“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3782 May 10, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Universe is defined as all matter, Time, energy and space. ALL! That would include all dimensions.[/QUOTE]

Including any that your fictional god might inhabit.

Alas-- Quantum Mechanics has shown, beyond a doubt, that your god cannot possibly exist in our universe.

Simply by being omniscient, your god's very existence, would collapse all the universe, making it end.

An omniscient god and our universe cannot co-exist.

One precludes the other-- since the Universe DOES exist?

Obviously, your god does not.

End of Discussion.

“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#3783 May 10, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
He's not-- I'm sorry your brain damage (faith) has prevented you from realizing that, simply from the different styles of writing.
But he's correct: learn some SCIENCE.
Here's a start: look up Quantum Mechanics.
That is the newest scientific physics stuff: it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that an omniscient god is simply impossible in our current Universe.
Such a being (omniscient) would collapse all of reality, simply by existing...

No need to look it up, I already know what Quantum Mechanics is Bob ... It proves that your thinking doesn't go beyond the small part of the Universe that God has allowed you to access...:)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3784 May 10, 2013
Snevaeh legna wrote:
<quoted text>
No need to look it up, I already know what Quantum Mechanics is Bob ... It proves that your thinking doesn't go beyond the small part of the Universe that God has allowed you to access...:)
QM proves beyond a shadow of a doubt your god is myth.

Pity about your brain damage, though.

It appears that it is far too late to cure your affliction.

“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#3785 May 10, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
QM proves beyond a shadow of a doubt your god is myth.
Pity about your brain damage, though.
It appears that it is far too late to cure your affliction.
No it does not... The brain dictates the behaviors that allow us to survive. Your survival is not fathom to what's beyond the box. In other words, it's scary out there for ya Bob...

Therefore QM doesn't prove anything except your limited ability to think...:) Anymore thoughts, or ideas for me sweet-cheeks... just sayin'

Have a nice night Bob...

ps. Btw, you never answered me about the movies?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3786 May 11, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Universe is defined as all matter, Time, energy and space. ALL! That would include all dimensions.[/QUOTE]

So if you claim your god is real, where the f*ck is it you liars.
Should have thought about that before wasting trees on the bible and stones and lives on churches.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3787 May 11, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
So the Big Bang came from nothing?
[/QUOTE]

No, in that model, the Big bang didn't come from anything. To even speak of it 'coming from' is to make an assumption about time which is wrong.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3788 May 11, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Yes, that's why I said pre-Big Bang. But you didn't like that word so I'm stuck using when there was no Time and matter and space and energy.
[/QUOTE]

You have two problems with this: you have the word 'when': that alone implies a time. So your basic concept is self-contradictory.

Second, you want some sort of causality between that 'when' where there was no time, etc and the universe we see now. But causality requires time. So there simply cannot be a cause of time.

So, suppose you take your 'snapshots': one shows our expanding universe. The other shows 'complete non-existence'. How you would take a snapshot of the second, I have no idea, but let's go with it for a while. Why do you say the second is 'pre' the first? Without time, you can't have pre- or post-, only exists. No order, no causality, just raw existence. And yet, you want to say that one is 'pre' the other with no logic to back it up.

You repeatedly fail to grasp that you cannot talk about 'pre-time': it is simply non-sense.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3789 May 11, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Universe is defined as all matter, Time, energy and space. ALL! That would include all dimensions.[/QUOTE]

OK, good. So by your definition, the universe cannot be caused. Why not? Because causality requires time and time is *part of the universe*.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3790 May 11, 2013
Snevaeh legna wrote:
<quoted text>
No need to look it up, I already know what Quantum Mechanics is Bob ... It proves that your thinking doesn't go beyond the small part of the Universe that God has allowed you to access...:)
Most people that claim to know something about quantum mechanics have absolutely no idea what it really is. In particular, if you have never solved a differential equation, you don't know anything about quantum mechanics except for poor popularizations.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3791 May 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have two problems with this: you have the word 'when': that alone implies a time. So your basic concept is self-contradictory.
Second, you want some sort of causality between that 'when' where there was no time, etc and the universe we see now. But causality requires time. So there simply cannot be a cause of time.
So, suppose you take your 'snapshots': one shows our expanding universe. The other shows 'complete non-existence'. How you would take a snapshot of the second, I have no idea, but let's go with it for a while. Why do you say the second is 'pre' the first? Without time, you can't have pre- or post-, only exists. No order, no causality, just raw existence. And yet, you want to say that one is 'pre' the other with no logic to back it up.
You repeatedly fail to grasp that you cannot talk about 'pre-time': it is simply non-sense.
Wrong.

Causality does not require a temporal succession.

Causal order is not necessarily temporal order.

In other words, the cause of the origin of the universe is causally prior to the Big Bang, though not necessarily temporally prior to the Big Bang

Second, the cause of the universe is not required to be "before" universe time; but only independent of universe time.

Third, you don't know whether "universe time", which became initiated with the Big Bang, is the only "time" there is.

So no, you are wrong in that you are building on assumptions you cannot back up.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3792 May 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, good. So by your definition, the universe cannot be caused. Why not? Because causality requires time and time is *part of the universe*.
Wrong.

The universe CANNOT be defined that way in any legitimate sense.

You could legitimately define it as "all KNOWN", but not "ALL".

Unless you claim to know everything, and I do not accept the claim that you are omniscient.

If you can prove you are omniscient, then fine, go ahead and define the universe as "ALL".

If I define MY ASS as all there is, then MY ASS is the origin of the universe.

And again, a sequence of time IS NOT required for causality.

In fact, it can be logically argued that ALL EFFECTIVE CAUSALITY is simultaneous with its effect.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3793 May 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, good. So by your definition, the universe cannot be caused. Why not? Because causality requires time and time is *part of the universe*.
The universe requires a cause.

Anything that begins to exist is caused.

No exceptions.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3794 May 11, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The universe requires a cause.
Anything that begins to exist is caused.
No exceptions.
We've said it before and we will say it again. Where is the proof of the god you are lying about you creationist sack of sh*t?

“Fortes Fortuna Juvat, ”

Since: Dec 09

Wichita. Ks.

#3795 May 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I grew up in Kansas. I managed to escape.
Yes Kansas is very religious, but the numbers are coming up on the non-religious as people become more and more disgusted with the fanatical attitudes of the religious sect. that is where people of non-religious beliefs and the religious really differ. The religious want to push their beliefs and idealism on the public and the non-religious just want a functional society not a religious one.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3796 May 11, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The universe requires a cause.
Anything that begins to exist is caused.
No exceptions.
I disagree. And the evidence supports my position.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3797 May 11, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Causality does not require a temporal succession.
Causal order is not necessarily temporal order.
Yes, it is. This is your basic mistake.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3798 May 11, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
We've said it before and we will say it again. Where is the proof of the god you are lying about you creationist sack of sh*t?
I'll do better than that.

I can prove God hates you, Septic.

Proof: He made you so stupid and ugly.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#3799 May 11, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. And the evidence supports my position.
No, the evidence and reason defy your position.

You have zero ("0") evidence for an uncaused universe, and reason dictates that it is not even possible. It takes you right back to asserting "something from nothing".

What you offer is simply a theory of necessity - necessary to support your philosophical beliefs.

I refrained from calling it your religious belief out of courtesy, even though it is.
KJV

United States

#3800 May 11, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Universe is defined as all matter, Time, energy and space. ALL! That would include all dimensions. "

Including any that your fictional god might inhabit.

Alas-- Quantum Mechanics has shown, beyond a doubt, that your god cannot possibly exist in our universe.

Simply by being omniscient, your god's very existence, would collapse all the universe, making it end.

An omniscient god and our universe cannot co-exist.

One precludes the other-- since the Universe DOES exist?

Obviously, your god does not.

End of Discussion.
Nope wrong again. My God is not made out of his own creation. No sir the universe is God creation and all that is in it. He's not in it. His make up and existence outside of time and the universe cannot be grasped by atheist that is why you are atheist. It's a weakness of your brain not being able to think outside the box. It's truly to bad you will be condemned for this weakness. Just remember God gave you a chance right here and right now to save your soul from hell.
KJV

United States

#3801 May 11, 2013
Snevaeh legna wrote:
<quoted text>No need to look it up, I already know what Quantum Mechanics is Bob ... It proves that your thinking doesn't go beyond the small part of the Universe that God has allowed you to access...:)
QM nice equation. Theory nope!

Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.

A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.

BRIAN GREENE: It's a little known secret but for more than half a century a dark cloud has been looming over modern science. Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"

These two sets of rules are each incredibly accurate in their own domain but whenever we try to combine them, to solve some of the deepest mysteries in the universe, disaster strikes.

Take the beginning of the universe, the "big bang." At that instant a tiny nugget erupted violently. Over the next 14 billion years the universe expanded and cooled into the stars, galaxies and planets we see today. But if we run the cosmic film in reverse, everything that's now rushing apart comes back together, so the universe gets smaller, hotter and denser as we head back to the beginning of time.

As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.

Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.

A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.

From Nova:

"For decades, every attempt to describe the force of gravity in the same language as the other forces—the language of quantum mechanics—has met with disaster

S. JAMES GATES, JR.: You try to put those two pieces of mathematics together, they do not coexist peacefully.

S. JAMES GATES, JR.: The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywheres.

RIGHT SIDE BRIAN GREENE: In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole...

LEFT SIDE BRIAN GREENE:...and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects, like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...

LEFT SIDE BRIAN GREENE: There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...

RIGHT SIDE BRIAN GREENE:...and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.

So here's the question: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?

Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 12 min Eagle 12 230,886
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 1 hr Ooogah Boogah 14,391
Evidence for God! 2 hr Uncle Sam 38
Former Atheist Academic Who Rejected God and Be... 2 hr tha Professor 76
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 3 hr Chiclets 23,039
Our world came from nothing? 5 hr _Bad Company 1,103
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 18 hr Dally Mama 5,583

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE