only holds for already present mass and energy INSIDE the universe.
yes, and that again has NOTHING to do with the universe, since your talking about already present mass and energy changing form due to dynamic processes and the creation of mass, energy, space, time and forces out of NOTHING. dont bring this up again
i never said they were god, they rise out of other universes with different cosmological constants{just as they rise at a quantum/sub quantum scale in our space/time} they are the building blocks of existance, and each has a certain frequency and certain characteristics, when they meet another string/fluctuation, they implode and based on their unique patterns, create their reality/dimensions with its cosmological constants which are different from our. however, they are not uncaused causes, as they arise as a DIRECT result of our dimension's EXISTANCE. and einstien's theory of the speed of light refers to things INSIDE the universe, not universe ITSELF, which may be exploding or imploding. i beleive i have told you this literally a hundred times now. mathematical precision exists in all realities based on equivalence and consistancy of dimensions, its an axiom having nothing to do with god. wisdom however, is a creation of your own fantasies.
and were back to square one.how do you KNOW they are being manifested by creation when they are , as you say, INVISIBLE?!?!?!?!?!!?!? forcing the issue wont solve the pradox. and all three of those qualities are neither visible in this world, nor are they consistant with each other and free will and the state of the world. please stop it jia
so what is your point. creating from nothing is impossible to ponder. just as there is POSITIVELY NO evidence that it ever happened. all im asking you to do is stop making fallacious arguments due to the vagueness of the word CREATE, which you apply without prejudice to both creation from nothing and ASSEMBLING from already present materials. leading to false analogies in favour of your point.
i beleive you are wary, not having convinced even one person here, and having most, visibly distance themselves more from your point of view then prior, your involvement. but the insanity of relegion and persecution complexes seem to be enough to keep you coming back for more. have you honestly ever put your relegion away and thought about WHAT youre doing with your life?!
How do you know? Did you personally know Einstein?
The universe is not the cause of quantum fluctuations. This is a lie. The amazing thing is that the more preposterous something is the more believeable it is for you (it seems).
They rise out of unproven universes?
Impossible to ponder yet you believe that is what happened without proof (amazing).
So I go against the grain. Not one person has convinced me (and yes I am one among many).
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
How do you know? Did you personally know Einstein?The universe is not the cause of quantum fluctuations. This is a lie. The amazing thing is that the more preposterous something is the more believeable it is for you (it seems).
They rise out of unproven universes?
Impossible to ponder yet you believe that is what happened without proof (amazing).
So I go against the grain. Not one person has convinced me (and yes I am one among many).
i know because he and his associtates said so. we are talking about his public scientific research, not his provate life here.
they rise out of pretty much proven realities based in the weakness of gravity and the solution to the things like the twins paradox/time travel through approaching the speed of light/heisenberg uncertainty principle
huh, i dont beleive anything came from nothingness, even superdimensional strings rise out of and due to the existance of dimensions. YOUR the one arguing that this sumthing came from nothingness due to a supernatural act
no you dont, you go with the flow of dogmas taught and practiced around you. kmc overall goes against the flow. and the reason is that you do not argue logically or concede when you have lost because of fear and limited cognitive spans taught to you by your relegion.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
i know because he and his associtates said so. we are talking about his public scientific research, not his provate life here.they rise out of pretty much proven realities based in the weakness of gravity and the solution to the things like the twins paradox/time travel through approaching the speed of light/heisenberg uncertainty principle
huh, i dont beleive anything came from nothingness, even superdimensional strings rise out of and due to the existance of dimensions. YOUR the one arguing that this sumthing came from nothingness due to a supernatural act
no you dont, you go with the flow of dogmas taught and practiced around you. kmc overall goes against the flow. and the reason is that you do not argue logically or concede when you have lost because of fear and limited cognitive spans taught to you by your relegion.
But you did not personally know Albert Einstein so your statements are untenable.
Just like macroevolution quantum fluctuations have never been proven.
Superdimen...you mean string/superstring theory? That has never been proven either. But I do believe that God created this universe ex nihilio i.e. out of nothing. He is the only One big enough to do it.
Lost? I am not trying to win so how can I lose anything? I believe that I am very logical. Limited cognitive spans...no offense but that phrase sounded real nerdy. Anyhoo, I think that all of us are a product of our environment, teaching, and influence.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But you did not personally know Albert Einstein so your statements are untenable.Just like macroevolution quantum fluctuations have never been proven.
Superdimen...you mean string/superstring theory? That has never been proven either. But I do believe that God created this universe ex nihilio i.e. out of nothing. He is the only One big enough to do it.
Lost? I am not trying to win so how can I lose anything? I believe that I am very logical. Limited cognitive spans...no offense but that phrase sounded real nerdy. Anyhoo, I think that all of us are a product of our environment, teaching, and influence.
you NITIWIT!!! HERE! "Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: gravity would cause a universe which was initially at dynamic equilibrium to contract. To counteract this possibility, Einstein added the cosmological constant.However, soon after Einstein developed his static theory, observations by Edwin Hubble indicated that the universe appears to be expanding; this was consistent with a cosmological solution to the original general-relativity equations that had been found by the mathematician Friedman.
It is now thought that adding the cosmological constant to Einstein's equations does not lead to a static universe at equilibrium because the equilibrium is unstable: if the universe expands slightly, then the expansion releases vacuum energy, which causes yet more expansion. Likewise, a universe which contracts slightly will continue contracting.
Since it no longer seemed to be needed, Einstein abandoned the cosmological constant and called it the '"biggest blunder" of his life. However, the cosmological constant remained a subject of theoretical and empirical interest. Empirically, the onslaught of cosmological data in the past decades strongly suggests that our universe has a positive cosmological constant.[1] The explanation of this small but positive value is an outstanding theoretical challenge (see the section below).
Finally, it should be noted that some early generalizations of Einstein's gravitational theory, known as classical unified field theories, either introduced a cosmological constant on theoretical grounds or found that it arose naturally from the mathematics"
it is COMON KNOWLEDGE why einstien added the cosmological constant. unlike you scientists actually publically give REASONS for why they do things concerning science and research!
both have been proven. i have given you around 5 counts of convincing evidence based in observed and reasearched phenomenon and you choose not to acknowledge it and igonorantly repeat your previous statement. fine then, be my guest, and a fool. facts dont change because of your ignorance though. this is why no1 takes you seriously. oh hey does that mean you DO beleive in microevolution and have been BSing on the other thread?
your beleifs mean nothing here as they arent backed by evidence, nor does your attributed properties of your imaginary friend. nothing has even been made ex nihilo in observation or evidence. and it is a very strong theory with much evidence for it. but ofcourse you even confuse high school physics with psuedoscience so what would you know
but you have lost the argument. and again, your beleifs are nulled by opposing evidence{overwhelming in this case}. it sounds nerdy to sumone who obviously doesnt understand its meaning. are you in highschool jia?
and the last sentence might be the only true thing you have said all day. ofcourse, as you know it nulls free will which you are so fond of
Re: Agnostics or Atheists
Originally posted by Arahael
Is anybody here an agnostic or an atheist? Me? I'm an agnostic. I think that there is a slight chnace that there may be a higher power, but right now it seems pretty unlikely. I'm gonna need some proof before I go back to believin'. Anyone else?
I don't discount the possibility of its existence, but I think that there is a very low probability for its existence. So low, that it might as well be zero.
Originally posted by occultdestroyer
I don't see the reason why there is a need to explain something which isn't there.
Then again, it won't bother me the least bit if we finally find out that GOD does exist either.I'm agnostic. Well, more of a freethinker or a skeptic.
Religion and the supernatural have always been our answers for the unexplainable. That is, until science came along.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
you NITIWIT!!! HERE! "Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: gravity would cause a universe which was initially at dynamic equilibrium to contract. To counteract this possibility, Einstein added the cosmological constant.However, soon after Einstein developed his static theory, observations by Edwin Hubble indicated that the universe appears to be expanding; this was consistent with a cosmological solution to the original general-relativity equations that had been found by the mathematician Friedman.It is now thought that adding the cosmological constant to Einstein's equations does not lead to a static universe at equilibrium because the equilibrium is unstable: if the universe expands slightly, then the expansion releases vacuum energy, which causes yet more expansion. Likewise, a universe which contracts slightly will continue contracting.
Since it no longer seemed to be needed, Einstein abandoned the cosmological constant and called it the '"biggest blunder" of his life. However, the cosmological constant remained a subject of theoretical and empirical interest. Empirically, the onslaught of cosmological data in the past decades strongly suggests that our universe has a positive cosmological constant.[1] The explanation of this small but positive value is an outstanding theoretical challenge (see the section below).
Finally, it should be noted that some early generalizations of Einstein's gravitational theory, known as classical unified field theories, either introduced a cosmological constant on theoretical grounds or found that it arose naturally from the mathematics"
it is COMON KNOWLEDGE why einstien added the cosmological constant. unlike you scientists actually publically give REASONS for why they do things concerning science and research!
both have been proven. i have given you around 5 counts of convincing evidence based in observed and reasearched phenomenon and you choose not to acknowledge it and igonorantly repeat your previous statement. fine then, be my guest, and a fool. facts dont change because of your ignorance though. this is why no1 takes you seriously. oh hey does that mean you DO beleive in microevolution and have been BSing on the other thread?
your beleifs mean nothing here as they arent backed by evidence, nor does your attributed properties of your imaginary friend. nothing has even been made ex nihilo in observation or evidence. and it is a very strong theory with much evidence for it. but ofcourse you even confuse high school physics with psuedoscience so what would you know
but you have lost the argument. and again, your beleifs are nulled by opposing evidence{overwhelming in this case}. it sounds nerdy to sumone who obviously doesnt understand its meaning. are you in highschool jia?
and the last sentence might be the only true thing you have said all day. ofcourse, as you know it nulls free will which you are so fond of
The universe had a beginning just like the Bible reveals. Einstein and Edwin Hubble's discoveries prove this. The universe had a cause and it was not quantum fluctuations. This has never been proven.
Macroevolution and quantum fluctuations have never been proven nor has Superstring Theory.
Microevolution? We are not talking about microevolution; however, I don't believe that I have ever denied that microevolution meaning, variety within species occurs.
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveAre you talking about the red shift from Hubble? I don't see how this proves that the universe had a begining but only explains how thing are moving close or farther away from us, is there something that I am missing?
The universe had a beginning just like the Bible reveals. Einstein and Edwin Hubble's discoveries prove this. The universe had a cause and it was not quantum fluctuations. This has never been proven.Macroevolution quantum fluctuations have never been proven nor has Superstring Theory.
Microevolution? We are not talking about microevolution; however, I don't believe that I have ever denied that microevolution meaning, variety within species occurs.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The universe had a beginning just like the Bible reveals. Einstein and Edwin Hubble's discoveries prove this. The universe had a cause and it was not quantum fluctuations. This has never been proven.Macroevolution quantum fluctuations have never been proven nor has Superstring Theory.
Microevolution? We are not talking about microevolution; however, I don't believe that I have ever denied that microevolution meaning, variety within species occurs.
However, this beginning of the universe you are talking about is not in line with the bible. The bible would lead you to believe that the Earth was created from 6,000 to 8,000 years ago, and science indicated that the big bang happened 13.5 to 14 billion years ago.
The things that Einstein and Hubble discovered do not support the bible's time line.
The Koran also states that the universe was created, why is the bible's creation more valid then the Koran's?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The universe had a beginning just like the Bible reveals. Einstein and Edwin Hubble's discoveries prove this. The universe had a cause and it was not quantum fluctuations. This has never been proven.Macroevolution and quantum fluctuations have never been proven nor has Superstring Theory.
Microevolution? We are not talking about microevolution; however, I don't believe that I have ever denied that microevolution meaning, variety within species occurs.
no it didnt, the bible has been proven false. neither's discoveries prove this, you just do not have the capability or motivation to understand them. your claiming things without evidence and against the conclusions drawn by science. it is a strong enough theory for scientists to give it serious weight, i wonder why you cant do the same?
the two have been proven as much as things can be proven in science, superstring theory again has enough evidence for the entire scientific community and the most brilliant minds in the universe to give it the most weight and spend tens of billions to research it, but oh no, it just isnt enough evidence for almighty JIA. either he is smarter than all the scientific community or too silly to even try and understand science.
you denied micro evolution when you gave the carl sagan quote denying that evolution cud be responsible for humanit and at the same times saying you beleive all the differences in genotype of different humans comes from adam and eve.
now, try adressign the points i made, which show your sources do not know even the BASICS of genetics which theyr trying to base their argument on. or concede that you lost.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
no it didnt, the bible has been proven false. neither's discoveries prove this, you just do not have the capability or motivation to understand them. your claiming things without evidence and against the conclusions drawn by science. it is a strong enough theory for scientists to give it serious weight, i wonder why you cant do the same?the two have been proven as much as things can be proven in science, superstring theory again has enough evidence for the entire scientific community and the most brilliant minds in the universe to give it the most weight and spend tens of billions to research it, but oh no, it just isnt enough evidence for almighty JIA. either he is smarter than all the scientific community or too silly to even try and understand science.
you denied micro evolution when you gave the carl sagan quote denying that evolution cud be responsible for humanit and at the same times saying you beleive all the differences in genotype of different humans comes from adam and eve.
now, try adressign the points i made, which show your sources do not know even the BASICS of genetics which theyr trying to base their argument on. or concede that you lost.
no it didnt, the bible has been proven false. neither's discoveries prove this, you just do not have the capability or motivation to understand them. your claiming things without evidence and against the conclusions drawn by science. it is a strong enough theory for scientists to give it serious weight, i wonder why you cant do the same?
Science has proven that the universe had a beginning. Time is linear. The universe is expanding in every direction from a starting point, red shift verifies this. This is in accord with biblical revelation that the universe had a beginning.
I cannot give it weight because anything that begins to exist has a cause. Quantum fluctuations—if they exist—are subject to cause and effect even at the quantum level—nothing natural is exempt from this law. Notwithstanding, quantum fluctuations are not empirical, hence, they are unscientific and purely conjecture.
the two have been proven as much as things can be proven in science, superstring theory again has enough evidence for the entire scientific community and the most brilliant minds in the universe to give it the most weight and spend tens of billions to research it, but oh no, it just isnt enough evidence for almighty JIA. either he is smarter than all the scientific community or too silly to even try and understand science.
Superstring theory has so many questions surrounding that it is nowhere near being understood or proven. These are the facts.
you denied micro evolution when you gave the carl sagan quote denying that evolution cud be responsible for humanit and at the same times saying you beleive all the differences in genotype of different humans comes from adam and eve.
I don’t recall denying microevolution. I have stated many times in the past that variety within a kind or species is a fact. This process is consistent with the Bible so why would I ever deny this?
now, try adressign the points i made, which show your sources do not know even the BASICS of genetics which theyr trying to base their argument on. or concede that you lost.
I already answered this. Perhaps Adam was created with the most optimum possible combinations of genes relative to melanin variation/distribution. It is likely that climate and other environmental factors affected inheritable traits. There are so many factors that can influence heredity from racism to nutrient deficiency such as vitamin d. There are exceptions in many situations such as Eskimos (Inuit) with dark skin or pygmies, but it all comes down to genes. Some people are dark, light, tall, short, fat, skinny, etc. In other words, variations within a kind which is consistent with the Bible.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I'm going to work under your terms:
Given: God Exists
Given: Anything that exists has to have a cause
God = Anything that exists
Transitive property: God has a cause
By the transitive property we see that God has to have a causeAll that you are doing is pushing the problem of first cause back one step.
God did not begin to exist; therefore, God does not have a cause. The Bible categorically states that God is the beginning and end, the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last. In other words, that He is eternal.
You on the other hand have a cause and so does this universe. There is evidence that the universe began to exist (red shift, cosmic microwave background radiation, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics etc.) just as there is evidence that you began to exist (the law of biogenesis).
Whatever begins to exist (the word begins is the operative word) has a cause. God did not begin to exist, He has always been according to the Bible. God is the First--uncaused--cause which means all antecedant action starts with Him.
Do you see the difference?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
God did not begin to exist; therefore, God does not have a cause. The Bible categorically states that God is the beginning and end, the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last. In other words, that He is eternal.You on the other hand have a cause and so does this universe. There is evidence that the universe began to exist (red shift, cosmic microwave background radiation, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics etc.) just as there is evidence that you began to exist (the law of biogenesis).
Whatever begins to exist (the word begins is the operative word) has a cause. God did not begin to exist, He has always been according to the Bible. God is the First--uncaused--cause which means all antecedant action starts with Him.
Do you see the difference?
If your god does not have a cause then the universe does not need a cause. You can't have your cake and eat it too.