A Proof That God Exists

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1918 Jul 19, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
Okay, let's make this really simple: Give me an example of something uncaused. Thank you.
More:

1. the appearance of virtual particles
2. the location of a specific electron in a double slit experiment.
3. the time for the spontaneous emission of a photon by an atom
4. whether a neutral pion decays into two gamma rays or one gamma ray, one electron, and one positron.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1919 Jul 19, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
There is no question about the existence of the universe. It has been naturally proved with the existence of matter. Alternative means a probability or another option. The question here is to consider the alternative of the Primal Cause or the uncaused alternative. Since the BB has been taken as the strongest evidence ever for the beginning of the universe, the alternative of the Primal Cause has been strengthened.
Wrong. Since time itself begins with the Big Bang, it is impossible for the BB to be caused in the standard theory (as proposed by LeMaitre).

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1920 Jul 19, 2013
Another important one:

In which state a particle in a superposition will be detected. In particular, the EPR paradox and verifying experiment show both non-causality and lack of definite properties of particles in flight.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1921 Jul 19, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
Okay, let's make this really simple: Give me an example of something uncaused. Thank you.
All of the quantum processes are pretty much game for uncaused events.

But, from reading your stuff, I see you are entirely ignorant of anything in that area of science.

What's worse? You seem 100% incapable of understanding it, as well.

Pity.

Your questions would be answered-- if only you had the mental capacity to ...

.... learn something new.

Sad.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1922 Jul 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The time for the decay of a muon.
-------

As far as Physics is concerned, time is caused by the motion of matter. Try again.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1923 Jul 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
More:
1. the appearance of virtual particles
2. the location of a specific electron in a double slit experiment.
3. the time for the spontaneous emission of a photon by an atom
4. whether a neutral pion decays into two gamma rays or one gamma ray, one electron, and one positron.
1. Particles of whatever are akin to matter which cannot be uncaused.
2. Location is akin to space which is also an accident of matter. Space cannot be spoken of without matter to determine it.
3. That time is an accident of the spontaneous emission of matter. Anything subject to matter is caused by the contingency of matter.
4. The same as above. Keep trying.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1924 Jul 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Since time itself begins with the Big Bang, it is impossible for the BB to be caused in the standard theory (as proposed by LeMaitre).
-----

The BB cannot have occurred out of nothing. Only matter in motion would cause time. Albeit not aware of what you have said you have admitted that time was cause as an accident of matter.

Since: Feb 13

Tarzana, CA

#1925 Jul 20, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
Another important one:
In which state a particle in a superposition will be detected. In particular, the EPR paradox and verifying experiment show both non-causality and lack of definite properties of particles in flight.
-----

Again with this assertion of yours above you have admitted that time is an accident of matter (particles) in motion.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1926 Jul 20, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
As far as Physics is concerned, time is caused by the motion of matter. Try again.
Once again, the specific time for the decay is not caused.

And no, time is *not* caused by the motion of matter in physics.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1927 Jul 20, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Particles of whatever are akin to matter which cannot be uncaused.
Wrong. Virtual particles are not caused.
2. Location is akin to space which is also an accident of matter. Space cannot be spoken of without matter to determine it.
3. That time is an accident of the spontaneous emission of matter. Anything subject to matter is caused by the contingency of matter.
4. The same as above. Keep trying.
So you persist in ignoring the actual evidence by making false philosophical claims.

No, time and space are NOT accidents of matter.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1928 Jul 20, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
Again with this assertion of yours above you have admitted that time is an accident of matter (particles) in motion.
How have I done that?

Once again, and very carefully. If I put a particle into a superpositional state, the specific state it is detected in by a later experiment is uncaused. It is purely probabilistic.

If you don't understand the examples, just ask about them.

In the decay of a muon, there is no difference between the muon a pico-second before the decay and that muon at any other time.The decay itself is uncaused. There is no 'fuse' inside a muon or spring that goes off to make it decay.

For virtual particles, they literally come into existence out of nothing in a purely probabilistic way: there is no causality here.

In the case of an electron in a double slit experiment, there is no way, even in theory, to predict where the electron will hit the detector. it is purely probabilistic and uncaused.

Maybe we have a difference in definitions. Perhaps we can get further if you give me *your* definition of the word 'cause'. What do *you* mean when you say that 'A causes B'? Be precise. Don't simply give trivial examples; give a precise definition.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1929 Jul 20, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
The BB cannot have occurred out of nothing. Only matter in motion would cause time. Albeit not aware of what you have said you have admitted that time was cause as an accident of matter.
Time, space, energy, and matter are all co-existent and uncaused.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1930 Jul 20, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
As far as Physics is concerned, time is caused by the motion of matter. Try again.
Bullshit. No two ways about that-- you are flat wrong.
LCN Llin

United States

#1931 Jul 20, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit. No two ways about that-- you are flat wrong.
LOL

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#1932 Jul 20, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
As far as Physics is concerned, time is caused by the motion of matter. Try again.
Uh...no.

I suggest you stay away from the subject of physics since you know virtually nothing about it.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1933 Jul 21, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
The BB cannot have occurred out of nothing. Only matter in motion would cause time. Albeit not aware of what you have said you have admitted that time was cause as an accident of matter.
The way you theists argue against established definitions is both evil and dishonest.
LCN Llin

United States

#1934 Jul 21, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
The way you theists argue against established definitions is both evil and dishonest.
---"...way you theists..." another use of the stawman
"strawman fallacy

You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate."

LOL

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1935 Jul 23, 2013
LCN Llin wrote:
<quoted text>
---"...way you theists..." another use of the stawman
"strawman fallacy
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate."
LOL
Creationist troll coward who can't prove his god and can only play psuedo-intellectual word games.
LCN Llin

United States

#1936 Jul 23, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationist troll coward who can't prove his god and can only play psuedo-intellectual word games.
If your ideas were valid you would not need to be so defensive!
Relax you are amusing

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1937 Jul 23, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, the specific time for the decay is not caused.
And no, time is *not* caused by the motion of matter in physics.
----

You might want to brush up in your Physics.

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) 57 min replaytime 85,534
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 7 hr Rose_NoHo 4,816
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 14 hr ChristineM 4,026
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Tue Into The Night 5,146
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Mon Dogen 33,127
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) Jan 15 superwilly 111
News Egypt's parliament takes serious actions to com... Jan 14 emperorjohn 1
More from around the web