A Proof That God Exists

Posted in the Atheism Forum

Comments (Page 25)

Showing posts 481 - 500 of1,922
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#489
Apr 11, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Then there would be a cause. What is the cause of the particles and energy?
Particles and energy are NOT nothing.
You are trying to claim "something from something" is "something from nothing".
When you insist on requiring a cause for every possibility for the start of the universe, you run into a paradox. I could then ask what caused the cause, and what caused that cause, and so on and so forth. If everything requires a cause, then so does your first cause.

And yes, I know that virtual particles from quantum fields are not nothing, but they are as close as I can get to describing nothing without descending into absurdity.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#491
Apr 11, 2013
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>When you insist on requiring a cause for every possibility for the start of the universe, you run into a paradox. I could then ask what caused the cause, and what caused that cause, and so on and so forth. If everything requires a cause, then so does your first cause.
And yes, I know that virtual particles from quantum fields are not nothing, but they are as close as I can get to describing nothing without descending into absurdity.
What is interesting about modern quantum theory, is that scientists have demonstrated quantum-level particles appearing without a cause.

Uncaused events.

It makes for fascinating reading.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#492
Apr 11, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
What is interesting about modern quantum theory, is that scientists have demonstrated quantum-level particles appearing without a cause.
Uncaused events.
It makes for fascinating reading.
Indeed, I just didn't think that buck would accept a quantum field where virtual particle can and do appear as nothing. It is very interesting stuff, though, I agree. Boggles the mind.
Thinking

Bolton, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#493
Apr 11, 2013
 
Reality could give a flying shit what Buck accepts!
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Indeed, I just didn't think that buck would accept a quantum field where virtual particle can and do appear as nothing. It is very interesting stuff, though, I agree. Boggles the mind.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#494
Apr 11, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
I'm not familiar with that one, but I presume it's akin to Angry Birds in Space?(I played that last a bit, before it crashed my tablet & got deleted.... it's since been updated, but I never bothered to go back)
In ABIS, there are gravity spots on the screen which you can sometimes get objects to orbit.
Never played Angry Birds. Space Penguins is an educational flash-based game which can be found easy online.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Virtual games are amusing. Do you remember a wire-frame one, circa late 1980's, that featured a Lunar Lander? That one was amusing.
Just about, played that when I was a nipper.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#495
Apr 11, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
In order not to waste our time with idle repetitions let me just say to you that energy is an accident of matter either present or priorly produced by.
In order not to waste our time with idle repetitions let me just say to you that you do not have clue what you are talking about.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#496
Apr 11, 2013
 
Poor Buck.

He so desperately wants to be taken seriously, and can't for the life of him figure out why that's not happening. But the desire to participate as an equal cannot be reconciled with one to dominate, and, unfortunately for him, equality is the highest level to which one can rise in a forum.

Bullying simply doesn't work here, and that's probably new to him. I suspect that the only reason he ever learns anything new is in a hunt for ammunition to win arguments. The problem with that approach is that it makes a person prone to adopting new ideas for entirely the wrong reasons, i.e., not out of curiosity or a desire for better understanding but to "prove" others wrong.

Poor Buck.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#497
Apr 11, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----
And yours is less than poor. Where did the matter that caused
the BB come from. It could not have been always there and could not
have caused itself into existence.
There wasn't any.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#498
Apr 11, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And don't forget big muscles.
Between his ears.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#500
Apr 11, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The claim was not that B is uncaused; the claim was that it caused itself.
No it wasn't. The claim was that B may be uncaused.
Buck Crick wrote:
Impossible.
Also impossible that B is uncaused.
Keep trying.
If it is impossible that B is uncaused then it is impossible that A was uncaused. Your hypocrisy is noted.

Again.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#501
Apr 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Buck Crick wrote:
You are a liar.
There is much evidence. Some has been presented here.
It is not conclusive. But it is evidence.
Funny, I'm certainly unaware of how the existence of an invisible magical Jewish wizard passes the scientific method.

Strangely enough that goes the same for everyone else on the entire planet.
Buck Crick wrote:
You are not susceptible to evidence, because you are incapable of critical thought. You are also a liar, so the thought would not help the discussion even if you were capable.
Go boom. Irony meter duz it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#502
Apr 11, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. "ALL evidence" does not indicate this.
All the evidence you care to consider indicates such.
Dr. Eben Alexandar, neurosurgeon and neuroendocrinologist presents considerable evidence to the contrary. He is far from the first or only scientist to theorize so.
But again, you couldn't care less about evidence, unless it confirms what you already believe.
There goes another one. The guy has no evidence otherwise he'd have science to back it up. He died and came back. At some point he had a nice dream about heaven.

Now if he takes a food blender to the insides of his cranial cavity then comes back as a ghost, then he can claim we were wrong. Until then I maintain that introducing a rapidly spinning whisk to a person's brains will have a seriously detrimental effect to their cognitive ability.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#503
Apr 11, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You thought what?
I can give it to you.
But you see, I know you are not asking for information. You are attempting to spar based on something you think you know and you think I don't know.
You are misguided, my little buddy.
If I cut your head off and shit in it, then sewed it back on your neck, it would raise your IQ by 50 points.
Granted you're just as charming as you've always been. But there's still no scientific theory of ID. We both already know this because you copied some DI apologetics that told us nothing at all about ID. Which is why I'm still waiting. And coincidentally enough, so is the entire scientific community.
Lincoln

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#504
Apr 11, 2013
 
ID has no scientific proof
Atheism has no scientific proof
Time for a good breakfast of eggs, ham, and toast.
Peace to all
Imhotep

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#505
Apr 11, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I remember the caterpillar one-- I had that one on two of my earliest cell phones-- mildly addicting. Centipede it was called, I think.
I had even written a Visual Basic version of it that was pretty good-- "reverse engineered" if you will. I should've saved that code, but didn't.
I remember the aliens marching left and right, with a high-flying one dropping bombs-- you had to zap the rows through with your single gun, sliding left and right... I should know the name, but like you, I don't remember it.
The Stop-animation show, Robot Chicken has done several parodies of that last one.
Oh, the old heyday of 8 bit, then 16 bit graphics...:D
One of my favorites in that old genra, was the god-game Populous. Do you remember it?
What I also find amusing, is that for my Nintendo DSxl, I have a version of Populous that is superior in every way to the original PC one I played for so many wasted hours.
Amazing: I hold in my hand, a small device about the size of a book, and it has more computer-power than some of the most expensive computers in the world, back in the heyday.
More storage too: I have an old 8 gigabyte flash drive in it, a casual re-use of an obsolete (to me) item.
Had NASA had a couple of these hand-helds, back in the 1960's? Imagine what they might have achieved....!
Outstanding Robert I had no idea that you wrote computer programs I've done this for over 30 years IBM Only.

Languages COBOL RPG assembler C C++
Java, Sequel

IBM has advanced RPG to a science it interfaces with every language

AS/400's are the principal servers of Internet
worldwide

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#506
Apr 11, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Wrong. Even if there was no time before the BB, it requires a cause. It could not cause itself. The cause could be independent of time (eternal?) but it still had to exist.
Wrong. Causes have to be prior to the effects, which requires time.
2. Wrong. The multiverse only moves the same question to a more regressed position, as in what caused the multiverse? It cannot extend infinitely into the past, because infinite time can never be traversed and the present time could never occur. The existence of the present proves there is no infinite multiverse.
And we're back to your lack of understanding of an infinite past. Yes, if there is a multi-verse, then time can extend infinitely into the past. There is no start, so no 'traversal' of an infinite amount of time is required.
3. Wrong. Again, your error is allowing for the uncaused universe or multiverse, or an uncaused anything which would require infinite past time, as in the multiverse or the "anything" always existing. This is impossible.
If the universe exists, it had to begin to exist.(there can be no infinite past)
You claim there can be no infinite past, but only show a lack of understanding in your argument of such.
Any thing which begins to exist is required to have a cause.
Prove this statement.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
What is the cause? Nobody knows.
On the contrary, if we move consideration to *all* of existence (multi-verse, universe, whatever), then it simply cannot have a cause.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#507
Apr 11, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Causality does not require the existence of time.
Sure it does. Causes happen before their effects. That is a temproal relationship. In other words, time has to exist for both the cause and the effect.
Time itself had to be caused. You are mis-using "previous" as taken from a universe time perspective and applying it to a different perspective where the time and the "previous" do not apply.
I am using the term 'previous' as it is required for causality: previous *in time*.
You employ a logical fallacy of assuming the antecedent.
Please define what it means when you say that 'A causes B'. Give a precise definition and from that definition prove that the universe must have a cause.
Imhotep

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#508
Apr 11, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I remember the caterpillar one-- I had that one on two of my earliest cell phones-- mildly addicting. Centipede it was called, I think.
I had even written a Visual Basic version of it that was pretty good-- "reverse engineered" if you will. I should've saved that code, but didn't.
I remember the aliens marching left and right, with a high-flying one dropping bombs-- you had to zap the rows through with your single gun, sliding left and right... I should know the name, but like you, I don't remember it.
The Stop-animation show, Robot Chicken has done several parodies of that last one.
Oh, the old heyday of 8 bit, then 16 bit graphics...:D
One of my favorites in that old genra, was the god-game Populous. Do you remember it?
What I also find amusing, is that for my Nintendo DSxl, I have a version of Populous that is superior in every way to the original PC one I played for so many wasted hours.
Amazing: I hold in my hand, a small device about the size of a book, and it has more computer-power than some of the most expensive computers in the world, back in the heyday.
More storage too: I have an old 8 gigabyte flash drive in it, a casual re-use of an obsolete (to me) item.
Had NASA had a couple of these hand-helds, back in the 1960's? Imagine what they might have achieved....!
Yeah Centipede that was the one I was looking for forgot I think that other one that we both forgotten might have been called something like space invaders missile command because all you did was defend yourself under constant barrage of attacks from above sliding back and forth

Populous I don't remember

Back in the day i had very small SX 55 IBM computer with Windows 3.1 on it and the most popular game in the office at that time was 'leisure suit Larry'

Also Wolfenstein I think

Like the old song it's been a long long time ;)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#509
Apr 11, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Impossible and stupid.
Tell me. If something extends infinite into the past, how long would it take to arrive at the present moment?
From which point in the past?
Answer: It never could.
Wroing.
After traversing 1 million years to the exponent of the largest number that could be written by a million human beings all working together, the "infinite past" thing would be no closer to the present moment than when it started.
You are assuming there is a *start*, then an infinite amount of time, then the present. The whole point is that there is no start. Between any two points, there is only a finite amount of time, yet time itself goes into the past infinitely: there is always a before. No 'traversal' of an infinite amount of time by anything is required.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#510
Apr 11, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple.
Something cannot come from nothing.
By the way, the universe DID begin to exist in time.
Wrong. Time began with the universe. If both are infinite into the past, neither had a beginning.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 481 - 500 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••