What holds the Atom together?

[Arikay]

LOL.

The scarry thing is that thats a better argument than some ive heard for creationism.

Today at 01:26 PM chickenman said this in Post #100 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=646983#post646983)

God holds atoms together

so the energy that is released when atoms undergo fission is really god's energy

so......we don't have to worry about iraq building nuclear weapons, because they're trying to unleash god's energy, and clearly, being non-christian infidels, god won't allow that to happen?

YAY! we don't have to invade iraq!

 

[Taffsadar]

Yesterday at 09:26 PM chickenman said this in Post #100 

I thought we agreed on that it's leopards that hold atoms together.

 

[tacoman528]

What exactly do you think this nuclear force is. When the big bang happened, what caused neutrons to want to come together and form some nuclear force, huh? I have told you many times that this nuclear force is Jesus. Colossians 1:17 I think it was. come on people

Yesterday at 02:11 AM David Gould said this in Post #92

This question has been answered. It is because of the strong nuclear force, which i smuch stronger than the electromagnetic force but only operates over very small distances, such as the ones in the nucleus of an atom.

The evidence for the existence of the strong nuclear force is easy to see - watch a film of an atomic explosion.

When we split the atom, we release this energy.

 

[tacoman528]

Yesterday at 01:02 PM lucaspa said this in Post #94

This is the worst of god-of-the-gaps.  It is completely antithetical to orthodox Christian theology because you have just reduced God to a material creature to keep atoms together.

Others have given you the scientific answers (although you do not accept them), below is the theological fallacy of your position.  This is one of the biggest dangers of creationism: total ignorance of theology and the failure to see what their ham-handed attempts to "prove" God do to theology.

"There are profound biblical objections to such a "God-of-the-gaps," as this understanding of God's relation to the universe has come to be called.  By "gap" it is meant that no member or members of the universe can be found to account for regularly occurring phenomana in nature.  God is inserted in the gaps which could be occupied by members of the universe.  This is theologically improper because God, as creator of the universe, is not a member of the universe.  God can never properly be used in scientific accounts, which are formulated in terms of the relations between members of the universe, because that would reduce God to the status of a creature.  According to a Christian conception of God as creator of a universe that is rational through and through, there are no missing relations between the members of nature.  If, in our study of nature, we run into what seems to be an instance of a connection missing between members of nature, the Christian doctrine of creation implies that we should keep looking for one. ...But, according to the doctrine of creation, we are never to postulate God as the *immediate*  cause of any *regular* [emphases in original] occurrence in nature.  In time, a "God of the gaps" was seen to be bad science as well as bad theology.  Science now is programamatically committed to a view of nature in which there are no gaps between members of the universe."

Diogenes Allen, Christian Belief in a Postmodern World, pp. 45-46.

This is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard in my life. Its all nonsense. Obviously you don't understand a thing about God or the bible.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I have told you many times that this nuclear force is Jesus.

Think about it. This is the strong nuclear force. It only operates at subatomic distances. Does Jesus only operate at subatomic distances?
The strong force can be overcome during nuclear decay or during fission. Can humans engineer a way to overcome Jesus? Does Jesus periodically lose his grip (as happens during nuclear decay)?

If your answers to those questions about Jesus was "no", then you must realize that Jesus cannot be the strong nuclear force, because the answers to the same questions about the strong nuclear force is "yes."

So.. do you understand now?

 

[MartinM]

Today at 07:27 PM tacoman528 said this in Post #103 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=649059#post649059)

What exactly do you think this nuclear force is. When the big bang happened, what caused neutrons to want to come together and form some nuclear force, huh? I have told you many times that this nuclear force is Jesus. Colossians 1:17 I think it was. come on people

What about the electromagnetic, weak and gravitational forces? Are they Jesus too?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 02:27 PM tacoman528 said this in Post #103 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=649059#post649059)
I have told you many times that this nuclear force is Jesus. Colossians 1:17 I think it was. come on people

Colossians 1:17: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.


I don't see anything about the nuclear force in there.

 

[notto]

Does that make Satan the weak nuclear force?
Are Jesus and Satan still in battle over control of the nucleus?

 

[Arikay]

Now i understand why carbon 14 dating is part of satan (science). its measuring the decay and weakness of jesus. Just like science has blow jesus apart many times and continues to do so in nuclear power plants, where jesus is used as fuel.

 

[David Gould]

Today at 06:27 AM tacoman528 said this in Post #103

What exactly do you think this nuclear force is. When the big bang happened, what caused neutrons to want to come together and form some nuclear force, huh? I have told you many times that this nuclear force is Jesus. Colossians 1:17 I think it was. come on people

Lol! So humans are stronger than Jesus?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

I am sorry, Tacoman, but that is the absolute dumbest thing I have ever heard. (and I work at parliament house, so that is saying something).

Please use that brain that you believe God gave you and think about what you are saying. I know it is easy to get caught up with religious fervour about things but please examine this closely.

Human beings have split the atom. They did not do this by praying. They did this by working out how and why atoms stay joined together. If you believe your God is so weak that humans can rip him into little pieces for their own benefit, you can go ahead. I suspect, however, that most Christians would be horrified at seeing you spout such blasphemy.

 

[David Gould]

Oh, and don't forget the leopards.

Those spotty things are involved everywhere.

I think they also shot Kennedy.

 

[DNAunion]

Tacoman: So then what happens when an electron spirals into a nucleus?

Taffsadar: Do you know what a Neutron is? If not check out what they are made of and you will find the answer.

DNAunion: It's not like a neutron is actually made up of a proton and an electron. For example, during beta decay, it's not that a preexisting electron gets set free; an electron (beta particle) gets created. And during K capture, the opposite happens: the electron doesn't get put inside the neutron, it (and a proton and an anti-electron neutrino, IIRC) "disappears" during the conversion process.

 

[Rize]

A better question would by, why does the strong nuclear force exist?  Or the atom itself

 

[Arikay]

Well, if atoms dont exist, someone better tell IBM that they didnt really write their logo using atoms while demonstrating some of their new technology awhile ago.

Add on:
If the force that holds the nucleus of an atom together doesnt exist, someone better tell people that they shouldnt get that much energy when spliting the atom.

Today at 07:22 PM Rize said this in Post #113 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=649929#post649929)

A better question would by, why does the strong nuclear force exist?  Or the atom itself

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 10:22 PM Rize said this in Post #113 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=649929#post649929)

A better question would by, why does the strong nuclear force exist?  Or the atom itself

Why not?

 

[David Gould]

The question is WHY the atom exists, not WHETHER it does or not, Arikay.

Rize is looking for a first cause type answer - why is anything here?

The answer I have is that I do not know.

 

[Arikay]

Ah, ic. I would have to say I dont know as well.

Today at 07:40 PM David Gould said this in Post #116 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=649972#post649972)

The question is WHY the atom exists, not WHETHER it does or not, Arikay.

Rize is looking for a first cause type answer - why is anything here?

The answer I have is that I do not know.

 

[Rize]

Today at 09:40 PM David Gould said this in Post #116

The question is WHY the atom exists, not WHETHER it does or not, Arikay.

Rize is looking for a first cause type answer - why is anything here?

The answer I have is that I do not know.

Bingo.

I tend to think that if something should exist, then it should be something eternal and unchanging.  Something like God.  Yet, God isn't exactly unchanging because thought and action (as far as we know) requires change of some sort.

This is as much a mystery for a theist (imo) as it is for an atheist.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:52 AM Rize said this in Post #118

I tend to think that if something should exist, then it should be something eternal and unchanging.  Something like God.  Yet, God isn't exactly unchanging because thought and action (as far as we know) requires change of some sort.

This is as much a mystery for a theist (imo) as it is for an atheist.

Your "eternal and unchanging" is a reflection of Plato's philosophy of eternal forms, of which supposedly all forms on earth are just a shadow.

However, if you test your idea that entities are eternal and unchanging then you will quickly falsify it.  In fact, you did so even in terms of God. 

The "I don't know" for First Cause (why the universe exists at all) applies to everyone -- theist, agnostic, and atheist.

However, there are a number of hypotheses as possible answers.  Just so that you are aware of them, in no particular order, the five I am aware of are:

1. Logical and mathematical necessity. This is summed up by Hawking as "Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?  Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? "

2. Quantum fluctuation -- the universe is essentially uncaused and a result of the fluctuations at the quantum level.  That the net energy of the universe is zero is often used as support for this hypothesis.

3. Deity created the universe.

4. No boundary.  This is Hawking's proposal. If the parameters of the BB are such that there is what Hawking labels "imaginary time" or time times the square root of -1, then the universe simply IS.

5. Ekpyrotic. This is a new theory that has the universe be infinitely cyclic due to the actions of two "membranes" in 11 dimensions.  It is close to quantum fluctuation.

This is a classic case of multiple competing hypotheses with insufficient data to choose between them.




 

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 02:29 PM tacoman528 said this in Post #104

This is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard in my life. Its all nonsense. Obviously you don't understand a thing about God or the bible.

   You apparently didn't notice that the quote came from Diogenes Allen, a very respected Christian theologian.

Since it is so "ridiculous", why don't you walk us through what you think you know about God and the Bible and demonstrate why Allen is wrong?  Also please demonstrate how your original post isn't god-of-the-gaps while you are at it.