A Proof That God Exists

Posted in the Atheism Forum

Comments (Page 14)

Showing posts 261 - 280 of1,922
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#266
Apr 6, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>All the ones YOU read, are deluded True Believers™ just like yourself.

I DARE you to read stories written by NON-BELIEVERS.

You'd be ... surprised.

But you are just another coward...
Oh yes I would be to afraid to read a book by a nonbeliever.

(Where does he get this stuff?)

LOL
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#267
Apr 6, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Your near-total ignorance is showing:

The Big Bang theory does not state "from nothing".

Sad.
Ah so your going with the singularity thing?

What created that bobby?

When was it created?

Did the singularity spring forth from nothingness or is now science claiming a universe that always existed?

Come on bobby we have millions of school books that need upgrading.

"The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode? This contradicts to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Conservation of Matter). Where did Space, Time, Matter, and Energy come from? Next, how did this explosion / "expansion" cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in history caused only disorder and chaos? Consequently, the Big Bang seemingly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increased Entropy). What organized the universe after the singularity?

Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. For example, how does the Big Bang Theory explain "Retrograde Motion" (the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons) without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

Everything in the universe is spinning - planets, stars, galaxies, etc. It would take an enormous amount of energy to start a planet spinning. To solve this, advocates of the Big Bang Theory claim that the singularity that blew up in a sudden big bang was spinning before it exploded, thus everything within it was spinning as it flung out. The problem is Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are spinning backwards (Retrograde Motion). If something spinning clockwise blows up, all of the pieces will be spinning clockwise (the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum). The Big Bang explains Retrograde Motion as cosmic impacts on planets that have stopped and then reversed the spin. This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely self-defeating, and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would certainly leave a mark -- probably take a huge chunk out of the planet! At the very least, it would upset the orbit. Yet Venus has a retrograde spin and is nearly flawless in both its shape and orbit. "

http://www.odec.ca/projects/2004/khak4a0/publ...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#268
Apr 6, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Nobody claimed that life is self-caused or that it came into being without a cause. In fact, the cause of life is chemistry and the natural attraction of chemical elements for each other."
BS. Have you heard of the this?
""Primordial soup" is a term introduced by the Soviet biologist Alexander Oparin. In 1924, he proposed the theory of the origin of life on Earth through the transformation, during the gradual chemical evolution of molecules that contain carbon in the primordial soup.
Biochemist Robert Shapiro has summarized the "primordial soup" theory of Oparin and Haldane in its "mature form" as follows:[1]
The early Earth had a chemically reducing atmosphere.
This atmosphere, exposed to energy in various forms, produced simple organic compounds ("monomers").
These compounds accumulated in a "soup", which may have been concentrated at various locations (shorelines, oceanic vents etc.).
By further transformation, more complex organic polymers – and ultimately life – developed in the soup."
ultimately life – developed in the soup.
Spontaneous self generating life.
Exactly. The *chemistry* of the early earth is what lead to life. It was not 'uncaused'.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#269
Apr 6, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Where is your argument proving that a god is required? "
You're telling me you did not understand that? bobby I can't break it down any simpler.
The Universe cannot self start from nothing.
And unproved assertion that is counter to our best understanding of the BB.
There for there had to be a creator.
This would not follow even if the first asertion is true.
Nothing can evolve or spring into existence from nothingness.
Another unproved assertion, this time counter to our best understanding of quantum mechanics.
That's a law of nature and law of science my boy. Can't happen, it had to be created by a creator.
No law of science says that.
Science claim the universe is 13.7 billion years old. A starting point. Before that nothingness.
Wrong. The three main possibilities are that
1. The concept of before simply doesn't apply to the Big Bang in the same way that the concept of 'north' simply doesn't apply at the north pole.
2. There was a previous, contracting universe.
3. There is a multi-verse.

In no case is 'nothing before' a possibility.
If there was not nothingness then science has the date of the beginning of the universe wrong. Science getting dates wrong is nothing new. Up to date science does claim at a point there was nothingness. Therefore a starting point.
A time that everything sprang into existence from nothingness. MAGIC.
Once again, the problem is that it very well may not be possible to extend the concept of time to before the Big Bang. Literally, time and the universe started at the same point.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#270
Apr 6, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Did the singularity spring forth from nothingness or is now science claiming a universe that always existed?
Simply asking that question shows that you don't understand what the 'singularity' means. It is not an object. It is simply a point past which time, physical laws, and existence are meaningless. it isn't the existence of 'nothing'. It is the meaningless of the concept of 'before'.
Come on bobby we have millions of school books that need upgrading.
"The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question: "Where did everything come from?"
You are right. It doesn't. It describes the expansion and composition of the universe *after* the expansion started.
Can nothing explode? This contradicts to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Conservation of Matter).
Actually, it doesn't. The first law is simply the law of conservation of energy. That law says that the total amount of energy for two different *times* is the same. It does not apply if there is no concept of time.
Where did Space, Time, Matter, and Energy come from? Next, how did this explosion / "expansion" cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in history caused only disorder and chaos?
Most of the expansion is actually adiabatic: entropy is constant. Entropy increases during certain stages, such as the decoupling of neutrinos with electrons.
Consequently, the Big Bang seemingly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increased Entropy). What organized the universe after the singularity?
There is nothing violated in the second law by the Big Bang. You do, of course, have to use the version of it appropriate for curved spacetime. But that is done.
Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. For example, how does the Big Bang Theory explain "Retrograde Motion" (the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons) without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Moangular momentum is a *vector* quantity. The *total* angular momentum, obtained by adding all the vectors from all the galaxies, is zero. So there is no problem with the law of conservation of angular momentum.
[QUOTE]Everything in the universe is spinning - planets, stars, galaxies, etc.
Yes, and the orientation of those spins is random, which means the different contributions cancel each other out.
It would take an enormous amount of energy to start a planet spinning.
Actually, on the cosmic scale, planets are incredibly small objects. The residual angular momentum in any gas cloud is plenty to get a solar system spinning nicely.
To solve this, advocates of the Big Bang Theory claim that the singularity that blew up in a sudden big bang was spinning before it exploded, thus everything within it was spinning as it flung out.
This is simply wrong. NOBODY models the singularity of the Big Bang as spinning.
The problem is Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are spinning backwards (Retrograde Motion). If something spinning clockwise blows up, all of the pieces will be spinning clockwise (the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum).
And planets and the solar system are *small* blips in even our own galaxy. They are well withing the natural variance of spins.
The Big Bang explains Retrograde Motion as cosmic impacts on planets that have stopped and then reversed the spin. This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely self-defeating, and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would certainly leave a mark -- probably take a huge chunk out of the planet!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#271
Apr 6, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
You'll find out one day. I wish I would be there to see the terror on your face as you slipped in to death and get pulled from the flames for a few seconds only to drop back into hell. That would be real neat don't ya think. Just long enough for me to say "See I told you so!"
Showing once again the sickness and immorality of your hate-filled cult.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#272
Apr 6, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
Okay, in that case I will respect your opinion and you will respect
mine. For you the universe was uncaused; fair enough. For me it was
caused since it could not have caused itself. Let us call the quits
because we have been wasting our time for too long.
Then you are conceding that you do not, in fact, have a proof of the existence of God?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#273
Apr 6, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----
And since you too have failed to prove yours we can rest our case as each is concerned.
I can not PROVE that Santa Claus does not exist. The best I can do is to point out there is no evidence for his existence.

Does this mean that in your mind Santa Claus is a viable assertion?

BTW...this is exactly the case as with your God. There is no evidence of his existence, merely assertions from people such as yourself. And my point (as is polymath's) is that you have failed to prove your proposition. In which case we have no reason to accept your proposition.***WE*** do not have to prove your God does not exist, anymore than we do not have to prove Santa Claus does not exist. Without evidence, there is no reason to believe.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274
Apr 6, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Where is your argument proving that a god is required? "
You're telling me you did not understand that? bobby I can't break it down any simpler.
The Universe cannot self start from nothing.
Nobody is claiming that, except you idiots. So that isn't an "argument".
KJV wrote:
There for there had to be a creator. Nothing can evolve or spring into existence from nothingness.
Why? Who says there has to be a creator? You? You are no expert.

Moreover, who says even if there HAS to be a creator that it is YOUR GOD who is the creator?

What if the "creator" is just natural processes? What then?

On two points I've proven you have NO argument!
KJV wrote:
That's a law of nature and law of science my boy. Can't happen, it had to be created by a creator.
Bullsh7t. Plain and simple-- this is not a "law" of anything except in your delusions.
KJV wrote:
Science claim the universe is 13.7 billion years old. A starting point. Before that nothingness.
Nope-- you cannot claim ANYTHING about "before that", as TIME REQUIRES A UNIVERSE.

You cannot say "before that" and have ANY meaning!

Your argument is false.
KJV wrote:
If there was not nothingness then science has the date of the beginning of the universe wrong.
You failed to prove there was nothingness before. Argument fail.
KJV wrote:
Science getting dates wrong is nothing new. Up to date science does claim at a point there was nothingness. Therefore a starting point.
A time that everything sprang into existence from nothingness. MAGIC.
You failed to show "nothingness" was "before".

Argument fail.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275
Apr 6, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
You'll find out one day. I wish I would be there to see the terror on your face as you slipped in to death and get pulled from the flames for a few seconds only to drop back into hell. That would be real neat don't ya think. Just long enough for me to say "See I told you so!"
You cannot refute my points, so you fall back to ... THREATS???

Wow.

How... "original".....

LMAO!

Your hate is showing, by the way: ONLY A HATER WOULD FANTASIZE ABOUT INFINITE TORTURE.

You are one ugly personality.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#276
Apr 6, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yes I would be to afraid to read a book by a nonbeliever.
(Where does he get this stuff?)
LOL
It is true, you HATE-FILLED BIGOT.

Only someone FULL of hate, would fantasize about infinite torture.

Your hate is showing-- and your COWARDICE:

Yes-- you are afraid of reading books by non-believers.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#277
Apr 6, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah so your going with the singularity thing?
That is what the theory specifies. Not my idea.

But one too large for your pointy BIGOTED and hate-filled "mind".
KJV wrote:
What created that bobby?
Who said it was created? What if it always was? What if it's an uncaused-cause?

Physics shows us countless examples of uncaused-causes all the time.

Or as Polymath shows: it could be an infinite series of causes, but in finite time.

Easy as pie.
KJV wrote:
When was it created?
You failed to show it WAS created. Argument fail.
KJV wrote:
Did the singularity spring forth from nothingness or is now science claiming a universe that always existed?
Who says it came from nothingness? You? You are hardly a valid source of ... information.

YOU ARE JUST A HATE-FILLED BIGOT, who gets sexual gratification from imaginary scenes of torture.
KJV wrote:
Come on bobby we have millions of school books that need upgrading.
"The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question: "Where did everything come from?"
So? It never claimed to to. That does not destroy what it DOES say.

Argument fail.

And I'm done with your bigotry for now.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#278
Apr 6, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter.

For the purposes of proving the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems, a spacetime with a singularity is defined to be one that contains geodesics that cannot be extended in a smooth manner. The end of such a geodesic is considered to be the singularity. This is a different definition, useful for proving theorems.

The two most important types of spacetime singularities are curvature singularities and conical singularities. Singularities can also be divided according to whether they are covered by an event horizon or not (naked singularities). According to general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity. Both general relativity and quantum mechanics break down in describing the Big Bang, but in general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths. Another type of singularity predicted by general relativity is inside a black hole: any star collapsing beyond a certain point (the Schwarzschild radius) would form a black hole, inside which a singularity (covered by an event horizon) would be formed, as all the matter would flow into a certain point (or a circular line, if the black hole is rotating). This is again according to general relativity without quantum mechanics, which forbids wavelike particles entering a space smaller than their wavelength. These hypothetical singularities are also known as curvature singularities.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#279
Apr 6, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Showing once again the sickness and immorality of your hate-filled cult.
What? This? "hate-filled cult." ?
Just hoping to be at my friends death
Beds side when he passes on.

I wish I could be there to see the terror on your face as you slipped in to death and get pulled from the flames for a few seconds only to drop back into hell. That would be real neat don't ya think. Just long enough for me to say "See I told you so!"

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#280
Apr 6, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter.
For the purposes of proving the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems, a spacetime with a singularity is defined to be one that contains geodesics that cannot be extended in a smooth manner. The end of such a geodesic is considered to be the singularity. This is a different definition, useful for proving theorems.
The two most important types of spacetime singularities are curvature singularities and conical singularities. Singularities can also be divided according to whether they are covered by an event horizon or not (naked singularities). According to general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity. Both general relativity and quantum mechanics break down in describing the Big Bang, but in general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths. Another type of singularity predicted by general relativity is inside a black hole: any star collapsing beyond a certain point (the Schwarzschild radius) would form a black hole, inside which a singularity (covered by an event horizon) would be formed, as all the matter would flow into a certain point (or a circular line, if the black hole is rotating). This is again according to general relativity without quantum mechanics, which forbids wavelike particles entering a space smaller than their wavelength. These hypothetical singularities are also known as curvature singularities.
Exactly. Singularities are not *things*. At best, they are *places* where some aspect like curvature becomes infinite or where some aspect cannot be defined past that point. There is a *coordinate* singularity at the north pole: latitude cannot be defined north of the north pole. In the same way, the singularity at the Big Bang disallows time to be *defined* past that point. It is, in addition to being a coordinate singularity, a curvature singularity.

The Hawking-Penrose theorems say that such singularities are unavoidable in general relativity. It is still a matter of research to see if they must (or even can) happen in quantum gravity.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#281
Apr 6, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
What? This? "hate-filled cult." ?
Just hoping to be at my friends death
Beds side when he passes on.
I wish I could be there to see the terror on your face as you slipped in to death and get pulled from the flames for a few seconds only to drop back into hell. That would be real neat don't ya think. Just long enough for me to say "See I told you so!"
This is pure evil

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#282
Apr 6, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter.
For the purposes of proving the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems, a spacetime with a singularity is defined to be one that contains geodesics that cannot be extended in a smooth manner. The end of such a geodesic is considered to be the singularity. This is a different definition, useful for proving theorems.
The two most important types of spacetime singularities are curvature singularities and conical singularities. Singularities can also be divided according to whether they are covered by an event horizon or not (naked singularities). According to general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity. Both general relativity and quantum mechanics break down in describing the Big Bang, but in general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths. Another type of singularity predicted by general relativity is inside a black hole: any star collapsing beyond a certain point (the Schwarzschild radius) would form a black hole, inside which a singularity (covered by an event horizon) would be formed, as all the matter would flow into a certain point (or a circular line, if the black hole is rotating). This is again according to general relativity without quantum mechanics, which forbids wavelike particles entering a space smaller than their wavelength. These hypothetical singularities are also known as curvature singularities.
You really should give credit to your sources. In this case, Wikipedia. Also, did you understand *any* of what you quoted?
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283
Apr 6, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Nobody is claiming that, except you idiots. So that isn't an "argument".

KJV wrote, "
There for there had to be a creator. Nothing can evolve or spring into existence from nothingness."

Why? Who says there has to be a creator? You? You are no expert.

Moreover, who says even if there HAS to be a creator that it is YOUR GOD who is the creator?

What if the "creator" is just natural processes? What then?

On two points I've proven you have NO argument!

KJV wrote, "
That's a law of nature and law of science my boy. Can't happen, it had to be created by a creator."

Bullsh7t. Plain and simple-- this is not a "law" of anything except in your delusions.

KJV wrote, "
Science claim the universe is 13.7 billion years old. A starting point. Before that nothingness."

Nope-- you cannot claim ANYTHING about "before that", as TIME REQUIRES A UNIVERSE.

You cannot say "before that" and have ANY meaning!

Your argument is false.

KJV wrote, "
If there was not nothingness then science has the date of the beginning of the universe wrong."

You failed to prove there was nothingness before. Argument fail.

KJV wrote, "
Science getting dates wrong is nothing new. Up to date science does claim at a point there was nothingness. Therefore a starting point.
A time that everything sprang into existence from nothingness. MAGIC. "

You failed to show "nothingness" was "before".

Argument fail.
Either the universe always existed or it didn't.

"You failed to show "nothingness" was "before"

If the universe started then there was a before. Before the universe there was nothing or the universe was still there in any form and so always existed. Your science claims the universe had a start therefore if there was a start then there was a before the universe existed sense there is nothing outside the universe there was nothing. Or else science is wrong and the universe always existed.

Either way science is wrong and there is proof for God.

Kind of blows your little atheist mind doesn't it?
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284
Apr 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>You cannot refute my points, so you fall back to ... THREATS???

Wow.

How... "original".....

LMAO!

Your hate is showing, by the way: ONLY A HATER WOULD FANTASIZE ABOUT INFINITE TORTURE.

You are one ugly personality.
"THREATS???"
"ONLY A HATER WOULD FANTASIZE ABOUT INFINITE TORTURE."

I just want to be there and comfort my
Dying friend on his death bed.

I would hate to hear that he died instantly with no chance of redemption.

I wish I could be there to see the terror on your face as you slipped in to death and get pulled from the flames for a few seconds only to drop back into hell. That would be real neat don't ya think. Just long enough for me to say "See I told you so!"

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#285
Apr 6, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
Right. The Primal Mover was not created. Therefore He is proved only by the things created and by the Logic that events cannot be
caused by themselves.
If your Primal jizzswallower wasn't created then why did the universe have to be created?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 261 - 280 of1,922
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••