“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#611 Apr 12, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
Whether there was another universe prior to the present one does not change a thing in the concept of being caused into existence. The Primal Mover precedes all multi-verses.
1) no proof that a prime mover is required-- you did not even try to argue that

2) no argument of ANY kind showing why the "prime mover" >>had<< to be a sentient being >>identical<< to your imaginary god. You did not even try.

3) if there are multiple universes? The regression could be infinite into the past-- no need for any original cause at all!

4) you failed to address the situation that universes may be uncaused events-- you did not even argue for this point at all!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#612 Apr 12, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
How can one prove the incorporeal when you cannot prove the origin of the universe which is made out of matter?
The proof is in the pudding, as the old saying goes.

The proof of the universe existing-- is the universe existing.

And it's made of matter too.

How about that?

But your comment is duly filed under "idiot" along with all the rest of your not-an-argument.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#613 Apr 12, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But matter *always* moves. The electrons move, the nuclei move, the quarks move. All of them are continually moving, even at a temperature of absolute zero. Whenever there is matter, it is moving, so there is time.
<quoted text>
Time is a part of the geometry of our spacetime universe. It is dynamic and subject to effects from matter and energy. These effects have been measured and are well understood.
-----

Well, finally something is starting to come out.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#614 Apr 12, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
The possibility was destroyed with the BB theory by George Lemaitre. Therefore the universe was caused because matter could not exist without a beginning. But hey, perhaps Lemaitre was wrong because you know better than he did. Could that be so?
At the quantum level, there are any number of uncaused events.

So your entire argument above? Is wiped out at one go.

The universe could be an uncaused event-- it happens all the time.

Since uncaused events happen >>all<< the >>time<<?

The likely hood of an uncaused universe is 1 out of 1.

In fact? The odds show that there are an infinite number of universes...

... due to the simple observation of uncaused events at the quantum level of reality.

There goes 100% of your arguments out the window.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#615 Apr 12, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
I am sorry Polymath but you are too dense and make no efforts to hide it. I meant that time would not exist in "absolute" inertia if it were possible after matter has been caused into existence. I am well aware that there is no absolute inertia as long as there is matter. Do I have to give a definition of every word I say? That's embarrassing!
You keep using the word "cause" improperly.

I don't think the word means what you think it means...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#616 Apr 12, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
Well, finally something is starting to come out.
It is a shame, you cannot say the same thing about what YOU post...

... isn't it?

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#617 Apr 12, 2013
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
To refuse to provide proof of an assertion, is the best way to domonstrate a lack of reality.
-----

Prove the origin of the universe and I'll prove Who caused it into existence.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#618 Apr 12, 2013
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter whether I know how the universe came about or not. Even if my answer is "I don't know, it does not mean there has to be a god.
As for the rest of your post, it does not explain how your claim that non-matter created matter is viable.
Again you have failed to provide the answer to a question that YOU induced.
------

...or you have failed to understand the answer I have provided.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#619 Apr 12, 2013
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it funny that a guy who claims that non-matter created matter, has the guts to tell anyone that they don't understand physics. LOL!!!!
-----

What am I to say? You have indeed proved that you do not understand Physics. Only if it fits into your preconceived notions.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620 Apr 12, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
You are too easy at judging others to have failed. That's the first
sign of someone who has failed himself. Study a little Psychology.
You mean pop psychology that you hear from dr. phil?

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#621 Apr 12, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
1) no proof of the existence of this.. ahem... "prime mover"
2) no proof that the "prime mover" >>had<< to be sentient in any way
3) no proof that the universe required a cause to begin with (it could have been an uncaused event-- happens all the time at the quantum level)
4) no argument AT ALL that this "prime mover" had to be identical to your imaginary god. You did not even try on this point...
-------

I told you already: Prove to me how the universe originated and I will prove to you the existence of the Primal Mover. You guys only talk nonsense like children in a game of words.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#622 Apr 12, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
If the Primal Mover had to be caused into existence He would not be the Primal Mover. Why is this so hard for you guys to understand? Really embarrassing!
Yes it IS really embarrassing for fundies. Not only do they have no evidence of their "Primal Mover" but also need not one but at least TWO special exemptions that they do not allow to the opposite view. So fundies lack evidence and are total hypocrites.

And it has already been pointed out that an infinite string of cause and effect could also be responsible. One universe followed by another and by another and by another and so on.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#623 Apr 12, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
Prove the origin of the universe and I'll prove Who caused it into existence.
Seriously? You're the one suggesting the existence of a being for which we have no evidence.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#624 Apr 12, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
Whether there was another universe prior to the present one does not change a thing in the concept of being caused into existence. The Primal Mover precedes all multi-verses.
If a universe was prior to this and another prior to that ad infinitum nothing CAN precede that. Because nothing can precede infinity.

But then I ALREADY pointed out that you could just move the goalposts outside of that infinite string and you could STILL say that God was (somehow) responsible for it (I swear I'm a prophet when it comes to you fundies). But it effectively renders your "God" a superfluous useless explanation, as it's constantly being put behind any and all goalposts with the baseless claim that it is the MAIN MAN.

To which I say - who cares?(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#625 Apr 12, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
...or you have failed to understand the answer I have provided.
What's not to understand? Goddidit with magic.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#626 Apr 12, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
I told you already: Prove to me how the universe originated and I will prove to you the existence of the Primal Mover. You guys only talk nonsense like children in a game of words.
We haven't claimed to know the origin of the universe. That's WHY there have been numerous potential hypotheses presented. YOU on the other hand have ALREADY made the positive statement that you have ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE that Goddidit with magic. But rather than provide that you keep regurgitating old Aristotelian style philosophical arguments instead of evidence.
John K

Westerville, OH

#627 Apr 12, 2013
Polymath257, there has beem a new study that has shown experimentally that absolute zero is just a placeholder on the temperature scale and that temperature is more closer to a loop rather than a lineal thing. The temperature right below absolute zero is an infinitely hot temp. And the loop starts over at that point. This concept if it is verified by more experiments could lead us to some really cool ways of creating cheap energy sources. I'm not sure how this info helps or hurts the present discussion.
John K

Cleveland, OH

#628 Apr 12, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
Prove the origin of the universe and I'll prove Who caused it into existence.
Does this mean that if the origin of the universe is un provable then you can't prove Who caused it into existence? Also you make the mistake of making an, as of yet, unproven assumption that a "Who" did it rather than a "What". This assumption means that you are not approaching this problem with an open mind, but with preconceptions that as of yet are unwarranted.
Thinking

Bolton, UK

#629 Apr 12, 2013
It's worse than that.

According to shitbonnet, the universe doesn't exist.

John K wrote:
<quoted text>
Does this mean that if the origin of the universe is un provable then you can't prove Who caused it into existence? Also you make the mistake of making an, as of yet, unproven assumption that a "Who" did it rather than a "What". This assumption means that you are not approaching this problem with an open mind, but with preconceptions that as of yet are unwarranted.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#630 Apr 12, 2013
John K wrote:
Polymath257, there has beem a new study that has shown experimentally that absolute zero is just a placeholder on the temperature scale and that temperature is more closer to a loop rather than a lineal thing. The temperature right below absolute zero is an infinitely hot temp. And the loop starts over at that point. This concept if it is verified by more experiments could lead us to some really cool ways of creating cheap energy sources. I'm not sure how this info helps or hurts the present discussion.
Source.

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 Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 18 min superwilly 106
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 2 hr thetruth 7,459
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr thetruth 239,089
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 hr thetruth 7,360
why Atheists believe in incest,pedophilia and b... 19 hr hpcaban 30
News .com | What hope is there without God? May 20 Kaitlin the Wolf ... 26
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) May 20 thetruth 2,171
More from around the web