Bye Bye Ape Man!!!

[DMagoh]

Quantum physics would disagree with you. As far as I understand it, a phenomenon known as the quantum fluctuation of the vacuum allows for energy to be produced from, essentially, "nothing."

I was wondering when you were going to bring up "voo-doo" physics. Have you ever had to play that card before? I am aware and have read about quantum mechanics – supposedly the vacuum is not empty, but has tons of “virtual” (don’t you love that word?) particles that constantly pop in and out of existence. This “quantum fluctuation of the vacuum” you mentioned is the supposed temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing. (Does this sound like science or voo-doo?) Also, where did the primeval radiation field come from?

Physicist Richard Gott has written that physicists have a pretty good understanding of the development of the universe all the way back to when it was only 10-43 second old. However, he states that since there is an infinite loss of information about events before 10-43 seconds, anything becomes possible, including "the ability to make an infinite number of universes". In this "possibility" for an infinite number of universes, random fluctuations of a primeval radiation field (or chance) is the “self-cause” of the universe. Again, where did the primeval radiation field come from?

Secondly, you mock me saying I propose the "God of the gaps" (which I don’t); but physicists are doing the reverse with the "chance of the gaps." You like to talk to me about the burden of proof? The burden of proof lies with those who suggest that physical conditions and physical laws were totally different in the period before 10-43 seconds.

 

[DMagoh]

If something "supernatural" did exist it is, by definition, outside of the natural realm and as such probably couldn't interact with anything here in order to create anything at all.
Nor would the supernatural be able to interact with us.

And where did you come up with that assumption? Did you just pull it out of thin air like those "virtual" energy particles.

 

[DMagoh]

You are in a catch-22 unless you give up the facade that that only thing that can exist are things that can be explained by the finite human mind.

Says the person with a finite mind. Say the biblical authors who have a finite mind, as do their followers who also had finite minds.

Your response is pointless. I realize my mind is finite and do not deny the existence of the unknown. You are the one who refuses to even consider what you are incapable of understanding. You may understand physics, but you need to brush up on your logic.

 

[DisgruntledPostalEmployee]

Quote:
You are in a catch-22 unless you give up the facade that that only thing that can exist are things that can be explained by the finite human mind.

That's not a catch-22.

 

[DMagoh]

Unfortunately, the level of mpok1519's knowledge regarding Christianity is not in evidence, so we can't say that he doesn't know much about it.

Actually I was responding to mpok1519's ad hominem attack on me. My response had nothing to do with this thread, because his ad hominem attack had nothing to do with this thread.

lol I dont know anything about Christianity? Really? What makes you say that?

Your ad hominem attack on me makes me say that. I figure that you must know nothing about Christianity since you did not add anything to the discussion other than an ad hominem attack.

 

[DMagoh]

That's not a catch-22.

Nice of you to respond. Is this where I am supposed to say, "Oh yeah you're right".

Try using some type of argument, reasoning, or logic next time (even something illogical is preferable to just an unsupported statement). Do you get into a lot of "Is not", "Is too", "Is not", "Is too", "Is not", "Is too" types of debates?

 

[DisgruntledPostalEmployee]

Nice of you to respond. Is this where I am supposed to say, "Oh yeah you're right".

Or just stop using Catch-22 incorrectly

 

[OdwinOddball]

Nice of you to respond. Is this where I am supposed to say, "Oh yeah you're right".

Try using some type of argument, reasoning, or logic next time (even something illogical is preferable to just an unsupported statement). Do you get into a lot of "Is not", "Is too", "Is not", "Is too", "Is not", "Is too" types of debates?

A catch-22 is a paradox in a law, regulation or practice in which one is a victim regardless of the choice he makes. This does not apply in the statement you made.

Its pretty simple really, you used the term incorrectly. He pointed that out. Pretty much like this entire thread. You've made fallacious statement after fallacious statement, ignored everyones attempts to correct you, dismissed all of science all the while trying to claim you have an understandings of said science whilst the evidence of your own words contradicts this.

I sent you a pm when you first claimed you were leaving because your OP gave me the intention that even if you would not agree with our conclusions you at least wanted to understand them. Yet you have demonstrated nothing but arrogance and ignorance since that point.

Go learn some science and logic before you make more silly statements like the above.


EOL

 

[Loudmouth]

Your response is pointless. I realize my mind is finite and do not deny the existence of the unknown.

Would this also include unknown but unsupernatural origins for energy? This is exactly where your argument breaks down. You have committed a logical fallacy, an argument that hinges on a universal negative. Your argument only works if there is not a single non-supernatural mechanism that brings about universes like ours. As you rightly state, our knowledge is imperfect and finite. So how can you state that there is not a natural mechanism that brings about universes? Perhaps you should open your mind a bit.

You are the one who refuses to even consider what you are incapable of understanding. You may understand physics, but you need to brush up on your logic.

I will consider anything that is evidenced. How is this illogical? The only illogical leap I see here are those who try to explain an unknown with an even larger unknown. In doing so you explain nothing.

 

[DMagoh]

Or just stop using Catch-22 incorrectly

A catch-22 is a paradox in a law, regulation or practice in which one is a victim regardless of the choice he makes. This does not apply in the statement you made.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a "Catch-22" is:

a problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a circumstance inherent in the problem or by a rule *the show-business catch*22*no work unless you have an agent, no agent unless you've worked

And that, is what physicists have when they say they wont believe in God until they can measure and test Him with their natural laws; however, IF there is a God as described in the Bible, He would be supernatural and unable to be measured by natural laws. Hence, the Catch-22.

Maybe both of you should buy a dictionary.

 

[Loudmouth]

And that, is what physicists have when they say they wont believe in God until they can measure and test Him with their natural laws; however, IF there is a God as described in the Bible, He would be supernatural and unable to be measured by natural laws. Hence, the Catch-22.

Maybe both of you should buy a dictionary.

Is that what Jesus said to Thomas? Or did Jesus let Thomas touch his wounds? It seems that your own theology argues against you.

 

[DisgruntledPostalEmployee]

And that, is what physicists have when they say they wont believe in God until they can measure and test Him with their natural laws; however, IF there is a God as described in the Bible, He would be supernatural and unable to be measured by natural laws. Hence, the Catch-22.

That's not a Catch-22, because the conditions aren't co-dependent. I hope your reasons for believing in God are more complex than just your inability to see Him.
Seriously, I don't mean to act condescending, but you are using that phrase in the wrong context, and it's harming your argument.

 

[mpok1519]

Actually I was responding to mpok1519's ad hominem attack on me. My response had nothing to do with this thread, because his ad hominem attack had nothing to do with this thread.



Your ad hominem attack on me makes me say that. I figure that you must know nothing about Christianity since you did not add anything to the discussion other than an ad hominem attack.

but clearly you do not have the education in the realms of biology to have a valid point within the area of biology, not an attack, just a simple fact. Rather than an attack, it was an observation.

people who havn't studied the area long enough are allowed to make their opinions known, but no one is going to take them seriously.

=)

 

[DMagoh]

Is that what Jesus said to Thomas? Or did Jesus let Thomas touch his wounds? It seems that your own theology argues against you.

I guess you'll have to explain further.

 

[Loudmouth]

I guess you'll have to explain further.

Did Jesus tell Thomas that he would just have to accept the Resurrection through faith without evidence? No. He allowed Thomas to test the claim by touching Jesus' wounds.

Also, it is claimed that your God performs miracles in the natural world. This is testable.

 

[DMagoh]

but clearly you do not have the education in the realms of biology to have a valid point within the area of biology, not an attack, just a simple fact. Rather than an attack, it was an observation.

people who havn't studied the area long enough are allowed to make their opinions known, but no one is going to take them seriously.

=)

What is your opinion of the "quantum fluctuation of the vacuum"? Do you endorse the magical “virtual" particles that constantly pop in and out of existence?

 

[DMagoh]

Did Jesus tell Thomas that he would just have to accept the Resurrection through faith without evidence? No. He allowed Thomas to test the claim by touching Jesus' wounds.

Well since Jesus is back in heaven, you'll have to wait until Judgement Day to ask Him for that - but I'm hoping you will have realized the error of your ways before then, because then it will be too late.

Also, it is claimed that your God performs miracles in the natural world. This is testable.

Next time I see one, I'll call you.

 

[mpok1519]

What is your opinion of the "quantum fluctuation of the vacuum"? Do you endorse the magical “virtual" particles that constantly pop in and out of existence?

I havn't studied that realm of physics so you'd have to ask a physics professor if you wanted any valid opinion on the subject. In that same light I'd never take your opinion ont he subject seriously either since I'm assuming you have not had university-level studies within this realm of physics.

Isnt this going off topic? Aren't we supposed to be discussing evolution concerning new fossil evidence?

 

[DMagoh]

Isnt this going off topic? Aren't we supposed to be discussing evolution concerning new fossil evidence?

This thread veered way into the origins of the universe a long time ago when an atheist decided he wanted to attack and make fun of me for my beliefs and asked me that question. I answered his, and then asked him a question - so far, NONE of the expert physicists have been able to answer my question.

 

[Logic_Fault]

I was wondering when you were going to bring up "voo-doo" physics. Have you ever had to play that card before?

Nope. Most people accept "we don't know" as a reasonable answer. You, on the other hand, wont so I gave you one idea about where the energy came from. Not that it'll make a bit of difference.

I am aware and have read about quantum mechanics – supposedly the vacuum is not empty, but has tons of “virtual” (don’t you love that word?) particles that constantly pop in and out of existence. This “quantum fluctuation of the vacuum” you mentioned is the supposed temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing.(Does this sound like science or voo-doo?) Also, where did the primeval radiation field come from?

I personally don't know. There may be some hypothesis about it that I'm not aware of though. Even if there isn't, you still have no reason to stick a deity in there. By the way, have you even once checked out the God of the Gapshttp://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_Gaps link I keep giving you? If you have then why are you still attempting to use the fallacy?

Physicist Richard Gott has written that physicists have a pretty good understanding of the development of the universe all the way back to when it was only 10-43 second old. However, he states that since there is an infinite loss of information about events before 10-43 seconds, anything becomes possible, including "the ability to make an infinite number of universes". In this "possibility" for an infinite number of universes, random fluctuations of a primeval radiation field (or chance) is the “self-cause” of the universe. Again, where did the primeval radiation field come from?

Once again I, and probably everyone else on the planet, have no idea where it came from or even if that's the correct explanation. Also, yet again, sticking a deity there is a fallacy known as, say it with me, God of the Gapshttp://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_Gaps.

Secondly, you mock me saying I propose the "God of the gaps" (which I don’t); but physicists are doing the reverse with the "chance of the gaps."

If you're not employing the God of the Gaps fallacy then what are you doing?

There is evidence, apparently, that "chance", as you put it, played some part in the beginning of our universe. There is no such evidence for a deity having anything what-so-ever to do with it. If you have some, please provide it to us. "Chance" is not stuck in there simply to fill the gap in our understanding as gods tend to be.

You like to talk to me about the burden of proof? The burden of proof lies with those who suggest that physical conditions and physical laws were totally different in the period before 10-43 seconds.

Correct. Fortunately they have the physics and mathematics to back up what they propose. It's possible that they're incorrect but with the knowledge we currently have, and the mathematical tools we now use, they would appear to be correct.

Since you're claiming an invisible, intangible, immeasurable, omnimax entity exists, please provide support for your assertion. The physicists can do it for what they assert, can you do it for your position? That's how the burden of proof works.

And where did you come up with that assumption? Did you just pull it out of thin air like those "virtual" energy particles.

No, I just made a simple assumption. If something is "outside" of the natural universe it's unlikely that it would be able to interact with us. There's no evidence, that I'm aware of, that things outside of our universe interact or influence us in any way.

If you want to go claiming anything supernatural influences or interacts with us then first you'll need to show that the "supernatural" exists to begin with. You can start on that once you've shown your evidence that a deity exists.