A Proof That God Exists

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#1142 Apr 26, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
One thing is to claim what you have; another is to show what you claim.
Virtual particles.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#1143 Apr 26, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
Behold another guy claiming to know better than Einstein. I wonder why Einstein never gave a damn about quantum physics which he considered a wasting of time.
Einstein, as brilliant as he was, has been definitively proven wrong on QM. He was just too
set in his ways; he really wanted to find a way to create a "theory of everything" that "made sense" to him. His "put down" of quantum entanglement - "spooky action at a distance," has gone down as one of the most infamously wrong statements in physics.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1144 Apr 26, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
I spilled spot remover on my dog and now he's gone
Steve Wright Joke
Lighten up, this is a thread
Says the theist troll coward who can't prove his god and tried to take potshots at atheists.

Do yourself a favour and see if you can hold a proper conversation here and actually answer the people you accuse here..
Lincoln

United States

#1145 Apr 26, 2013
They all may not have been able to get to their churches, but in the hours after the second of two suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings was captured April 19, Episcopalians in the Boston area continued to support each other and their neighbors.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1146 Apr 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
What we have found over time is that people *think* certain ideas are logically necessary, but in fact they are not. For example, it was 'obvious' to Aristotle that heavy things fall faster than light things. He saw that as 'logical'. The problem is that it is false.
Your problem is that you use the notion of 'cause' without defining that notion or demonstrating how it works. In practice, there are many situations where causality simply does not apply. Such situations tend to happen in the quantum realm, but they are well-established.
So, before you proceed, please give a definition of 'A causes B'. Be as clear as you can be.
Then, derive *from your definition* some useful properties of causality (such as nothing can cause itself and anything else you want to claim about the necessity of the existence of causes).
My bet is that you will be unable to do this. Why? Because causality simply doesn't work in practice.
No, causality works fine in practice. It just doesn't work for your theories.

You are also wrong that causality does not apply in the quantum world. Causality applies, you simply don't know what it is.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause, since something cannot come from nothing.

Given a "something", there is a cause.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1147 Apr 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
What we have found over time is that people *think* certain ideas are logically necessary, but in fact they are not. For example, it was 'obvious' to Aristotle that heavy things fall faster than light things. He saw that as 'logical'. The problem is that it is false.
No, Aristotle's view did not rely on logic - it relied on physical attributes of the universe, which he had wrong.

Your use of this example is not an indictment of logic. Your error indicates you might refrain from commenting on the use of logic, since you don't understand it.

Stick to infinite-length physical objects, or dividing 10' poles into infinite positive lengths.

At least that's entertaining.

“In God we trust”

Since: Dec 12

Cape Town, South Africa

#1148 Apr 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
For the same reason one would not respect their father if they turned out to be a serial killer.
Bear in mind that your god is the most heinous serial killer ever, according to your favourite book.
It's not him that kills us, it's humans, haven't you been listing, know because you're ignorant.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1149 Apr 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>

Why do you continue to insist that we show you evidence of something which is NOT our position, especially when the possibility proposed is that it was NOT caused?
Not having a cause and causing itself are the same thing.

If you propose, as you say here, that the universe is uncaused, then it caused itself to begin to exist, as there was nothing else to cause it.

Perhaps you avoid that contradiction and say it "just happened" uncaused.

That doesn't help you. Either the necessary and sufficient conditions for the appearance of spacetime existed or not; if so, then it is not true that nothing existed. If not so, then the universe would not exist and no cause is necessary.

Don't even try the eternal universe tactic. There can be no infinite series of past events.

Sorry.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1150 Apr 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
What we have found over time is that people *think* certain ideas are logically necessary, but in fact they are not. For example, it was 'obvious' to Aristotle that heavy things fall faster than light things. He saw that as 'logical'. The problem is that it is false.
Your problem is that you use the notion of 'cause' without defining that notion or demonstrating how it works. In practice, there are many situations where causality simply does not apply. Such situations tend to happen in the quantum realm, but they are well-established.
So, before you proceed, please give a definition of 'A causes B'. Be as clear as you can be.
Then, derive *from your definition* some useful properties of causality (such as nothing can cause itself and anything else you want to claim about the necessity of the existence of causes).
My bet is that you will be unable to do this. Why? Because causality simply doesn't work in practice.
-------
Logic tells me that every thing is caused by something else and that nothing can cause itself.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1151 Apr 26, 2013
You guys who claim that quantum events occur uncaused are misleading the reader.

I could explain why that claim is not accurate, but since you already believe it, you don't understand anything about quantum physics, or you are just lying.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1152 Apr 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you think it is an embarrassment? To whom? Furthermore, why do you ignore the *extensions* of Lemaitre's ideas that do NOT have an origin for the universe?
----

The embarrassment resides in the fact that a religious theist had to fix the more-than 2000 years old wrong theory for the eternity of the universe with the BB. Ironic don't you think so?

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1153 Apr 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
But not anything uncaused, unless of course it happens to be your 'divine' creator. No double-standard there then.(shrug)
<quoted text>
Why do you continue to insist that we show you evidence of something which is NOT our position, especially when the possibility proposed is that it was NOT caused?
Answer - You're just another dishonest fundie who's too incredulous to accept the idea of anything being uncaused UNLESS it applies to YOUR favourite wizard.
<quoted text>
Not really, since it's not ours that is based on dishonesty. For keep in mind we also accept the possibility of potential causes, which have since been elaborated on.
<quoted text>
Actually it's your position which explains nothing. Invoking an invisible magic Jewish wizard is not an explanation. It is a WHO, not a HOW. And it's based on zero evidence. But there is this old book which you were brought up on which talks about talking lizards, donkeys and the Earth being flat. But it probably picked the right wizard out of the thousands proposed throughout history though.
-------

Your paranoia about talking serpents and lizards only shows how much you understand of metaphorical language or poetic similes. Sad!

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1154 Apr 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually that's PRECISELY what the creationist problem is. You are unable to grasp the concept of quantum events because they are not observable on a macro-Newtonian scale (the only scale we can determine using our five biological senses). "Everything MUST have a cause" under that axiom, therefore you claim a "who" MUST have created the universe - the very ESSENCE of anthropomorphism.
----

See what I mean? For you the idea that God created the unverse He probably must have worked with His hands. This is anthropomorphism and not the way I claim.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1155 Apr 26, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Einstein, as brilliant as he was, has been definitively proven wrong on QM. He was just too
set in his ways; he really wanted to find a way to create a "theory of everything" that "made sense" to him. His "put down" of quantum entanglement - "spooky action at a distance," has gone down as one of the most infamously wrong statements in physics.
-----

You should have told him that before he died.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1156 Apr 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. That is because there is no evidence.(shrug)
Like I pointed out to you ages ago, your thinking is Aristotelian in nature. Very ancient thinking, and in today's day and age, very wrong. This is why empiricism is important - something rejected by creationist apologists at every possible turn while hypocritically accepting the fruits of empirical methods. This is why if we did not have video evidence to the contrary you would be claiming that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. In fact LGK is a moon-landing denier as well as a YEC reality-denier so I'll have to make a mental note next time he shows up whether he accepts Newtonian mechanics or not.
-------

And my thinking is the one very ancient! Even before Aristotle the Bible already claimed that the universe had a beginning. The cosmologists preferred the modern Aristotelian theory that the universe was rather eternal without a biginnin and without an end. In 1922 a Catholic theist priest fixed their mistake by proving the Bible was right all the time by theorizing that the BB gave origin to the universe and the Cosmologists changed their minds to adopt the theory of the Catholic priest. How can someone be proud of scientific theories?

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1157 Apr 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
You guys who claim that quantum events occur uncaused are misleading the reader.
I could explain why that claim is not accurate, but since you already believe it, you don't understand anything about quantum physics, or you are just lying.
----

I would not say straightforwardly that they are lying because I don't have an atheistic tongue but they are misguided by their own preconceived notions.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1158 Apr 26, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
Logic tells me that every thing is caused by something else and that nothing can cause itself.
What statement of logic shows this? In fact, this is not a logic statement, it is a claim about properties of the physical universe. As such, it could be either correct or incorrect depending on the evidence. In fact, the evidence points to it being wrong.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1159 Apr 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
You guys who claim that quantum events occur uncaused are misleading the reader.
I could explain why that claim is not accurate, but since you already believe it, you don't understand anything about quantum physics, or you are just lying.
Please supply a definition of the word 'cause' that allows quantum events to be caused.

Alternatively, please explain, using whatever material from QM that you wish, to explain why the statement that QM is an acausal theory is inaccurate.

I understood more about quantum physics when I was 13 years old than you ever will.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1160 Apr 26, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----
The embarrassment resides in the fact that a religious theist had to fix the more-than 2000 years old wrong theory for the eternity of the universe with the BB. Ironic don't you think so?


Not at all. LeMaitre provided a *model* in which the universe has a beginning. He based his model on Einstein's theory of general relativity. But general relativity does not include quantum mechanics, which we know is relevant for the very early stages of the expansion. When quantum theories of gravity are used, the universe may, in fact, be eternal because the singularity in LeMaitre's model is avoided.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1161 Apr 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Not having a cause and causing itself are the same thing.
Wrong.
If you propose, as you say here, that the universe is uncaused, then it caused itself to begin to exist, as there was nothing else to cause it.
Compounded wrongness.
Perhaps you avoid that contradiction and say it "just happened" uncaused.
That doesn't help you. Either the necessary and sufficient conditions for the appearance of spacetime existed or not; if so, then it is not true that nothing existed. If not so, then the universe would not exist and no cause is necessary.
Assumes that time is around for causality to be relevant. Wrong yet again.
Don't even try the eternal universe tactic. There can be no infinite series of past events.
Sorry.
Sorry, but you are simply wrong yet again. There is no logical problem with an infinite sequence of past events.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 14 min Simon 61,309
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 1 hr Subduction Zone 2,683
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 hr Aura Mytha 28,316
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Fri IB DaMann 5,970
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) Wed Eagle 12 452
Deconversion Mar 20 Eagle 12 138
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) Mar 18 Eagle 12 2,043
More from around the web