Missouri Passes Right-to-Pray Amendment

Aug 21, 2012 Full story: abcnews.go.com 148

Reiterating a protected right under the U.S. Constitution, on Tuesday Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state constitution reiterating individuals' right to pray publicly and in schools.

Full Story

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#41 Aug 24, 2012
guest wrote:
Some may hold that the universe itself is eternal, yet astrophysics and cosmology tell us itís not. As I said earlier, the consensus scientific view is that the universe had a beginning.
Not completely true. The consensus is that the current expansion phase had a beginning. Depending on which version of quantum gravity you use, there may or may not be a previous contracting universe or a multiverse.
Uh, yeah. I give you indisputable scientific law and foundational maxims of logic and you give me Gnosticism. The universe is not created by aeons.
You give physical laws that have been superseded and 'logical' laws that are not part of logic.
guest

United States

#42 Aug 24, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
If this was the case, what makes you assume that it was intelligent?
I never claimed that it was, merely that science and logic prove that a supernatural force or being exists. That is sufficient to disprove the atheist view.
guest

United States

#43 Aug 24, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
You give physical laws that have been superseded and 'logical' laws that are not part of logic.
I can't force you to accept known scientific laws and foundational maxims of logic, and to abandoned your blind faith atheist view. Neither can you convince me with wild speculations and baseless conjecture to abandon those known scientific laws and foundaitonal maxims of logic, and join you in your ridiculous atheist view that is easily proven false.

I've stated my case. You've failed in your attempt to refute it. Further discussion is moot.
Martin Williams

Atlanta, GA

#44 Aug 24, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't force you to accept known scientific laws and foundational maxims of logic, and to abandoned your blind faith atheist view. Neither can you convince me with wild speculations and baseless conjecture to abandon those known scientific laws and foundaitonal maxims of logic, and join you in your ridiculous atheist view that is easily proven false.
I've stated my case. You've failed in your attempt to refute it. Further discussion is moot.
Not sure you understand who you are taking on in a debate about science. Good luck with that one sport.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#45 Aug 24, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
I never claimed that it was, merely that science and logic prove that a supernatural force or being exists. That is sufficient to disprove the atheist view.
You just contradicted your assertion in the same post. If it is not intelligent, then it is not a god, which means us atheists are correct. If it is intelligent, it's still not a god humans have dreamed up, meaning atheists still have the upper hand in the matter.

Science does not prove anything about the supernatural, FYI.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#46 Aug 24, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't force you to accept known scientific laws and foundational maxims of logic, and to abandoned your blind faith atheist view. Neither can you convince me with wild speculations and baseless conjecture to abandon those known scientific laws and foundaitonal maxims of logic, and join you in your ridiculous atheist view that is easily proven false.
I've stated my case. You've failed in your attempt to refute it. Further discussion is moot.
YOU are the one refusing to accept the known science of quantum mechanics and of relativity. YOU are the one adding an assumption (nihilo) that is NOT a logical axiom.

Again, find *one* logic book that makes the claim that 'ex nihilo, nihilo fit' is a logical truth. You won't find one. Instead, you will find treatments of propositional and quantifier logic and perhaps a bit of modal logic. A more advanced treatment will cover recursively defined functions and the Godel results.

Newton's laws are no longer the basis of physics: they are *known* to be wrong in many situations. Again, you should look into what physics has discovered over the past 100 years. You might be surprised.
guest

United States

#47 Aug 24, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
You just contradicted your assertion in the same post. If it is not intelligent, then it is not a god, which means us atheists are correct.
No, there is no contradiction in my statement. I merely proved that science and logic demand the existence of a supernatural force or being. I never said that supernatural force or being was intelligent or that it was a god. Your continued assertions that I did are baseless.
Science does not prove anything about the supernatural, FYI.
Sure it does. I've proven it to you in this thread.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#48 Aug 24, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
No, there is no contradiction in my statement. I merely proved that science and logic demand the existence of a supernatural force or being. I never said that supernatural force or being was intelligent or that it was a god. Your continued assertions that I did are baseless.
So then your claims have nothing to do with atheism? But you claimed they did.
Sure it does. I've proven it to you in this thread.
No, you simply used bad science and bad logic to show a proposition you believed ahead of time. You need to go back and learn both modern science and modern logic before you attempt to make this argument again.
guest

United States

#49 Aug 24, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
YOU are the one refusing to accept the known science
Nope, you're the one who says Newton's Laws are wrong, not me.
YOU are the one adding an assumption (nihilo) that is NOT a logical axiom.
Yes, it is a logical maxim. You're the one denying logic, not me.
guest

United States

#50 Aug 24, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
So then your claims have nothing to do with atheism? But you claimed they did.
They have nothing to do with atheism per se, yet by proving the existence of a supernatural force or being, atheism is proven false.
You need to go back and learn both modern science and modern logic before you attempt to make this argument again.
There are other arguments that prove the existence of a supernatural force or being, but there's no need to bring them into the discussion. You've failed to overcome two of the most simple arguments of all, and you've shown a willingness to reject known science and sound logic in order to maintain your view.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#51 Aug 24, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, you're the one who says Newton's Laws are wrong, not me.
yes, they are wrong. Specifically, they are wrong when applied to large gravitational fields, high velocities, or to the atomic level or below. This is not speculation. It is established science.
Yes, it is a logical maxim. You're the one denying logic, not me.
It is not a logical maxim in any modern logic book. The reason? it is an *assumption* about the real world. It is, furthermore, an assumption that we know is false.

As you pointed out, there is no way I can force you to accept modern science and logic. But Newton's laws were shown to fail over 100 years ago. Quantum mechanics showed your 'logical maxim' is false more than 50 years ago.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#52 Aug 24, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
They have nothing to do with atheism per se, yet by proving the existence of a supernatural force or being, atheism is proven false.
No, atheism is simply the lack of belief in any deity. Your argument does not show that lack of belief to be wrong. At *most* what you have done is shown the existence of a supernatural, but by your definition, science allows for that without the necessity of a deity, so atheism is still safe.
There are other arguments that prove the existence of a supernatural force or being, but there's no need to bring them into the discussion. You've failed to overcome two of the most simple arguments of all, and you've shown a willingness to reject known science and sound logic in order to maintain your view.
I will reject science that has been shown to be wrong in the situations being discussed and 'logic' that is not part of actual logic. Yes, I reject Newton's laws when applied to the early universe and I reject 'ex nihilo, nihilo fix' because it has been shown wrong in our universe.
guest

United States

#53 Aug 24, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
Yes, I reject Newton's laws...and I reject 'ex nihilo, nihilo fix'...
Your admissions make my case.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#54 Aug 24, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Your admissions make my case.
Your ignorance of modern science is duly noted.
guest

United States

#55 Aug 24, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
Your ignorance of modern science is duly noted.
You've been reduced to hurling petty ad hominem attacks. Pitiful.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#56 Aug 24, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Your admissions make my case.
No, I am simply going with what in known in *modern* physics and modern logic. That your argument depends on out-dated views of both make *my* case.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#57 Aug 24, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
You've been reduced to hurling petty ad hominem attacks. Pitiful.
It isn't an ad hominen attack to note that you don't know what you are talking about. It is a simple observation. Your argument is based on out-dated physics and false logic.
Malakal

Brooklyn, NY

#58 Aug 24, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Not completely true. The consensus is that the current expansion phase had a beginning. Depending on which version of quantum gravity you use, there may or may not be a previous contracting universe or a multiverse.

[QUOTE]Uh, yeah. I give you indisputable scientific law and foundational maxims of logic and you give me Gnosticism. The universe is not created by aeons."

You give physical laws that have been superseded and 'logical' laws that are not part of logic.
"According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity."

The facts are this singularity having gravity of unheard of strength could not just start expanding! It's Impossible. As soon as the laws of physics take hold like one billionth of a second after the big bang then gravity would have held or pulled this singularity back together and stopped time again.

Science deals with facts - them are the facts.
and science is ignoring those facts.

Pre big bang singularity and then the big bang just could not have happened.

Common physic laws prove this.

Your science doesn't know if it's coming or going. Science needs to stick to the facts and not make up this crap that just could not have happened.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#59 Aug 24, 2012
Malakal wrote:
The facts are this singularity having gravity of unheard of strength could not just start expanding! It's Impossible. As soon as the laws of physics take hold like one billionth of a second after the big bang then gravity would have held or pulled this singularity back together and stopped time again.
Science deals with facts - them are the facts.
No, actually, those are NOT the facts. During the inflationary stage, the expansion was driven by a scalar particle, which causes a pressure outwards that counteracts the gravitational effects by several orders of magnitude because it is directly related to the degree of curvature, which is very high in the early universe.
and science is ignoring those facts.
Only in your imagination. The people looking into the details have been trying to find flaws for almost a century now. The rate of expansion as it relates to density is definitely NOT a flaw.
Pre big bang singularity and then the big bang just could not have happened.
Common physic laws prove this.
Oh, please supply the details. I would love to see this. Please be sure to use general relativistic equations.
Your science doesn't know if it's coming or going. Science needs to stick to the facts and not make up this crap that just could not have happened.
It *is* sticking to the facts. That is what you seem to want to ignore. The universe *is* expanding. The evidence shows it was much hotter and denser in the past. It shows that nuclear reactions did happen throughout the universe early on in this expansion phase.
Rhonda

AOL

#61 Aug 24, 2012
Misouri can do what Misouri wants to do. Nobody else can say nouthing boute it ever

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 to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 16 min Mikko 22,557
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 43 min Eagle 12 228,059
Here's a place for Patrick's off-topic articles 59 min NightSerf 3
Atheists on the march in America (Aug '09) 3 hr Patrick 70,982
Should Uninformed Opinion Be Respected? 4 hr Patrick n Angela 42
Noah's flood real (Oct '12) 7 hr Patrick 4,516
Our world came from nothing? 7 hr Patrick 527
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••