Can anyone Prove there is no God?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#240 Aug 23, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Scientists for the most part have accepted that the universe had to have had a beginning. The Theory of Relativity, as well as other discoveries, has certified that.
Part of the issue is that it is almost impossible, even in theory, to obtain data about anything outside of the expansion phase we are now in. That expansion phase began about 13.7 billion years ago. But whether there was anything before that is not answered by currently available data. The best guesses, using quantum versions of gravity, are that the beginning of this expansion is *not* the beginning of the universe.
2. "[QM] never produces something out of nothing." I know little about this, but I trust the source: CMI.
It is incorrect. Quantum fluctuations do, in fact, produce virtual particles out of nothing. This is an observed effect that is measurable.
3. Weak, humanistic thinking. Don't feel bad, we all do it sometimes.
Give more detail why you consider this humanistic thinking.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#241 Aug 23, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
Find one argument I have made that you can prove illogical or unreasonable. And there will be atheists as long as the only alternative is a being to whom they would have to be accountable!
Your second sentence is a perfect answer to your first.
FollowerofChrist

Fairmont, WV

#242 Aug 23, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
If Christianity has refuted Evolution, why isn't every single hospital in the world busy swapping all their medicines for bibles?
Evolution has had nothing to do with real advances in medicine. If you think that evo is essential to real-world scientific discoveries, then you must provide an example of how believing that lower life-forms could have advanced to become higher life forms could possibly have brought about a flu vaccine.
FollowerofChrist

Fairmont, WV

#243 Aug 23, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
As stated, this rule of causality is simply FALSE. Virtual particles appear spaontaneously, without cause, and disappear equally spontaneously. But we can measure their effects.
A rule that is closer to the truth is 'everything that has a cause, has a physical cause that is earlier in time'. Everything we know supprts this formulation of causality.
<quoted text>
But you have not shown that God exists! You cannot use a property of an object before you show existence. Of course, like I said, we know of *many* events and things that are uncaused, but all of them are physical.
<quoted text>
The universe is the collection of all things, but is not a thing in itself. Any causes are *inside* the universe because there is no 'outside' the universe (in this usage of the word).
<quoted text>
Don't attempt to argue the laws of thermodynamics unless you have actually taken a class in them. Life from non-life does not change the amount of energy in the total system, so it doesn't violate the 1st law. Increases of complexity can be driven by entropy considerations, especially when the system is out of equilibrium with a huge heat source (the sun), so they do not violate the 2nd law.
The 2 laws of T-dynamics were in reference to the universe's origin, not life's.
FollowerofChrist

Fairmont, WV

#244 Aug 23, 2013
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>"Faith" does not equate to "knowledge". Every argument in which you claim to "know" something which is, in turn, based on an initial premise which requires "faith", is illogical and unreasonable.
Just as every argument that evo/origins makes is based on the initial premise of long ages, which also requires faith.
FollowerofChrist

Fairmont, WV

#245 Aug 23, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Part of the issue is that it is almost impossible, even in theory, to obtain data about anything outside of the expansion phase we are now in. That expansion phase began about 13.7 billion years ago. But whether there was anything before that is not answered by currently available data. The best guesses, using quantum versions of gravity, are that the beginning of this expansion is *not* the beginning of the universe.
<quoted text>
It is incorrect. Quantum fluctuations do, in fact, produce virtual particles out of nothing. This is an observed effect that is measurable.
<quoted text>
Give more detail why you consider this humanistic thinking.
1. It sounds like you are referring to the idea that the universe could be expanding and contracting over time. This is impossible as it would also violate the laws of physics and is no more than sci fi on the level of multi-verses and panspermia!

2. Like I said, I have little study in QM, so I will have to post this quote:
Scientist critics of the big bang theory, Alex Williams and Prof. John Hartnett, comment:
“So is it possible that the universe just popped into existence out of the vacuum through nothing more than a quantum fluctuation? Some people think so, although they seem to conveniently forget that the laws of quantum physics would have had to already be in existence, so one could not say that the universe created itself ‘out of nothing’. Others have pointed out, however, that the lifetime of quantum events is inversely proportional to the mass of the object and this precludes any such cosmological quantum event. If a universe did pop into existence by quantum fluctuation, nobody would notice—the lifetime of a quantum event the size of our universe would be less than 10-103 seconds. Moreover, virtual particles today appear within the vacuum of space. In the primordial singularity there was no space and so no vacuum.”

3. I mean that he is thinking, as I believe you are, from the sole perspective of what humans can and do know. But there are things we do NOT know and what exists outside of the universe is one of them. You cannot know for absolute certainty that there is nothing outside of the universe, as there is no way to explore/breach that barrier, as it were.
FollowerofChrist

Fairmont, WV

#246 Aug 23, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your second sentence is a perfect answer to your first.
Perhaps. But in MY opinion, based upon the Bible and my own observation, it appears to be the truth.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#247 Aug 23, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
The 2 laws of T-dynamics were in reference to the universe's origin, not life's.
In which case, they again do not apply because they presume the existence of time.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#248 Aug 23, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
1. It sounds like you are referring to the idea that the universe could be expanding and contracting over time. This is impossible as it would also violate the laws of physics and is no more than sci fi on the level of multi-verses and panspermia!
No, it would NOT vilate the laws of physics. In particular, it is a *prediction* from the laws of physics as applied to the universe as a whole.
2. Like I said, I have little study in QM, so I will have to post this quote:
Scientist critics of the big bang theory, Alex Williams and Prof. John Hartnett, comment:
“So is it possible that the universe just popped into existence out of the vacuum through nothing more than a quantum fluctuation? Some people think so, although they seem to conveniently forget that the laws of quantum physics would have had to already be in existence, so one could not say that the universe created itself ‘out of nothing’. Others have pointed out, however, that the lifetime of quantum events is inversely proportional to the mass of the object and this precludes any such cosmological quantum event. If a universe did pop into existence by quantum fluctuation, nobody would notice—the lifetime of a quantum event the size of our universe would be less than 10-103 seconds. Moreover, virtual particles today appear within the vacuum of space. In the primordial singularity there was no space and so no vacuum.”
Unless, of course, that fluctuation was stabilized by gravity. Which is exactly Hawking's point.
3. I mean that he is thinking, as I believe you are, from the sole perspective of what humans can and do know. But there are things we do NOT know and what exists outside of the universe is one of them. You cannot know for absolute certainty that there is nothing outside of the universe, as there is no way to explore/breach that barrier, as it were.
If the universe is *defined* to be 'all that exists', then there does not exist anything outside of the universe. Duh.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#249 Aug 23, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
Just as every argument that evo/origins makes is based on the initial premise of long ages, which also requires faith.
No, it is consistent with the *conclusion* of large ages as demonstrated by a variety of methods. Now, you can claim that it takes 'faith' to even accept that there is a past at all. But once you accept that, the consistency of the laws of physics show that there is a very long past: at least 13.7 billion years for the current expansion phase of the universe and 4.5 billion years for the earth.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#250 Aug 23, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
Just as every argument that evo/origins makes is based on the initial premise of long ages, which also requires faith.
Wow... you've got drooling ignorance down pat! Good job, Sparky

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#251 Aug 23, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
Find one argument I have made that you can prove illogical or unreasonable.
All of'em.

But especially any "argument" where you use the illogical BuyBull(bible).

The BuyBull(bible) is neither logical nor factual.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#252 Aug 23, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Scientists for the most part have accepted that the universe had to have had a beginning. The Theory of Relativity, as well as other discoveries, has certified that.
A beginning does not mean created.

Nor does it mean caused.

Quantum mechanics shows that things can exist without cause-- happens all the time.

Radioactive decay? Uncaused.(for example)

To deny this FACT, is to deny reality.

And also proof you have **never** studied QM.
FollowerofChrist wrote:
2. "[QM] never produces something out of nothing." I know little about this, but I trust the source: CMI.
I agree-- you know little.
FollowerofChrist wrote:
3. Weak, humanistic thinking. Don't feel bad, we all do it sometimes.
Nope.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#253 Aug 23, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution has had nothing to do with real advances in medicine.
Lie.

And an unreasonable "argument"-- more: you did not even TRY to support your lie, here.
FollowerofChrist wrote:
If you think that evo is essential to real-world scientific discoveries, then you must provide an example of how believing that lower life-forms could have advanced to become higher life forms could possibly have brought about a flu vaccine.
Lie.

Proof of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#254 Aug 23, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
The 2 laws of T-dynamics were in reference to the universe's origin, not life's.
Again?

Your argument is without merit and illogical.

For one? You failed to support your claim with facts OR argument.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#255 Aug 23, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
Just as every argument that evo/origins makes is based on the initial premise of long ages, which also requires faith.
Long ages are a well proven and well established FACT.

Proof of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/

To deny this, is to deny reality.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#256 Aug 23, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
1. It sounds like you are referring to the idea that the universe could be expanding and contracting over time. This is impossible as it would also violate the laws of physics and is no more than sci fi on the level of multi-verses and panspermia!
Lie.

And you have no FACTS to back your lie-- you did not even post an ARGUMENT or EXAMPLES.

You just expect us to ACCEPT YOUR LIE?

I think not.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#257 Aug 23, 2013
FollowerofChrist wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps. But in MY opinion, based upon the Bible and my own observation, it appears to be the truth.
The BuyBull(bible) is illogical and false.

Provably so: http://www.evilbible.com/

“My name is Trunks...”

Since: Jun 10

the alternate future

#258 Sep 2, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Lie.
You are demonstrating that you are 100% ignorant of both physics AND biology.
That's pretty sad, even for you.
Proof http://www.talkorigins.org/
<quoted text>
Lie. Energy AND MATTER cannot be created or destroyed at the MACRO LEVEL OF THINGS.
At the quantum level? Not so much...
<quoted text>
Lie. You just contradicted your first "law"...!
Idiot.
You seriously have NO GRASP of entropy, which is what the second law is talking of-- which pertains to a CLOSED system.
The Earth? NOT CLOSED.
<quoted text>
False. You have no proof for this claim.
<quoted text>
False. Temporary,**LOCAL** increase of complexity is quite possible-- so long as the **TOTAL** system of entropy increases.
So long as the SUN is dumping ENERGY into Earth?
The entropy of the **EARTH** can **DECREASE**.
Because the **TOTAL** entropy of Earth+Sun is on the INCREASE.
So you are WRONG.
Again.
Hey there, Bob. Busy fighting the trolls again, I see. I've been taking a bit of a break away from Topix. I've mainly been busy writing things.:D I felt like I should drop in here every now and again and say hi to my friends.....

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#259 Sep 2, 2013
No more than anyone can prove that there is one.

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
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 18 min I Am No One_ 9,447
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr ChristineM 243,464
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Chimney1 19,802
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) Sun thetruth 6,221
News Atheism must be about more than just not believ... Sat Amused 2
Should atheists have the burden of proof? Sat thetruth 38
News Founders created secular nation (Jul '10) Sat knight of Jesus 521
More from around the web