No, that makes no sense at all. You are commiting the fallacy known as an Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . "I don't know" does not mean "God did it". It never has.
Upvote
0
No, that makes no sense at all. You are commiting the fallacy known as an Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . "I don't know" does not mean "God did it". It never has.
G
good brother
Guest
Really? That's the one thing you pull from my post? You want to argue the usage of one word over the entirety of my post? This just shows you have nothing to offer in defense of what I said.
Nature is far better at using it's resouces than we could dream of.
A honeybee has much better "fuel efficiency" than any "green car" anywhere hands down.
Our brain is far superior to the most advanced human built computer.
A robot cannot produce a working copy of itself using only parts that comes from within itself, but humans (and all the animal kingdom) can produce the needed information and material needed to produce countless other working "copies" all from material already located within the parent's body.
Trees use solar power far better than what our engineers can engineer.
The natural world produces much more nutritious food than what can be processed or synthesized in some lab.
The human body runs constant "programs" to rid itself of bad things without any software updates.
Our body is in a constant state of replacing itself with new cells as old ones wear out, something the most advanced buildings cannot ever do.
No man made thing can repair itself when cut or broken.
A human's head can collapse just enough to travel through the pelvis during birth.
While it may not be perfectly "perfect", the natural world around us is far superior to ANY man made thing.
In Christ, GB
Last edited:
Upvote
0
selfinflikted
Under Deck
- Jul 13, 2006
- 11,441
- 786
- 44
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
(blind post)
Origin of life? No one knows for sure. I certainly do not. I don't have a belief with regards to how life began.
Origin of life? No one knows for sure. I certainly do not. I don't have a belief with regards to how life began.
Upvote
0
TLK Valentine
I've already read the books you want burned.
- Apr 15, 2012
- 64,493
- 30,319
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
Pretty much everyone else on this thread has refuted and dismantled the rest of your post; I thought I'd be original.
Upvote
0
G
good brother
Guest
No, to think that unintelligence made intelligence is unintelligent. That is no fallacy.
To think that nonlife made life is as unintelligent to believe that unintelligence brought about intelligence.
In Christ, GB
Upvote
0
The elements that make up the universe are either infinitely existing or there was a time when there was nothing. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, what is another option?
Upvote
0
'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009 - YouTube
BTW, do you have an example of "nothing?"
Upvote
0
Neither of those sentences makes any sense. It just reads as a rant with no real thought behind it.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Gracchus
Senior Veteran
- Dec 21, 2002
- 7,198
- 821
- Faith
- Pantheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
The first atomic nuclei to form were mostly hydrogen, and most of what was left was mostly helim. They existed as a plasma and were too hot to bond the electrons in orbitals. The universe eventually cooled by expansion to the point that hydorgen and helium gases could form and from the unequal concentration of these two gases, gravity caused the formation of stars. The fusion reactions of the stars formed elements other than hydrogen and helium, largely oxygen and carbon but with quantities of other elements all the way up to iron. Some stars became supernovae and these extremely violent explosions produced, and continue to produce elements of higher atomic weight than iron, all the way through the trans-uranics. So you see some of the elements are considerably younger than the universe, and are still being produced today.
On the other hand, some of the hydrogen atoms in your own body may have been around for fourteen and a half billion years.
For the above reasons I disagree, but also because of this: Even in "empty" space particles pop into and out of existence. But these extremely short-lived particles make up most of the mass of the universe. Most of the mass of subatomic particles is not quarks and gluons but a quantum foam of extremely short lived, extremely small particles, that form what we call "empty" space. So there is no "nothing", and there can be no "nothing". "Nothing" does not exist.
Then things get really silly!
Upvote
0
LOL - you guys are a hoot! So, do you think the stuff that makes up the universe is infinitely existant or was there once nothing? If neither, what is your take?
Response #1: Post of a 1hr long video with a request for an example of nothing.
Response #2: False Dichotomy declaration (even though my questions allowed for unlimited response options) followed by a statement that affirms infinite existance belief.
Response #3: "Something and nothing are not meaningful concepts"
Response #4: A description of the conditions during the Planck Epoch
================
I didn't realize that was such a tough opinion request. Do you think everything that makes up the universe has always been here or not? If you think all the stuff has not always been here but always has, then explain
I don't think all the stuff is infintely existant. I think there was a time when there when the stuff didn't exist and that it was all created by a creator. Just curious about what you believe and why?
Response #1: Post of a 1hr long video with a request for an example of nothing.
Response #2: False Dichotomy declaration (even though my questions allowed for unlimited response options) followed by a statement that affirms infinite existance belief.
Response #3: "Something and nothing are not meaningful concepts"
Response #4: A description of the conditions during the Planck Epoch
================
I didn't realize that was such a tough opinion request. Do you think everything that makes up the universe has always been here or not? If you think all the stuff has not always been here but always has, then explain
I don't think all the stuff is infintely existant. I think there was a time when there when the stuff didn't exist and that it was all created by a creator. Just curious about what you believe and why?
Upvote
0
First of all did you watch the whole video? secondly do you understand Dirac's equation? Thirdly in quantum physics; Something and nothing are not meaningful concepts and if you do not understand this then I do not blame you as you do not have the required erudition to understand such concepts.LOL - you guys are a hoot! So, do you think the stuff that makes up the universe is infinitely existant or was there once nothing? If neither, what is your take?
Response #1: Post of a 1hr long video with a request for an example of nothing.
Response #2: False Dichotomy declaration (even though my questions allowed for unlimited response options) followed by a statement that affirms infinite existance belief.
Response #3: "Something and nothing are not meaningful concepts"
Response #4: A description of the conditions during the Planck Epoch
================
I didn't realize that was such a tough opinion request. Do you think everything that makes up the universe has always been here or not? If you think all the stuff has not always been here but always has, then explain
I don't think all the stuff is infintely existant. I think there was a time when there when the stuff didn't exist and that it was all created by a creator. Just curious about what you believe and why?
Quantum physics is not for the layman and even most quantum physicists break a sweat when dealing with the quantum world.
I remember once My gardener in Africa asking me: "Aeroplanes must really travel fast in order to reach Europe". I asked him why he asked such a question and he replied; " The aeroplane must run at a very high speed because when it takes off the ground and the wheels no longer drive the aeroplane then it must be very fast to be able to reach Europe before it falls to the ground again". I tried to explain the principles of thrust and how propeller blades work and how jet turbines work but he was at a loss simply because he did not have the education to be able to grasp the fundamentals involved for flight.
One does not need to be an aeronautical engineer to ascertain whether aeroplanes actually fly but one does indeed need to have an understanding of the workings of aeroplanes and aeronautics if one is to comprehend how an aeroplane flies.
I hope you understand what I am trying to tell you!
Upvote
0
Yeah, I think so. You're trying to tell me that I don't have the necessary education to comprehend your answer to the question: "Do you think everything that makes up the universe has always been here or not?"I hope you understand what I am trying to tell you!
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
That is a very good question that begs to be answered. Whatever I or anyone believes will not make a difference nor will it suffice as an answer.
What we know is that matter and antimatter particles constantly appear and annihilate each other. Space is constantly churning out such particles. With this in mind then suffice it to say that there is no reason why the end of our universe will not give rise to the birth of a new one. Science does not have all the answers but considering the leaps it has made over the last 20 years in the pertinent fields then I can comfortably say that within 50 or so years we will be able to know the answer.
Upvote
0
Gah. You guys really need some new material. Krauss has been debunked so many times now, it's downright pathetic you haven't found a better rap yet.
Krauss's "something from nothing" claim not only defies the laws of physics, it ignores the release of energy over time. Considering how much his personal "religion" is dependent upon a "flat" universe, it's irrational he even puts any faith in the concept of inflation at all. It turns out that it's a greater *miracle* that the universe is "flat" *with* inflation, than it would be without it.
Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
10 to the 100th power? Talk about miracles. Oy Vey. You guys really need some new material and some new heroes to worship. Krauss's claims are utter nonsense.
Upvote
0
Your's and other's answer does make a difference in this discussion. If you believe the 'stuff' is infinitely existing or at one time didn't exist and now does gives participants a 'reference point', so to speak, in this discussion of "How did we get here?"
Upvote
0
I was not aware Krauss had been debunked many times now. Who has debunked him, and could you provide a link?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I did. What about it?
Hmm. Well, as much as one might as an amateur I suppose.
It's the something *from* nothing claim that is bogus. QM simply describes a universe filled with energy.
It's not really all that tough to comprehend actually. The first law of thermodynamics insists that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and the universe is absolutely filled with energy. You can feel that energy when the sunshine hits your face.
Krauss is violating the laws of physics. Period. He's trying to drag Guth's "free lunch" claims out of the morgue. What nonsense. You guys keep ignoring the fact that energy is used *moment by moment* over time. You can't "offset" that use of energy over time with "gravity". That's just bogus nonsense. Not only that, Krauss violates the laws of physics by claiming that he got something from nothing in the first place. QM doesn't describe a universe of "nothing" to begin with, and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Some form of energy has therefore *always* existed. God, or no God, you're stuck with that fact of physics, and so is Krauss.
The problem is that Kruass's claims (Guth's free lunch claims warmed over) never actually "flew" in the first place. It was DOA when Guth was peddling that nonsense, and it's still dead on arrival today some 30 years later. And by the way, inflation is "Dead in the lab too". It turns out Guth's dead sky deity is more impotent on Earth than your average concept of "God".
I hope you guys realize just how silly it is to be peddling the same debunked material over and over again. It's no better now than it was several months (a year?) ago when I commented on it then. What makes you think that the same debunked material has gotten any better with age?I hope you understand what I am trying to tell you!
By the way, since the first time I saw that video and today, we have since confirmed that plasma redshift occurs in the lab, making it more likely that we live in a static universe and inflation never existed. In short, it's even gotten worse for Krauss's religion, not better.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
