PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Start at square one

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
fissure226

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK, as I'm reading these topics I notice a strange lack of physics and cosmology topics, more specifically not much attention to the Big Bang theory. Now, from my observations it's clear that there are more evolutionists than creationists, on this site, so it's understandable that there is not much dialogue about this topic, seeing as it points to the sudden and instant creation of the universe as described in Genesis Ch.1, not really evidence for an un-caused first cause. But regardless, this is without a doubt the most important topic in this whole debate, How did the universe even begin?

If it were written in in big red neon letters since before history keeping, on the Moon, "God was here". Then our whole existence would make a lot more sense. Obviously this is not the case, the answer is much more esoteric. But I believe it's there.  Like in the Where's Waldo books, once you find it, you cant deny it.

Now I will assert my contentions as evidence for the existence of a creator.

1. It is against the laws of logic to conclude that something that exists could have no cause of existence. It is safe to assume that an apple was "caused" by an apple tree, so why is it safe to assume that all to molecules to make the apple and the tree had no first cause, meaning creation, how is it at all more logical to think that the universe had no cause than that it did?

Ill will post more contentions latter but I think it's good to start with that.

Note: I am not a scholar in the fields of cosmology, physics, or philosophy, I am just a thinker. Please don't make ad hominem attacks, take what I have to say at face value, then make your assertions logically. I don't care if your disagree with me, it's not personal. I just want to try to look at things objectively.
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 12:59 AM on August 6, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

this situation "Where something needs a beginning" is often asked by creationits to then say that God is the beginner that began everything else.

But the logical question would be. Who created God then, if everything has a beginning, who started/what caused God.

(Edited by Zucadragon 8/6/2009 at 02:23 AM).
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 02:22 AM on August 6, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Also, welcome on the forum, hope you have a great stay
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 02:24 AM on August 6, 2009 | IP
fissure226

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A beginning of a the Universe is undeniable, Ask any mainstream cosmologist, God fearing or not, and they will agree. There are few reasons.

1. The universe is expanding at an expanding rate, so it's easy to extrapolate that at one point in time, all the matter was sandwiched in point. But all matter can't exist in one point so I had to suddenly spring into existence and rapidly expand from there.

2. The laws of thermodynamics state that all energy moves from a useful to a less useful state, it decays, there is useful energy in the universe therefore, energy has had a finite existence. If the universe existed forever we would already be at the end of the universe.
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 07:42 AM on August 6, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fissure226 at 07:42 AM on August 6, 2009 :
A beginning of a the Universe is undeniable, Ask any mainstream cosmologist, God fearing or not, and they will agree. There are few reasons.

1. The universe is expanding at an expanding rate, so it's easy to extrapolate that at one point in time, all the matter was sandwiched in point. But all matter can't exist in one point so I had to suddenly spring into existence and rapidly expand from there.

2. The laws of thermodynamics state that all energy moves from a useful to a less useful state, it decays, there is useful energy in the universe therefore, energy has had a finite existence. If the universe existed forever we would already be at the end of the universe.


First off, no they don't, cosmologists say that the universe as we see it today has an origin, that it began. But it's the origin of the universe the way we see it.

If you look into big bang cosmology, you'll see that they can only calculate back towards a specific point, this point is not the beginning of the universe, the beginning would be further back.

They don't know what came before this point really, there's a lot of "ideas" on it, but nothing scientific really.

1. In order for me to answer this, I need to know from you, what you think the expansion of the universe means, or rather, describe how the universe is expanding. Because, I don't think you know how the expansion of the universe works, but I'd like to give you the chance to prove me wrong.

2. The laws of themodynamics has nothing to do with this, if the universe didn't exist in this state at some point, then those laws wouldn't apply.
But even if they did, your conclusion is false.
Again, the universe didn't exist in its current form forever. The current form has a beginning. What comes before it, is unknown.


I see you also didn't answer my "so how did god begin/ who created god?" question, I would still like an answer to that.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 07:50 AM on August 6, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First off, as another relative newbie, welcome!

Second, like you I just read a bit here and there on topics related to the discussions here.  
Quote from fissure226 at 06:42 AM on August 6, 2009 :

1. The universe is expanding ...


I'll follow Zucadragon's lead, and let you respond to his question.  However, I'll give you a hint: look up Einstein and Stern.


Quote from fissure226 at 06:42 AM on August 6, 2009 :
2. The laws of thermodynamics state that all energy moves from a useful to a less useful state, it decays, there is useful energy in the universe therefore, energy has had a finite existence. If the universe existed forever we would already be at the end of the universe.


Uh no, that's not a very good statement of the second law of thermodynamics.  I think a better one would be something like: in a closed system entropy will either increase or stay the same.



(Edited by Mustrum 8/6/2009 at 11:57 AM).


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 11:56 AM on August 6, 2009 | IP
fissure226

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

@ Zucadragon:

The medium for which the expansion of the universe is calculated is called the cosmological microwave background, which is a blanket of photons in the microwave spectrum that permeate all the known universe, through observations of fluctuations in this background most notably by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, astronomers have concluded that the universe is expanding. There is also evidence for the existence of Cosmic neutrino background, but not yet confirmed.

so how did god begin/ who created god?

A: God did not begin, nor does He need to. This can best be explained by understanding that time, as in the fourth dimension, like one straight line is not something that God is subject to because he exists outside this universe, He exists in all eternity simultaneously, to think otherwise is a callow approach at imagining God.

This video might help you with imagining higher dimensions Imagining The Tenth Dimention Video. We are like the "flatlandes" trying to imagine a 3d human.
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 5:41 PM on August 6, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fissure226 at 4:41 PM on August 6, 2009 :
@ Zucadragon:

The medium for which the expansion of the universe is calculated is called the cosmological microwave background, which is a blanket of photons in the microwave spectrum that permeate all the known universe, through observations of fluctuations in this background most notably by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, astronomers have concluded that the universe is expanding. There is also evidence for the existence of Cosmic neutrino background, but not yet confirmed.



I was thinking you were going to mention the cosmological constant.



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 8:56 PM on August 6, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fissure226 at 4:41 PM on August 6, 2009 :
This video might help you with imagining higher dimensions Imagining The Tenth Dimention Video. We are like the "flatlandes" trying to imagine a 3d human.


What's the point of that video?   The guy was throwing out a lot of terms and names in what seems to be an almost haphazard manner.  It was, dare I say it, a bit schizophrenic.  Overall, it didn't seem to quite fit in with what little I know of physics.  

Anyone really know their physics that can comment?




-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 9:29 PM on August 6, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Physics is not my thing, but I remember reading somewhere that there should have been anti-matter in the big bang, and there is little.  Thank God--or if your an atheist--thank nothing (lol)--just joking guys.  If there was alot it would react with matter and destroy everything.

Again--organization and separation are par for the course in the universe (which are common lab principles also).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 10:04 PM on August 6, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 9:04 PM on August 6, 2009 :
Physics is not my thing, but I remember reading somewhere that there should have been anti-matter in the big bang, and there is little.


We use antimatter all the time...e.g., PET scans.





-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 12:12 AM on August 7, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I believe I read somewhere that the expansion of the universe via the Big Bang is the expansion of space itself.  Theory states that there was an inflationary period that occurred shortly after the instant of the Big Bang where the universe expanded faster than the speed of light - it was space that expanded.  I don't confess to understand that.

According to the Big Bang, there was almost an equal part of matter and anti-matter, which annialated each other.  But there was an asymetry in the process, with slightly more matter present - which is our visible universe.

Slightly more?  That translates into 'a lot' in human terms.

Also, during the initial instance of the Big, matter and the major forces (electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear forces) did not exist in the forms we see today.  The universe was too hot.  But as it cooled down as it expanded, the subatomic particles came together to form the matter and forces we see now.

So the early universe was quite different from what we see today.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:46 AM on August 7, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fissure226 at 5:41 PM on August 6, 2009 :
@ Zucadragon:

The medium for which the expansion of the universe is calculated is called the cosmological microwave background, which is a blanket of photons in the microwave spectrum that permeate all the known universe, through observations of fluctuations in this background most notably by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, astronomers have concluded that the universe is expanding. There is also evidence for the existence of Cosmic neutrino background, but not yet confirmed.

so how did god begin/ who created god?

A: God did not begin, nor does He need to. This can best be explained by understanding that time, as in the fourth dimension, like one straight line is not something that God is subject to because he exists outside this universe, He exists in all eternity simultaneously, to think otherwise is a callow approach at imagining God.

This video might help you with imagining higher dimensions Imagining The Tenth Dimention Video. We are like the "flatlandes" trying to imagine a 3d human.


Thats not really the correct answer, actually, I don't even think you know what you're talking about, why don't you try and explain it in your own words. Because you haven't explained how the universe expands, you've just thrown words out in an attempt to sound smart.

The medium for which I calculate the putting of bread in my mouth, is de length between the piece of bread and my mouth, through inverse trigonometrical scans of my triangled bread, it is calculated that the bread does actually reach my mouth.

But how does the bread reach my mouth?

And how does the universe expand?

A: God did not begin, nor does He need to. This can best be explained by understanding that time, as in the fourth dimension, like one straight line is not something that God is subject to because he exists outside this universe, He exists in all eternity simultaneously, to think otherwise is a callow approach at imagining God.


This is just silly, bacause basically you're just excusing god under a rule that the big bang falls under as well.
The big bang doesn't need a cause, it is theorized that the big bang caused time itself, and thus was not "in time" before it happened.
In that sense, you've screwed yourself over, because you can't claim god is "out of time" and thus eternal (which is weird, because eternal is a time based word). Yet the universe is out of time, and still requires a causation.

I would also still love it if you responded to the thermodynamics answers. I think I don't need to keep telling you to answer whole posts, instead of the parts you feel you can answer best.


(Edited by Zucadragon 8/7/2009 at 03:24 AM).
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 02:49 AM on August 7, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fissure226 at 12:59 AM on August 6, 2009 :
OK, as I'm reading these topics I notice a strange lack of physics and cosmology topics, more specifically not much attention to the Big Bang theory. Now, from my observations it's clear that there are more evolutionists than creationists, on this site, so it's understandable that there is not much dialogue about this topic, seeing as it points to the sudden and instant creation of the universe as described in Genesis Ch.1, not really evidence for an un-caused first cause. But regardless, this is without a doubt the most important topic in this whole debate, How did the universe even begin?


First off welcome. As a general rule I would say more people understand more about biology than physics/cosmology, or at least it is easier. Plus evolution has been pushed way more than the big bang by the creationist movement. I think that combination makes it so that people are more focused on evolution than cosmology.

Note: I am not a scholar in the fields of cosmology, physics, or philosophy, I am just a thinker.


I don't think a lot of people on here are scholars in any of those fields or the hard sciences, I know I'm not.

As regards to your Genesis ch.1 comment, scripture and the big bang are very similar in several respects. So much, that some people reject the big bang because it too closely aligns with Christian theology. Perhaps the two aren't in such disagreement as you think.

To the question on how the universe began? The scientific answer is we don't know yet, only that it did happen, followed by a massive expansion of space that is still going on today. I don't know what your specific theology is, but I'll add in that it happened billions of years ago, just in case.

(Edited by Fencer27 8/7/2009 at 04:18 AM).


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 04:12 AM on August 7, 2009 | IP
fissure226

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Zucadragon, I just realized I had a huge brain fart there, Somehow or another I misread your first post, I thought you stated or implied the universe was eternal, now that I reread it, I see you clearly didn't say that, subsequently my rebuttal was totally off topic, and it all went downhill from there (must be my ADD kicking in).

OK lets hit the restart button.

Quote from Zucadragon at 9:22 PM on August 5, 2009 :

this situation "Where something needs a beginning" is often asked by creationits to then say that God is the beginner that began everything else.

But the logical question would be. Who created God then, if everything has a beginning, who started/what caused God.

(Edited by Zucadragon 8/6/2009 at 02:23 AM).


you asked "if everything has a beginning. who started/what caused God."

If you're willing to accept the existence of a God what purpose does it serve to question his supposed creation? You're argument doesn't show evidence against a creator of this universe it only questions his nature and assumes his very existence.
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 7:48 PM on August 7, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you're willing to accept the existence of a God what purpose does it serve to question his supposed creation?


Good question.   And yet, every YE creationist denies what God says about the creation of life in Genesis.

 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 8:00 PM on August 7, 2009 | IP
fissure226

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Yehren at 3:00 PM on August 7, 2009 :

Good question.   And yet, every YE creationist denies what God says about the creation of life in Genesis.



Can I get some specific Bible passages to work with?
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 8:31 PM on August 7, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're argument doesn't show evidence against a creator of this universe it only questions his nature and assumes his very existence.

No, it shows the contradiction in your argument, if the universe needs a begining why doesn't God?  And if God didn't need a begining, why does reality?  You're using special pleading to cover up this flaw.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:40 PM on August 7, 2009 | IP
fissure226

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is a test, my rebuttal to the last post had a sever error and did not show up.
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 11:19 PM on August 7, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Barbarian observes:
Good question.   And yet, every YE creationist denies what God says about the creation of life in Genesis.

Can I get some specific Bible passages to work with?


Sure.   The "Life ex Nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is completely incompatible with God's Word:

Gen. 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

God says that the earth brought forth living things.  So does science.  But not YE creationism.


 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 12:25 AM on August 8, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 8:40 PM on August 7, 2009 :
You're argument doesn't show evidence against a creator of this universe it only questions his nature and assumes his very existence.

No, it shows the contradiction in your argument, if the universe needs a begining why doesn't God?  And if God didn't need a begining, why does reality?  You're using special pleading to cover up this flaw.


Mr. Demon,

Okay, then it would seem that there are two alternatives.  Either...

1) Something was always here whether it was the universe or the Creator.

2) There was at one point nothing and then something came into being.  (what is nothing??)

Which one do you like, or can you think of another alternative?

Also my comment on antimatter was dismissed quickly.  Mustrum said we use it all the time--but that is something we generate.  I can't recall what it is called but I can look it up if you'd like.  It's a mystery as to why there is a small ratio of antimatter if the big bang took place.

(Edited by AFJ 8/8/2009 at 12:41 AM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 12:40 AM on August 8, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1) Something was always here whether it was the universe or the Creator.

Well, maybe not our universe, since we have a lot of evidence that it began 14 billion years ago, but something.  We have some evidence that something existed before our universe.  We still have no evidence for a Creator.

2) There was at one point nothing and then something came into being.  (what is nothing??)

Well we do know that matter and energy can self start with no cause, so it's within the realm of possibility that the universe came from nothing.  As to what is nothing, I don't know.

Which one do you like, or can you think of another alternative?

I don't know, but it certainly is exciting investigating the possibilities.  Which one do you like?

Also my comment on antimatter was dismissed quickly.  Mustrum said we use it all the time--but that is something we generate.  I can't recall what it is called but I can look it up if you'd like.  It's a mystery as to why there is a small ratio of antimatter if the big bang took place.

I forget what your original comment was about anti-matter, but here's what NASA researchers say about matter / anti-matter in the universe, from here:
Matter/Anitmatter

"Most theoreticians believe that at the time of the Big Bang antiparticles and particles were created in almost equal numbers. But why, then, is antimatter so rare today?
The tentative answer (and it is tentative, since this question is a topic of on-going research) is in the word almost. Present theory suggests that if particles outnumbered antiparticles in the Big Bang by as little as one part in 100 million, then the present universe could be explained by those extra particles that were not annihilated by an antiparticle counterpart. Other theories suggest that even if identical amounts of antimatter and matter were created in the Big Bang, the physics of antimatter and matter are slightly different. This hypothesized difference would favor residual matter after all original antimatter had been annihilated."




 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:34 AM on August 8, 2009 | IP
fissure226

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 3:40 PM on August 7, 2009 :

No, it shows the contradiction in your argument, if the universe needs a begining why doesn't God?  And if God didn't need a begining, why does reality?  You're using special pleading to cover up this flaw.


It is in the definition of God that he was not created and yet still exists.

But in order to understand why this is true I must first explain the paradoxical nature of an infinite God regression.

First is must be known that the concept of infinity is merely a figment of our imagination, a mental tool we use to cope with impossibly high numbers that has no basis for an actual existence.

I'll prove it as follows, Imagine you had an infinite number of Buttons that where all numbered 1,2,3...and so on. Now imagine that you where to take away all the odd numbered buttons to infinity leaving only the even ones to infinity, you would still end up with infinite buttons.

so: ∞ - ∞= ∞

conversely

If you took your infinite buttons and removed all the ones labeled 4 and higher you would end up with 3 buttons.

so: ∞ - ∞= 3

and even more ridiculous, if your buttons were labeled as all integers from -∞ to +∞ then take away all labeled less than 1 and all labeled higher than 3, you would have three.

So ∞ - ∞ - ∞= 3?

clearly the actual existence of an infinite number of object or events is ludicrous and better yet impossible.

because infinity doesn't exist neither can an infinite number of events occur. God creating a being that created the universe is an event, so it can't possibly regress back to infinity because we know that that's impossible, according to theism the first cause was God. Assuming the creator of this universe was created and say this process repeated even an astronomical number of times say, a googol times, as improbable that seems, that first creator is still God any consequent creation is not God.

The only conditions surrounding God's existence are that he is the immaterial, transcendent, and intelligent, first causer and that from this he has free will, so at a given finite time ago (time as we understand) God decided to create the universe, out of his own free will. It may be hard to imagine an uncaused God but realize that existence as a adverb is not quantitative, it's qualitative. To say that God existed for a numerical value of time is oxymoronic, furthermore time its self is not necessarily quantitative either because of it's abstract and relativistic nature. In fact there are no quantitative values of God whatsoever, this disproves any notion of a infinite God regression


But there are quantitative values of the universe such as the number of atoms in the universe, as well, the number of past events, so if the number of past events can be quantified (or at least estimated) and this quantity cannot reach infinity the universe has had a finite past.

In order to completely prove that God is not the cause of the certain finiteness of you must present a logical explanation for the possible existence of this universe that had no cause by intelligence and is of an immaterial nature, because matter cannot create matter. and also may not have any quantitative values that describe or result from it, because an absence of transcendent intelligence, and thus an absence freewill, would regress all quantitative values into an infinite and paradoxical certainty.

There is no other way around this.

You may ask how did number arise? Numbers them self's are not physical entities they are transcendent like God we can't touch them, they exist as a certainty of physical matter, as well they an abstract concept within out own intelligent minds.

(Edited by fissure226 8/8/2009 at 02:30 AM).

(Edited by fissure226 8/8/2009 at 02:32 AM).
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 02:18 AM on August 8, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is no other way around this.

Sure there is, you don't understand quantum theory.  You said above that matter can't create matter but matter and energy can and does form uncaused, out of nothing.  So it's possible that our universe did form itself out of nothing.

You may ask how did number arise? Numbers them self's are not physical entities they are transcendent like God we can't touch them, they exist as a certainty of physical matter, as well they an abstract concept within out own intelligent minds.

Numbers are a tool created by man, transcendant?  what does that mean?  Of course they're not physical entities, they are ideas.  How this supports your crazy claim is complete BS.  

So nice try, but you don't make sense and you don't understand physics.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:42 AM on August 8, 2009 | IP
fissure226

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 9:42 PM on August 7, 2009 :
matter and energy can and does form uncaused, out of nothing.  


Give some examples,

Matter, tuning into energy and visa-versa is conservation of mass.

what I should have said is mass cannot be created from nothing.
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 02:57 AM on August 8, 2009 | IP
fissure226

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Numbers are a tool created by man, transcendant?  what does that mean?  Of course they're not physical entities, they are ideas.  How this supports your crazy claim is complete BS.


I never said numbers where tool created by anyone, infinity is a tool. but infinity is not a number. Transcendence means that is is above the realm of matter and energy.

If this still doesn't support my claim then throw it out I don't care

(Edited by fissure226 8/8/2009 at 03:03 AM).
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 03:02 AM on August 8, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If this still doesn't support my claim then throw it out I don't care

Done.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:20 AM on August 8, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fissure226 at 03:02 AM on August 8, 2009 :
Numbers are a tool created by man, transcendant?  what does that mean?  Of course they're not physical entities, they are ideas.  How this supports your crazy claim is complete BS.


I never said numbers where tool created by anyone, infinity is a tool. but infinity is not a number. Transcendence means that is is above the realm of matter and energy.

If this still doesn't support my claim then throw it out I don't care

(Edited by fissure226 8/8/2009 at 03:03 AM).


It doesn't, but only because you haven't applied it to other things, if infinity is equal to transcendence in your explanation.

So if we look at the working of radiometric dating, it is generally a curve that outline the  accuracy of the results. Once you reach the edges of the method, they become less and less precise in a way that reaches towards infinity really, you can get infinity imprecise. But does that mean that radiometric dating transcends matter and energy?

 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 03:35 AM on August 8, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am a believer of course, so I will speak hypothetically.  If there was a Creator in another dimension from us, there would be no way for us to know that.  He would have to reveal himself by his own volition and method.

The creator, if he was indeed creator of the natural universe would be then "greater than" the universe itself.  In that we see the awesome power and size of it ourselves, the being that created it would have to have omnipotence and omnipresence.  

Last but not least, and possibly the most evident scientifically is the maitenanance of the universe.  Nothing we build lasts even 1000 years.  It seems that if the universe is 14 billion an, then something is maintaining it.

1) The orbits of the planets and moons.

2) The hydrogen in the sun and stars. (should be a way to calculate this)

3) The earth's magnetic field.  (4.7 billion supposedly)
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 04:48 AM on August 8, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If there was a Creator in another dimension from us, there would be no way for us to know that.

Why not?  If God could know about us, why couldn't we know about him?

He would have to reveal himself by his own volition and method.

Why wouldn't he want to reveal himself to us?

The creator, if he was indeed creator of the natural universe would be then "greater than" the universe itself.  In that we see the awesome power and size of it ourselves, the being that created it would have to have omnipotence and omnipresence.

I don't think this follows, to create a universe, you have to be omnipotent and omniscient?  Why do you say this...

Last but not least, and possibly the most evident scientifically is the maitenanance of the universe.  Nothing we build lasts even 1000 years.  It seems that if the universe is 14 billion an, then something is maintaining it.

Yes, something is maintaining it, the four fundamental forces, gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force and the strong force.  From what we observe, that's all that's needed.  Of course, we could be wrong, but we see how the universe is maintained by these natural forces and see no need for or evidence of intelligent maintenance.  
The orbits of the moons and planets is a function of gravity, stars formed by hydrogen is a function of gravity and the earth's magnetic field is a function of the electromagnetic theory.  I don't see the point of us not being able to build something that lasts for millions of years as being evidence for a creator.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:25 AM on August 8, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38

You said above that matter can't create matter but matter and energy can and does form uncaused, out of nothing.


What? Where is the evidence for this?


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:26 AM on August 8, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You said above that matter can't create matter but matter and energy can and does form uncaused, out of nothing.

What? Where is the evidence for this?


Virtual particles.   Learn about it here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

They are completely "legal" in the laws of nature, because two are always created out of nothing, one particle, one antiparticle.  So the net energy level remains the same - zero.


 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 10:15 AM on August 8, 2009 | IP
fissure226

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Yehren at 05:15 AM on August 8, 2009 :

Virtual particles.   Learn about it here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

They are completely "legal" in the laws of nature, because two are always created out of nothing, one particle, one antiparticle.  So the net energy level remains the same - zero.



Anti-matter is still matter and therefore is has mass, unless you can explain how mass can create mass you have gone nowhere.

 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 11:33 AM on August 8, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Virtual particles have been observed.   The Lamb shift depends on them.

There's nothing speculative about it.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 2:34 PM on August 8, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Anti-matter is still matter and therefore is has mass, unless you can explain how mass can create mass you have gone nowhere.

Why do you have to explain it when it's observed?  Matter can form uncaused.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:55 PM on August 8, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Earth's magnetic field isn't being "maintained."  It fluctuates all over the place.  Sometimes, it even flips.

And the solar system isn't "maintained."   It's constantly running down.  Comets fall apart, the sun is burning down its fuel (about halfway to burning out), and our moon (for example), is slowly receding from the Earth.

Not very well "maintained", um?


 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 6:14 PM on August 8, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fissure226 at 10:33 AM on August 8, 2009 :
Quote from Yehren at 05:15 AM on August 8, 2009 :

Virtual particles.   Learn about it here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

They are completely "legal" in the laws of nature, because two are always created out of nothing, one particle, one antiparticle.  So the net energy level remains the same - zero.



Anti-matter is still matter and therefore is has mass, unless you can explain how mass can create mass you have gone nowhere.




Virtual particles and antimatter are not the same thing.  A photon can be a virtual particle, but it is not antimatter.


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 9:01 PM on August 8, 2009 | IP
fissure226

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 09:55 AM on August 8, 2009 :
Why do you have to explain it when it's observed? Matter can form uncaused.


uncaused? how?
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 11:30 PM on August 8, 2009 | IP
fissure226

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Virtual particles and antimatter are not the same thing.  A photon can be a virtual particle, but it is not antimatter.


OK, but it still can form uncaused.
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 11:32 PM on August 8, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Read here:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 11:34 PM on August 8, 2009 | IP
fissure226

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Yehren at 6:34 PM on August 8, 2009 :
Read here:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html


This doesn't disprove anything, if virtual particles result from the interactions of real particles then they cannot exist uncaused or caused from an immaterial agent.

 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 12:59 AM on August 9, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

uncaused? how?

From here:

Virtual Particles

"Virtual particles are particle antiparticle pairs that pop into existence in empty space, spread apart, and then annihilate each other. They can be any basic particle, such as electrons, neutrons, protons, photons etc. These particles are called virtual particles because their existence is temporary. They are also referred to as vacuum fluctuations because they cause an increase in energy from their annihilation. Even though we cannot see these particles, we can measure their effects. We can see that they have an effect on atoms and we can see the negative energy created by the Casimir effect."  


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:26 AM on August 9, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fissure226 at 11:59 PM on August 8, 2009 :
Quote from Yehren at 6:34 PM on August 8, 2009 :
Read here:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html


This doesn't disprove anything, if virtual particles result from the interactions of real particles then they cannot exist uncaused or caused from an immaterial agent.



In modern theories of physics empty space is essentially filled with a field of what you can think of for this level of discussion as potential energy.  This energy field permeates everything.  It is often referred to as the Higgs field, and is the underlying mechanism for how particles acquire mass. Particles can spontaneously arise from this energy field.  In other words, for a given part of space the number of particles in that part of space is undetermined.


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 09:35 AM on August 9, 2009 | IP
fissure226

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How can virtual particles create the universe?
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 10:56 PM on August 9, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How can virtual particles create the universe?

From here:
Virtual Particles

"Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know - the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness - a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility. (Pagels, 1982, 247)"

How could God create the universe?


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:16 AM on August 10, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Mustrum at 08:35 AM on August 9, 2009 :
Quote from fissure226 at 11:59 PM on August 8, 2009 :
Quote from Yehren at 6:34 PM on August 8, 2009 :
Read here:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html


This doesn't disprove anything, if virtual particles result from the interactions of real particles then they cannot exist uncaused or caused from an immaterial agent.



In modern theories of physics empty space is essentially filled with a field of what you can think of for this level of discussion as potential energy.  This energy field permeates everything.  It is often referred to as the Higgs field, and is the underlying mechanism for how particles acquire mass. Particles can spontaneously arise from this energy field.  In other words, for a given part of space the number of particles in that part of space is undetermined.


I screwed up...the Higgs field is not the same as vacuum energy field as I implied.  In fact, after reading about them a bit more I'm not exactly sure how the two are related.  Sorry folks...



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 5:59 PM on August 10, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fissure226 at 9:56 PM on August 9, 2009 :
How can virtual particles create the universe?



There are a number of theories related to this idea.  The commonality among them, as far as I know, is that they all rely to some extent on vacuum energy.  You might want to look up things like M theory or brane theory or string theory...

What is pretty certain is that any given "spot" of space has some energy associated with it, and that fluctuations in this energy can produce particles.  


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 6:03 PM on August 10, 2009 | IP
fissure226

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How could God create the universe?

It's quite detailed in the Bible. Gen chapter 1.

This debate isn't about how God created the universe it's about weather or not he exists, right?
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 8:04 PM on August 10, 2009 | IP
fissure226

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]Quote from Demon38 at 05:16 AM on August 10, 2009 :
From here:
Virtual Particles

"Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know - the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness - a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility. (Pagels, 1982, 247)"



Thats just speculation on a possibility. The evidence I have brought to the table is the reality about a certainty.

I don't know about you but the choice is easy.
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 8:09 PM on August 10, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fissure226 at 7:09 PM on August 10, 2009 :
Thats just speculation on a possibility. The evidence I have brought to the table is the reality about a certainty.




It's more than idle speculation.  After all, quantum mechanics has done quite well as theory.  The only evidence I remember you bringing to the table is a reference Genesis.  We know that's not an accurate description from a scientific point of view.

(Edited by Mustrum 8/10/2009 at 8:42 PM).


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 8:40 PM on August 10, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.