Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[BradCube]

Yea, seems a little silly doesn't it? Would you think I'm silly if I said I believe the tooth fairy exists, offering up no proof? It's exactly the same.

Heh, you seem ready for an argument. I was just asking questions and seeing what people thought of situations regarding miracles rather then trying to provide any sort of argument. I guess I've got that any how. I do have some friends though that went on a missions trip and were praying for a guy who was then cured of blindness. So I guess if I am offering an sort of example to what type of miracles I am reffering to, that would be it.

Then I'd attribute it to aliens comming from outter space and with their highly advanced technology, making it appear like it is a miracle. These things are more believable imho than that some superbeing decided to do some random thing in my life.

How are they any more believable?

I think it's just as plausible as claiming that because creation happened that supports your theory.

I don't think that is neccesarily correct. How is the fact that there are more questions just as a plausible as the fact that we are existance?

Basically... if david copperfield for his finale magic trick, walks up behind a kid and 'stole' their nose, would you consider that to be oh so awesome? Hell no - he's david copperfield! It's exactly the same with an omnipotent being. This creation we see around us really isn't all that impressive if it was done by an omnipotent being, he's omnipotent.

You don't think it's that impressive? I personally think that it is incredibley impressive. I can't even begin to comprehend how I would improve the complexity of this universe anymore to show that I have some degree of power. I have enough struggle in comprehending basic mathematics. Maybe that just means that I am stupid, lol. Definatley a possibility.

Anyway, I should get to bed, I have an exam tomorrow/today. Thanks for the chat once again NTB

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Heh, you seem ready for an argument.

Not really. I'm just getting to the point, I see no reason to entertain the idea that you are being anything less than silly by making such claims.

I do have some friends though that went on a missions trip and were praying for a guy who was then cured of blindness. So I guess if I am offering an sort of example to what type of miracles I am reffering to, that would be it.

Without knowing the case, I cannot say. But I do know that when such stories are actually investigated, nothing comes up.

How are they any more believable?

They don't require any sort of belief in the supernatural. We know that we have technology, we know that it's possible there are other lifeforms in the universe that have technology also - hey presto, explanation more believable than supernatural explanation. That you've just got insane, is an even better one... we actually know that people go insane and think they've seen stuff, we know it's possible it'll happen to us.

I don't think that is neccesarily correct. How is the fact that there are more questions just as a plausible as the fact that we are existance?

I have no idea what that question means.

You don't think it's that impressive?

For an omnipotent being, no.

I can't even begin to comprehend how I would improve the complexity of this universe anymore to show that I have some degree of power.

You're not an omnipotent being tho. Even if you think this universe is perfect, surely an all-powerful being could make one even more perfect?

 

[*Love-2-Hate-U*]

Hello.

Do you all believe in apes?

 

[littlewing69]

Hello.

Do you all believe in apes?

Certainly not. Apes are a devious invention of godless liberal evolutionists.

 

[sam04u]

No, rotated high-velocity wormholes are used for time travel, you idiot. What black holes do NO ONE KNOWS.

I'm doing astrophysics at University, you idiot. May you fall into a singularity.

Wrong again, dim-wit. I think I might know what 'Black Holes' do.
I have a theory that, when the imbalance of a super-nova occurs causing a black-hole, a major 'gravitational', imbalance occurs, which de-stabilises it's structure.
This de-stabilisation causes the matter in the heap to oscillate, increasing it's velocity at the constant of its gravitational pull. The Imbalance, causes these oscillations to 'gain momentum', causing it to gain 'mass', the mass raises it's velocity and the velocity raises it's mass untill a critical point is reached.

Eventually the gravitational force reaches an equilibrium. Where the Velocity is m^2. (It's original mass).

You end up with a super-heavy heap of matter oscillating at intense speeds, (the speed raises it's mass), the extremely high mass gives it an extremely high ammount of 'gravitational pull'.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Just reading that thread I posted again, there are some more problems for sam to address:

To expand on Mojo's statement... "all the laws which govern the universe, along with matter existed prior to the 'Big Bang'," is a flawed statement. The flaw is this bloke's. Big Bang theory seems to support exactly the opposite (unless I've misunderstood). The laws (as we know them), constants, etc. possibly took their current form after the Big Bang. We lack the technical ability to say what was 'before' the Big Bang, because technical ability... did not exist! If, as Bikewer offered, another theory shows some teeth, it will only push philosophical questions back one step because someone might say, 'okay, where did the multiverse come from?'

Quite funny, really. It's all made up nonsense with no consistency at all. SO many misconceptions and falsehoods in every sentence...

"So, as the charged particles began colliding together, they were stressed enough to release another kind of energy particles. (ElectroMagnetic Radiation) The gravity in the radiation would cause it to travel in a wave, as it would leave the 'scene' on an angle whilst maintaining it's own 'gravity'. (The energy would not just have been waves, but tiny particles from the collision.. extremely tiny...)"

How does he reconcile this with Maxwell's equations, which eloquently descibe electromagnetic waves in terms of electric and magnetic fields without considering gravity at all?

"So, the particles needed a way to maintain the energy."

Particles have needs. How anthropomorphic...

It looks to me like a flawed idea based on how modern theories(laws) break down at various points as you get closer to the begining of the universe, and taking that to mean that there where no laws and instead of breaking symitries and such the laws where imposed at various times.

This is entirely wrong of course, but that is my guess as to where this idea comes from

"Prior to the laws, our universe didn't exist."

The problems start there, and it doesn't get any better after that. Just ask him to prove that statement, anything afterwards is irrelevant if he can't.

You don't even need to do that much: just ask him for the equations for this theory. Because that's what physics is: a mathematical theory of the universe. If there's no math, there's no theory, and you're dealing with philosophy and not physics.

Add those to the ones I've already posted.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Science - 1.

Fundamentalist Islam - -42

Yea, I dunno.... I'm starting to think maybe Sam isn't the physics guru he claims he is.

 

[machine169]

Its interesting to see a debate thats been raging for 'many many many' a year continue on this forum. It will also be interesting to see how many people put down Jedi as a religion in the latest census. Perhaps, some were left disheartened that it was not initially listed with Catholic, Anglican, Uniting etc.
Interesting to see whether the Hill Song juggernaut effetcs church numbers substantially. For the not so bright perhaps a consideration of whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists and that it created the universe? Information about it cna be found at http://www.venganza.org/index.htm as for me, i think ill stick with the whole God existing thing. Yah back to reading law books. Religious since 1984.

 

[c_james]

sam04u is going to fail HSC physics.

Not that he'll admit he's wrong. A world-renowned physicist could tell him everything he's said is garbage (which it apparently is) and he wouldn't hear a bar of it.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Its interesting to see a debate thats been raging for 'many many many' a year continue on this forum. It will also be interesting to see how many people put down Jedi as a religion in the latest census. Perhaps, some were left disheartened that it was not initially listed with Catholic, Anglican, Uniting etc.

I think my mum actually listed me as a catholic, I really question the accuracy of a census when it comes to religion.

Interesting to see whether the Hill Song juggernaut effetcs church numbers substantially.

Perhaps more young people will be more regular church attenders, but at the same time I think you'll find there is alot more young people completely turning away from the church. The middle ground is becomming sparce imo

For the not so bright perhaps a consideration of whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists and that it created the universe? Information about it cna be found at http://www.venganza.org/index.htm as for me,

Why is a consideration of whether the flying spaghetti monstor exists and created the universe only for 'not so bright' people? I think that's a rather harsh assessment of religious belief, they're not stupid, just perhaps being silly in one aspect of their logic.

 

[sam04u]

What? Is this based on your empirical study of theoretical astrophysical anomalies? Also the knowledge on creation of black holes != knowledge of passing a singularity.

Are you, I'm being quite serious, mentally retarded? Has your carer wandered off and left you mindlessly babbling in a corner of an internet café? Are these breaks you take time off to go wave your genitals at others?

You don't know ANYTHING about physics. And you cannot argue God with Physics. The laws we take now (Conservation of Energy) could be highly spurious at the moment of inception of the universe, because, as is said, the universe bubbled into being. Saying God created it, is narcissistic fantasy. Proving 'God' with arbitrary physical laws which may or may not have been effected by the endemic conditions of universe-creation is a foolish, foolish idea.

Dude, you're the fucken retard here, why can't you even consider something which isn't being taught in your physics classes? Is it too hard? It's like you deny the theory before even considering it, it's liks you're assuming it's wrong to begin with. Great to see you're a great regurgitator of other peoples work and aren't open to 'new' ideas. (It's like you're the complete opposite of what you claim to be.) You claim to be open-minded and challenging religion with modern science, yet you don't even consider 'science' which may not 'fit into' your 'fallacious' beliefs.

I think you're the retard for making such a fucking large contradiction, I've also seen you make racist posts throughout the forums yet you 'challenge' institutionalised religion because of the 'apparent' violence radicals use the religion as a proxy for. Go back to your cage you fucking half-wit.

(If a world renowned physicist took the time to 'consider' a theory of mine i'd be pretty fucking happy. Ofcourse, I would want a reason as to why it would be wrong, and you claiming 'I don't know anything about physics', is a false claim, I just don't regurgitate what you want to hear about physics. Now go back to your institutional 'safe-haven', where all ideas are supported by text book references. (You're like a fucking calculator-Lacking any independant thought, definately a dumb-ass.)

 

[sam04u]

Yea, I dunno.... I'm starting to think maybe Sam isn't the physics guru he claims he is.

I don't see where the inconsistancies are, they're not considering what's right infront of them. I said prior to the 'existance of the laws', the universe did not exist and technically that's right in the creation of the universe which I modeled. It was theory, do you see the difference between theory and 'fact'?

Also, because of these laws, even if other 'cosmologists', correctly predict that the universe will reach a curvature and the positive gravitational effect would cause an opposite, the universe would 'still exist', and there would still be the same ammount of energy and laws governing the energy.

It's a weak argument to suggest the 'matter' in the universe are more important than the laws which govern them, because the laws to our universe are unique. They're what made the universe not vice-versa.

The problem is how do you 'prove' theory? Your buddies haven't really selected anything and challenged it properly, without Laws the universe doesn't exist, it's just nothing, the Laws make the universe a 'place', and all other Laws support the First Law. (I don't know other words to explain it, it just 'is'. ) I'll spend sometime modelling a different universe but it isn't easy trying to think of things which we've never experienced or dealt with, I'm thinking of an entity which is bound by a multi dimensional universe, where a parrallel on a lattice like spiderweb, Links everything In the universe and where the dispersion of 'the entity' could be maintained equally because the 'entity', has the potential to travel anywhere in the universe but still be relatively close to all other entities, because of the 4-5d universe.

(When I'm done I'll post about It and explain using a different example how the laws of the Universe are created by one initial law, which spontaneously occurs, it is super-natural thought, and isn't something which can be replicated, that's all I've tried to suggest using theory.)

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I don't see where the inconsistancies are, they're not considering what's right infront of them. I said prior to the 'existance of the laws', the universe did not exist and technically that's right in the creation of the universe which I modeled. It was theory, do you see the difference between theory and 'fact'?

It was a hypothesis. Do you understand what a scientific theory is?

Also, because of these laws, even if other 'cosmologists', correctly predict that the universe will reach a curvature and the positive gravitational effect would cause an opposite, the universe would 'still exist', and there would still be the same ammount of energy and laws governing the energy.

What? Prove that.

It's a weak argument to suggest the 'matter' in the universe are more important than the laws which govern them, because the laws to our universe are unique. They're what made the universe not vice-versa.

Er prove tht also.

The problem is how do you 'prove' theory?

You can never conclusively prove it of course. Do you have a basic understanding of the philosophy of science? It seems although you don't.

Your buddies haven't really selected anything and challenged it properly,

Actually they have, they've presented other well-accepted theories which go against your own. They can't both be correct, one of them is proven quite extensively using mathematics and known evidence, your 'theory' doesn't even contain any mathematical equations. They seem quite interested in how what you have presented is physics at all, so perhaps that's a part of why there are few in-depth refutations. If you do disagree with them however, please quote one of the people that I have quoted and explain how they are wrong.

without Laws the universe doesn't exist, it's just nothing, the Laws make the universe a 'place', and all other Laws support the First Law. (I don't know other words to explain it, it just 'is'. )

You haven't actually given any good reason for us to believe this tho.

I'll spend sometime modelling a different universe but it isn't easy trying to think of things which we've never experienced or dealt with, I'm thinking of an entity which is bound by a multi dimensional universe, where a parrallel on a lattice like spiderweb, Links everything In the universe and where the dispersion of 'the entity' could be maintained equally because the 'entity', has the potential to travel anywhere in the universe but still be relatively close to all other entities, because of the 4-5d universe.

I have no idea what all that means, but i'll send it to them.

(When I'm done I'll post about It and explain using a different example how the laws of the Universe are created by one initial law, which spontaneously occurs, it is super-natural thought, and isn't something which can be replicated, that's all I've tried to suggest using theory.)

Ok, but before you do that - could you please go through and quote the problems people have with your theory, then explain why they're wrong?

To start off, let's just take this one:

"So, as the charged particles began colliding together, they were stressed enough to release another kind of energy particles. (ElectroMagnetic Radiation) The gravity in the radiation would cause it to travel in a wave, as it would leave the 'scene' on an angle whilst maintaining it's own 'gravity'. (The energy would not just have been waves, but tiny particles from the collision.. extremely tiny...)"

How does he reconcile this with Maxwell's equations, which eloquently descibe electromagnetic waves in terms of electric and magnetic fields without considering gravity at all?

Also, justify your view of what the big bang theory 'says', because it seems no one else thinks it says the same thing.

"Prior to the laws, our universe didn't exist."

The problems start there, and it doesn't get any better after that. Just ask him to prove that statement, anything afterwards is irrelevant if he can't.

Also: If you cannot show how prior to the laws our universe did not exist (which I think you've said in your previous post, essentially claiming that in your model of the universe you're accepting that it did not), then why continue with the rest of your ideas? It has this huge big unproven premise that it all rests upon.

Before you go and give me some tripe about 'but for evolution to be true it makes X (assumption so far out from what the theory deals with)', that is true, but evolution isn't trying to explain how the universe came into being, or even how life began on earth - it just accepts that it happened and explains what has happened/is happening with biology on earth. With your theory, you're directly dealing with the creation of the universe so you cannot leave such a premise unproven.

 

[sam04u]

Because it's nothing new... you idiot. There are logical inconsistencies that are provably false.

YOU CALL ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION GRAVITY BASED YOU FUCKING IGNORAMUS. You know nothing about physics and you're concocting more and more idiotic theories that have no empirical background (Unlike actual physics) and proselytising it as fact. You then use these same idiotic points (Maxwell's wave equations are empirically proven, and contain FAR better maths than your own) (OH ITS MASS SQUARED SEE I CAN USE EXPONENTS TO SHOW MY MATHS). WHERE IS THE FUCKING EMPIRICAL BACKGROUND TO SAYING THAT A FORCE IS EQUAL TO A MASS SQUARED! PARTICULARLY GRAVITATIONAL FORCE. gdm1m2/dr != M^2. You fundamentally fucking retarded idiot.

You cannot prove god with your bullshit formulas. You are no Newton, you are no Galileo, you are no Einstein, you have NO FUNDAMENTAL BASING IN MATHS OR PHYSICS, you don't know what you're talking about, you're making shit up. You've so far failed rudimentary mathematics, rudimentary physics, rudimentary astrophysics and rudimentary philosophy.

Shut the fuck up. You're wrong. You're wrong. About 50 physicists told you you're wrong, and you still won't shut the fuck up. There is no empirical data, it's a bunch of self-assured wankery that doesn't stand for fucking facts in any situation.

You really are a fucking dim-wit, if you look at the post (which I admit wasn't worded in the best possible way), I was referring to 'photons' as a by-product of the collisions. (which still occurs today, different collisions though, the small packets are made of energy and harder to reproduce.) It's like reproducing photons by reducing the energy of known substances.
Straigh out of Wikipedia:
Spin
Photons mediate the electromagnetic interaction; they are the gauge bosons of quantum electrodynamics (QED), which is a U(1) gauge theory. Photons have spin 1, and follow Bose-Einstein statistics, making them bosons. A non-relativistic spin-1 particle has three possible spin states (−1, 0 and +1). However, in the framework of special relativity, this is not the case for massless spin-1 particles, such as the photons. They have only two spin projections, or helicities, which correspond to the right- and left-handed circular polarizations of classical electromagnetic waves. Linear polarizations are produced by the superposition of the two spin projections of a photon.
Energy packets released wouldn't follow a Linear Polarization right? Especially in a lawless universe, what would govern them? Wouldn't it be gravity? By looking at Balmer's Law we see that black holes, effect EMF, so isn't it safe to say that the ammount of gravity in the heap was enough to 'bend the photons'?

I wasn't refering to anything about the electromagnet field of EMF, and by linking that to my statement I dunno what you're trying to prove.

m^2? Why?, Also, Quit being an Idiot (why would there be 2 masses, d1 and d2, when they're is only 1 mass? The destabilised, oscillating heap.)
It has to do with the acceleration of the mass, lets say it's gravitational pull was 5.00 ms/s-1, It would accelerate itself till it reached a critical force, it's momentum would increase inversely (based on einsteins theory that e=mc2, where the faster it's velocity the higher it's mass), it would reach critical force at the mi^2, as the acceleration would cease once it was reached.

 

[HotShot]

physics has little to do with "Does God Exist?" - cos it doesnt prove that he exists and it does disprove that he doesnt exist...

but if he does exist..? then really.. science doesnt come into it. cos science was really a formulation of humans.. we were the ones to conjure up formulas such as e=mc^2....

on the other hand they make sense, but physics cant really work out how superconductors work - there all these random contradicotory theories... nor can they prove how the universe came to be..

for gods sakes the how dinosaurs were extince itself hasn tbeen properly solved..
a lot of science is about theory and its based on theory...

thats all ok..

but when it comes to god's existence... the only conflicting nature are religions.. and history..

in order to truly prove god doesnt exist we just look at each religion and see wat they try achieve. In my opinion they try to achieve control.. some set of lows morales, power distribution etc...

i came up with a theory that various kings made these religons to govern their society. but really noone believe on this one.:mad1:

 

[Not-That-Bright]

physics has little to do with "Does God Exist?" - cos it doesnt prove that he exists and it does disprove that he doesnt exist...

Sam brought it up, not us. But Physics does show that the only way a God can exist is either for a) known physics to be wrong, or b) for physics to not apply to God.

but if he does exist..? then really.. science doesnt come into it. cos science was really a formulation of humans.. we were the ones to conjure up formulas such as e=mc^2....

Science is just a way of thinking, it is no specific formulas.

on the other hand they make sense, but physics cant really work out how superconductors work - there all these random contradicotory theories... nor can they prove how the universe came to be..

Not entirely true. Physics has a good understanding of how conventional superconductivity works, however there are some less conventional forms where a debate rages.

I don't really see the point tho? So physics hasn't got something worked out, are you claiming they never will? Currently physics has no solid explanation for how the universe came to be, does that mean that there will never be one? No.

for gods sakes the how dinosaurs were extince itself hasn tbeen properly solved..
a lot of science is about theory and its based on theory...

You need to take a course in philosophy of science. You talk about scientific theories as if they're just some random hypothesis based on nothing (like sams ideas), they're not. There is no reason to say 'because science can't currently perfectly explain X, Y is just as valid".

but when it comes to god's existence... the only conflicting nature are religions.. and history..

No, there's no room for God within what we understand to be the natural world, through current science. The only way God can exist is to be supernatural, this is a very important realisation - the only way that God can possibly really exist is if he is beyond our testing capability, essentially giving the existance of God as much credence as the existance of the tooth fairy.

 

[HotShot]

All that 'untapped potential' stuff is BS. We use ALL of our brain, well... at least most of us do.

Uri Gellar dude..

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/15027734.htm?source=rss

wats that russian dude... Rasputin...

Nina Kulagina

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogi_pullavar

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Uri Gellar dude..

You can't be fucking serious can you?

Let me explain it to you;

Magicians can do the same things he can do. They do it by tricking people, he does it by 'magic powers'.... Can you SEE what's going on?

 

[HotShot]

You can't be fucking serious can you?

Let me explain it to you;

Magicians can do the same things he can do. They do it by tricking people, he does it by 'magic powers'.... Can you SEE what's going on?

http://www.amazingabilities.com/amaze8a.html......

 

[Not-That-Bright]

http://www.amazingabilities.com/amaze8a.html......

If ANYONE can levitate, under controlled conditions (It can be arranged to be done through the Australian Skeptics, I'm sure) you are eligible to win $1 million US from the James Randi Educational Foundation.

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

As for all the stories of levitation... there are also alot of stories of wizards, elves and goblins too.

It is also possible to trick people into thinking you're levitating using a technique such as;

http://www.magiclearn.50megs.com/photo2.html

There is also one i've seen where you put a mirror diagonally inside a milk crate, a hole on one side of the mirror and cardboard on the other. Using basically the same technique (but masking it a bit better) you can make it appear although you are levitating.