Originally posted by Red Nemesis
See, now you're changing the terms under consideration. Everything that exists, you claimed, has to have a cause. God exists. Therefore, He has a cause.Your logic, not mine. 😬
I was referring to all things in this natural realm.
I have always maintained that God is eternal in all of my posts.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I was referring to all things in this natural realm.I have always maintained that God is eternal in all of my posts.
Then your argument is that Yahwe is not in the natural realm. As such, He is not a topic of scientific discourse. At all. You can pretend to apply science to your superstitions but that doesn't validate them. If you want to argue God is then you have left the scientific arena.
Sym, it seems like logic might still apply. Obviously it isn't being used here, but it could be. Right?
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'm an atheist. I've never really believed in god. Even as a child, before I knew what atheism was, I only used to imagine god as a kind of super-hero, nothing to worshiped.
I have no problems with those who do believe (unless they try to impose it on me, which most of them don't). I still tag along to temples with my family, who are religious. All the art and music that religion has inspired is quite awesome.
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.
Superstring theory has so many questions surrounding that it is nowhere near being understood or proven. These are the facts.
a shameless lie. science hase never conclusively proven that the universe had a beginning, and even the models which do have a big bang lay down other dimensional causes for the creation of the big bang, no scientist says it came from NOTHING!!!! red shift is a result of the current expansion phase of the universe, NOTHING MORE!!! unless you accept this scientific fact, there is no reason to continue talking to you. no1 says quantum fluctuations arent subject to cause and effect, but to say there is no emperical evidence for them is complete ignorance on your part of scientific discoveries in the last 40 years.
being understood and proven are two different things, it isnt been proven as much as perhaps quantum mehcanics, however, it has enough evidence for it for the collective physics community to invest tens of billions of dollars and call it their greatest hope as success since quantum mechanics and releticity, wonder why that isnt reason enough for YOU to accept that its very probable. oh right, you dont actually care about SCIENCE, only relegion.
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?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.
that is not possible if you knew ANYTHING about geneticts{and it is ABUNDANTLY clear fromt this post that you DONT} youd know that any SINGLE human can only carry two possible alleales{versions} of a single gene {e.g. skin colour} putting aside recessive traist which are present in the phenotype of the population of the world and homozygous dominance required for some existing traits to show and co dominance{since youre ill equipped mentally to understand what im talking about} the MAXIMUM number of different TYPES of each trait {e.g hair colour} that could arise from two beings {bursting full with the maximum DIVERSITY that you could biologically stuff into any human being} are exactly FOUR. four specific types of skin colour, four specific types of bone structure{baring sex} four specifc types of hair/eyes, four specific types of facial nos estructure, four specific types of immune system etc etc etc etc. ofcourse you and i well know that in this world there are THOUSANDS of different TYPES of each trait. now yo could either accept that evolution is responsible for creating these triats which are BENEFICIAL considering the enviornments of the poeple and that evoultion CAN infact work in the timeframe to create significant benificial changes to beings, NULLING your quote of carl sagan that the chance for these event happening due to volution was non existant. OR you cud accept that evolution CANT produce significantly benigficial and observable changes in the timeframe of life on this planet and AGREE with carl sagan, but then, you would have to accept that the entire human race did NOT come from only adam and eve as they can not POSSIBLY have all the different traits of humanity stuffed inside only two beings, that is impossible from everything we know about genes. on BOTH cases, the bible is contradicted by science, heck, its DESTROYED by science. choose one or the other and DONT make me repeat myself.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I was referring to all things in this natural realm.I have always maintained that God is eternal in all of my posts.
no, you were making an ARGUMENT in which everything was SUBJECT to that argument. if you put conditions like NATURAL REALM in it then first you have to PROVE that this world is natural and that god exists and that he is not natural. but ofcourse, the very FACT that yur arging to begin with is the existance of god. bringing in that other unproven condition concerning the nature of god merely makes it circular argumentation.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
a shameless lie. science hase never conclusively proven that the universe had a beginning, and even the models which do have a big bang lay down other dimensional causes for the creation of the big bang, no scientist says it came from NOTHING!!!! red shift is a result of the current expansion phase of the universe, NOTHING MORE!!! unless you accept this scientific fact, there is no reason to continue talking to you. no1 says quantum fluctuations arent subject to cause and effect, but to say there is no emperical evidence for them is complete ignorance on your part of scientific discoveries in the last 40 years.being understood and proven are two different things, it isnt been proven as much as perhaps quantum mehcanics, however, it has enough evidence for it for the collective physics community to invest tens of billions of dollars and call it their greatest hope as success since quantum mechanics and releticity, wonder why that isnt reason enough for YOU to accept that its very probable. oh right, you dont actually care about SCIENCE, only relegion.
that is not possible if you knew ANYTHING about geneticts{and it is ABUNDANTLY clear fromt this post that you DONT} youd know that any SINGLE human can only carry two possible alleales{versions} of a single gene {e.g. skin colour} putting aside recessive traist which are present in the phenotype of the population of the world and homozygous dominance required for some existing traits to show and co dominance{since youre ill equipped mentally to understand what im talking about} the MAXIMUM number of different TYPES of each trait {e.g hair colour} that could arise from two beings {bursting full with the maximum DIVERSITY that you could biologically stuff into any human being} are exactly FOUR. four specific types of skin colour, four specific types of bone structure{baring sex} four specifc types of hair/eyes, four specific types of facial nos estructure, four specific types of immune system etc etc etc etc. ofcourse you and i well know that in this world there are THOUSANDS of different TYPES of each trait. now yo could either accept that evolution is responsible for creating these triats which are BENEFICIAL considering the enviornments of the poeple and that evoultion CAN infact work in the timeframe to create significant benificial changes to beings, NULLING your quote of carl sagan that the chance for these event happening due to volution was non existant. OR you cud accept that evolution CANT produce significantly benigficial and observable changes in the timeframe of life on this planet and AGREE with carl sagan, but then, you would have to accept that the entire human race did NOT come from only adam and eve as they can not POSSIBLY have all the different traits of humanity stuffed inside only two beings, that is impossible from everything we know about genes. on BOTH cases, the bible is contradicted by science, heck, its DESTROYED by science. choose one or the other and DONT make me repeat myself.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
a shameless lie. science hase never conclusively proven that the universe had a beginning, and even the models which do have a big bang lay down other dimensional causes for the creation of the big bang, no scientist says it came from NOTHING!!!! red shift is a result of the current expansion phase of the universe, NOTHING MORE!!! unless you accept this scientific fact, there is no reason to continue talking to you. no1 says quantum fluctuations arent subject to cause and effect, but to say there is no emperical evidence for them is complete ignorance on your part of scientific discoveries in the last 40 years.
All the evidence indicates conclusively that the universe had a beginning, not the opposite.
This quote shows that scientists believe that quantum fluctuations are not subject to cause and effect:
“To understand why, you have to go back to the Big Bang, that mysterious, mother-of-all-explosions that most astronomers believe spawned our universe. One second, according to theory, there was nothingness. The next, our cosmos sprang into existence. Nature seems to have pulled off the feat of getting something -- in fact, everything -- for nothing.
As unimaginable as that sounds, it comes straight out of the theory of quantum mechanics, a set of mathematical rules that describe how the universe works on the smallest scales, inside atoms. Quantum mechanics says that matter and energy can appear spontaneously out of the vacuum of space, thanks to something called a quantum fluctuation, a sort of hiccup in the energy field thought to pervade the cosmos.
Cosmologists say that a quantum fluctuation gave rise to the Big Bang. And the thing about quantum fluctuations is that they can happen anywhere, any time. And if our universe was born out of a quantum fluctuation, say theorists, then it's possible that other quantum fluctuations could have spawned other universes.”
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/5mysteries_universes_020205-1.html
That is a violation of cause and effect.
being understood and proven are two different things, it isnt been proven as much as perhaps quantum mehcanics, however, it has enough evidence for it for the collective physics community to invest tens of billions of dollars and call it their greatest hope as success since quantum mechanics and releticity, wonder why that isnt reason enough for YOU to accept that its very probable. oh right, you dont actually care about SCIENCE, only relegion.
People invest tens of billions of dollars in a lot of wasteful, ignorant, foolish things (illegal drugs, prostitution, porn, drunkeness) that does not validate those things.
Besides, I would probably be hell bent on investing that much money in quantum mechanics too if all of the evidence pointed to a Creator but I was an atheist.
that is not possible if you knew ANYTHING about geneticts{and it is ABUNDANTLY clear fromt this post that you DONT} youd know that any SINGLE human can only carry two possible alleales{versions} of a single gene {e.g. skin colour} putting aside recessive traist which are present in the phenotype of the population of the world and homozygous dominance required for some existing traits to show and co dominance{since youre ill equipped mentally to understand what im talking about} the MAXIMUM number of different TYPES of each trait {e.g hair colour} that could arise from two beings {bursting full with the maximum DIVERSITY that you could biologically stuff into any human being} are exactly FOUR. four specific types of skin colour, four specific types of bone structure{baring sex} four specifc types of hair/eyes, four specific types of facial nos estructure, four specific types of immune system etc etc etc etc. ofcourse you and i well know that in this world there are THOUSANDS of different TYPES of each trait. now yo could either accept that evolution is responsible for creating these triats which are BENEFICIAL considering the enviornments of the poeple and that evoultion CAN infact work in the timeframe to create significant benificial changes to beings, NULLING your quote of carl sagan that the chance for these event happening due to volution was non existant. OR you cud accept that evolution CANT produce significantly benigficial and observable changes in the timeframe of life on this planet and AGREE with carl sagan, but then, you would have to accept that the entire human race did NOT come from only adam and eve as they can not POSSIBLY have all the different traits of humanity stuffed inside only two beings, that is impossible from everything we know about genes. on BOTH cases, the bible is contradicted by science, heck, its DESTROYED by science. choose one or the other and DONT make me repeat myself.
Four specific types of skin color? Skin color is a product of melanin—that’s it. The more you have the darker you are. The less you have the lighter you are. There is a spectrum of shades: white, black, brown, yellow, red, no specific types.
Evolution (macro) is not responsible for ethnic diversity. Adam and Eve possessed genes to produce all the variety and ethnicities. It is as simple as that.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then you have to abandon any pretensions that what you are using is logic or scientific reasoning.
Tell me something: how can you believe that quantum fluctuations which are impersonal, dumb, unintelligent, not all powerful could violate all known natural laws and create but can't believe that an intelligent Creator Who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, personal, purposeful--a God of law and order, Who is outside of time and space (which would be necessary in order to produce the universe) could create?
Scientists have admitted that quantum fluctuations have never been proven. But yet when you look at the theory of quantuam fluctuations it sounds like an impersonal, alternate type of god. Scientist attribute the characteristics of God to quantum fluctuations (i.e. eternal nature, omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience). They have cornered themselves in their own theory. They have actually described God but gave Him another name: quantum fluctuations. Just look at what scientists postulate:
Quantum Fluctuations God
Eternal Eternal
First Cause First Cause
Omnipotent Omnipotent
Intelligent Intelligent
Created powerful forces, laws Created powerful forces, laws
Sustains the cosmos Sustains the cosmos
Set finely tuned parameters Set finely tuned parameters
Soure of complex organisms Source of complex organisms
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Tell me something: how can you believe that quantum fluctuations which are impersonal, dumb, unintelligent, not all powerful could violate all known natural laws and create
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
but can't believe that an intelligent Creator Who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, personal, purposeful--a God of law and order, Who is outside of time and space (which would be necessary in order to produce the universe) could create?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Scientists have admitted that quantum fluctuations have never been proven. But yet when you look at the theory of quantuam fluctuations it sounds like an impersonal, alternate type of god. Scientist attribute the characteristics of God to quantum fluctuations (i.e. eternal nature, omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience). They have cornered themselves in their own theory. They have actually described God but gave Him another name: quantum fluctuations. Just look at what scientists postulate:[b]Quantum Fluctuations God
Eternal Eternal
First Cause First Cause
Omnipotent Omnipotent
Intelligent Intelligent
Created powerful forces, laws Created powerful forces, laws
Sustains the cosmos Sustains the cosmos
Set finely tuned parameters Set finely tuned parameters
Soure of complex organisms Source of complex organisms[/B]
I don't think that anyone has suggested that QFs are omnipotent or intelligent or the source of complex organisms. (Except maybe by the unreasonable continuation of cause and effect... You don't blame the molecules in your alarm clock for waking you up in the morning.)
You're really reaching here. No scientist anthropomorphises QFs in the way that you have and no one would suggest worshiping them (as they would a god).
So, you are wrong.
All the evidence indicates conclusively that the universe had a beginning, not the opposite.[/color]
you are a liar. you have provided all your sources and evidence and you have still being conclusively proven to be a liar by nearly every1 on this forum. your empty claim means nothing.
This quote shows that scientists believe that quantum fluctuations are not subject to cause and effect:“To understand why, you have to go back to the Big Bang, that mysterious, mother-of-all-explosions that most astronomers believe spawned our universe. One second, according to theory, there was nothingness. The next, our cosmos sprang into existence. Nature seems to have pulled off the feat of getting something -- in fact, everything -- for nothing.
and who is this quote by?!?!? lmao YOU?! it proves NOTHING since it isnt the position the vast majority of the scientific community and EVIDENCE, might i add, take on the subject. nice strawman to bach jia.
As unimaginable as that sounds, it comes straight out of the theory of quantum mechanics, a set of mathematical rules that describe how the universe works on the smallest scales, inside atoms. Quantum mechanics says that matter and energy can appear spontaneously out of the vacuum of space, thanks to something called a quantum fluctuation, a sort of hiccup in the energy field thought to pervade the cosmos.
Cosmologists say that a quantum fluctuation gave rise to the Big Bang. And the thing about quantum fluctuations is that they can happen anywhere, any time. And if our universe was born out of a quantum fluctuation, say theorists, then it's possible that other quantum fluctuations could have spawned other universes.”
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/5mysteries_universes_020205-1.html
That is a violation of cause and effect.
no it isnt since no1 is claiming the quantum fluctuations are uncaused MORON!!!!!!!
People invest tens of billions of dollars in a lot of wasteful, ignorant, foolish things (illegal drugs, prostitution, porn, drunkeness) that does not validate those things.Besides, I would probably be hell bent on investing that much money in quantum mechanics too if all of the evidence pointed to a Creator but I was an atheist.
so your argument is, that the scientific community is ignorant, wasteful and that science as it stands is compareable to illegal drugs, prostituion and porn and that the collective scientific community's only motivation for following string theory is that they are atheists and afraid of the possibility of god??? did i get everything.
your MORON of the nth degree.
Four specific types of skin color? Skin color is a product of melanin—that’s it. The more you have the darker you are. The less you have the lighter you are. There is a spectrum of shades: white, black, brown, yellow, red, no specific types.Evolution (macro) is not responsible for ethnic diversity. Adam and Eve possessed genes to produce all the variety and ethnicities. It is as simple as that.
and the specific amount of melanin is controlled by a gene and each alleale {type of the gene} gives rise to ONE level of melanin and ONE skin colour. going by biology, there could not have been more than 4 types of skin colours in the human race if it came from adam and eve and if evolution cud not produce significantly visible, benefitial change in the timeframe of humanity{as you claim}.
for the last time STOP BEING A MORON!!!!! read a god damn biology book. two people can NOT have more than 4 different types {alleales} of each GENE!!!!!!!!! adam and eve CUD NOT have posessed genes to produce all varieties and ethnicities!!!!!!!!!!!! science contradicts your CLAIM!!!!!!!!!!
and please do not type if you dont actually have a reasonable argument to make.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
no, you were making an ARGUMENT in which everything was SUBJECT to that argument. if you put conditions like NATURAL REALM in it then first you have to PROVE that this world is natural and that god exists and that he is not natural. but ofcourse, the very FACT that yur arging to begin with is the existance of god. bringing in that other unproven condition concerning the nature of god merely makes it circular argumentation.
I have ever maintained that God exists outside of time and space (go back and review my thread entitled
"Can You Handle The Truth?" for proof).
This world is natural because God is considered supernatural. There is what is known as the physical i.e. natural and the metaphysical. With all due respect this is implicitly obvious.
I cannot prove that God exists anymore than you can prove that macroevolution has occurred, that the big bang started from nothing, that there are other universes, what dark matter and dark energy is, whether there is life on other planets, how galaxies form or what makes them spin, or that quantum fluctuations are a fact.
For a complete list of unsolved problems in physics click on this link:
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
[/color]
Objects have to be intelligent to break the laws of physics now? You're starting to sound like the guy who was convinced that gravity only works because the secret society convinced him that the laws of physics exist.
[/color]
Well, there is no evidence suggesting an intelligent, omnipotent, personal god outside of time and space. So there's your first problem. The second one is that (besides not having any evidence suggesting its existence) you want others to accept your assertion.Isn't the Forum's autoformatting annoying?
I don't think that anyone has suggested that QFs are omnipotent or intelligent or the source of complex organisms. (Except maybe by the unreasonable continuation of cause and effect... You don't blame the molecules in your alarm clock for waking you up in the morning.)
You're really reaching here. No scientist anthropomorphises QFs in the way that you have and no one would suggest worshiping them (as they would a god).
So, you are wrong.
The point is that that have ascribed many of God's attributes to quantum fluctuations. They have described God via quantum fluctuations. In other words, instead of admitting that God did it they give all the credit to quantum fluctuations--an unproven theory that they don't even understand.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I have ever maintained that God exists outside of time and space (go back and review my thread entitled
"Can You Handle The Truth?" for proof).This world is natural because God is considered supernatural. There is what is known as the physical i.e. natural and the metaphysical. With all due respect this is implicitly obvious.
I cannot prove that God exists anymore than you can prove that macroevolution has occurred, that the big bang started from nothing, that there are other universes, what dark matter and dark energy is, whether there is life on other planets, how galaxies form or what makes them spin, or that quantum fluctuations are a fact. For a complete list of unsolved problems in physics click on this link:
yes but that is your unproven oppinion. using that as an axiom in an argument which is actually SUPPOSED to prove the existance of god makes the argument fallacious and circular. thats my point
your disproven opinion again. with all due respect you should learn the meanings of the words "implicit" and "obvious"
ofcourse i can prove that macroevolution has occured. no1 says that the big bang started from nothing. other universes and quantum flucutation have a vast reportoire of evidence behind them, unlike god. we have very good theories on how galaxies form and what makes them spin{its called gravity}.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The point is that that have ascribed many of God's attributes to quantum fluctuations. They have described God via quantum fluctuations. In other words, instead of admitting that God did it they give all the credit to quantum fluctuations--an unproven theory that they don't even understand.