Is There a God? (Scientifically Speaking)

Idiot'sPride · Post by **Idiot'sPride** » Thu Jul 03, 2003 9:18 pm

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html

I was linked to this earlier. I found it pretty interesting, and I just wanted to know if anyone here wanted to add onto this or try to refute it... Well then, post away... And, uh, stuff.

EDIT: Standard HTML didn't work, so just wondering, does the board use its own markup language? If so, just what, pray tell, is it? Thanks in advance.

Post by **Blaze** » Fri Jul 04, 2003 2:38 am

While this is a very interesting article on a layman's proof of god, it is inherantly very very flawed. Obviously, the writer had a limited grasp of physics.

In this article, he states things like,

Even a universe that expands and collapses and expands again forever would die because it would lose light and heat each time it expanded and rebounded.

Wrongo. The light and heat energy of the universe is not lost. It expands, travels out, just like all other matter. But, even energy is affected by gravity and travel of matter. So, if all light and heat energy are disapated, and then the universe pulls back in on itself, all light and heat energy are also recompressed. THe fact that light and heat seem to decrease only means that they have disipated, not dissappeared.

Secondarily, he was evidently not aware of the idea of virtual particles.

In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding that your TV set not work!! Your television set may not work, but that is not the reason! In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.

Virtual particles are a physics term which define particles that appear and then dissappear instantaneously all across the universe. They can appear from nothing. And they have exactly zero mass, energy, and all other measurable data. Physics today has one particular interesting idea. This idea holds that it is fully possible that all the matter and anti matter, all the energy and anti energy in the universe, all the stuff and nothingness add up to exactly zero. As such, if this were true, the universe could have come from a virtual particle that did NOT dissappear as soon as it appeared.

Unfortunatly, the mystery can not be unraveled so easily. On that note, though, I still believe in god, and I always will.

spoon · Post by **spoon** » Fri Jul 04, 2003 3:14 am

Or:

Pre-universe, there was nothing. All probabilities were equally likely, so nothing happened.

Then statistical clustering comes in; the random dispersal of equal probabilies yielded a slighly higher chance of something in one area than another (note: the overall probability of the event would still be zero in this case), an event which catalysed other variations in the previously balanced sea of probability. Probabilities started randomized due to the interaction with other possibilities, and local areas started branching out.

In this manner one can explain this universe as well as the many worlds theory. All of our physics are attributable to the random factors that resulted from the dissolution of the pre-universe.

Or something like that. But it works, in theory.

Nerve Misfire · Post by **Nerve Misfire** » Fri Jul 04, 2003 1:14 pm

the problem here is that he refutes a few ideas that athiests (and only some of them mind you) have. reading it, i saw no proof for god at all, just disproof odf some ideas.

this is how it looked

you say the sky is greenm and there is no god
i say there is a god

the sky is blue, because we disagree and you are wrong, i am right and there is a god.

any logican will point out the flaw in this argument. ("a and b" is false, so eihter a is false, b is false, or both a and b are false, if a is false, b is either true or false. no conclusion can be made given the current information)

Idiot'sPride · Post by **Idiot'sPride** » Fri Jul 04, 2003 1:43 pm

Gah, confuzzling o_O Well, I suppose what everyone said does make sense. But Nerve, the thing is, there are two possibilities. There is a beginning, or there is not. Since it is not possible that there is not a beginning, then the only other possibility is that there was, correct?

Layian · Post by **Layian** » Fri Jul 04, 2003 8:24 pm

"Gah, confuzzling o_O Well, I suppose what everyone said does make sense. But Nerve, the thing is, there are two possibilities. There is a beginning, or there is not. Since it is not possible that there is not a beginning, then the only other possibility is that there was, correct?"

No. That is not correct.

Time is relative. The idea that there has to be a beginning and end to everything is just the human psychi attempting to simplify things down to a level it can comprehend. For all we know we could be in and endless loop like a circle. However, if you can show me a true beginning and a true end to a perfect circle then I will concede to there having been a beginning.

Killer-Rabbit · Post by **Killer-Rabbit** » Fri Jul 04, 2003 9:12 pm

1) No, there does not necissarily have to be a beginning.

2) The person that wrote that assumes "The Athiest" belives in the big bang theory and a finite universe.

3) The author also assumes that if there was a beginning, it was done by God.

4) The author does not know much about the scientific theories of the universe.

SuperTylor · Post by **SuperTylor** » Fri Jul 04, 2003 10:31 pm

Religion has killed more people than Cancer...And we try to cure cancer

Grumlen · Post by **Grumlen** » Sat Jul 05, 2003 2:43 am

ROTFLMAO!

That guy is a complete IDIOT!

If I ask you to prove to me that you have $2.00, you would show it to me. Even in more abstract things we use common sense and practical reasoning. If I ask you whether a certain person is honest or not, you do not flood the air with dissertations on the relative nature of honesty; you would give me evidence one way or the other.

Sorry guy, but that supports atheism since you CAN'T produce evidence of god's existence.

The day before that, we were still closer. Ultimately, where must all the galaxies have been? At a point! At the beginning! At what scientists call a singularity!

Whats to say that isn't just another part of the cycle of the universe? Yes, it may have been a beginning for the current universe we live in, but not necessarily a beginning of the existence of matter.

In space, things also get old. Astronomers refer to the aging process as heat death. If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be," as Dr. Carl Sagan is so fond of saying, nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it.

Thats why we have the reset button known as The Big Bang.

And I agree with you completely SuperTylor, although that really only applies to organized religion. As far as I'm concerned people can believe in whatever good values they want to. The reason they try to enforce them on other through war is because some greedy bastard told them to.

SuperTylor · Post by **SuperTylor** » Sat Jul 05, 2003 3:00 am

It's not my quote, a friend mine told it to me. She was quite happy about it

Another one:

'Tell a man there are 2 Billion stars in the universe, and he'll believe you. Tell him that there is wet paint on a bench and he'll have to touch it to make sure.'

Nerve Misfire · Post by **Nerve Misfire** » Sat Jul 05, 2003 2:00 pm

[quote="Idiot'sPride";p="109349"]Gah, confuzzling o_O Well, I suppose what everyone said does make sense. But Nerve, the thing is, there are two possibilities. There is a beginning, or there is not. Since it is not possible that there is not a beginning, then the only other possibility is that there was, correct?[/quote]

but there being a beginning or not does not say anythign about the nature of god, or even if he/she/it exists

Piromaniac · Post by **Piromaniac** » Mon Jul 07, 2003 5:04 am

Ok, because this is an interesting thread,
I'm going to go indepth on it

:

"Virtual particles are a physics term which define particles that appear and then dissappear instantaneously all across the universe. They can appear from nothing. And they have exactly zero mass, energy, and all other measurable data. Physics today has one particular interesting idea. This idea holds that it is fully possible that all the matter and anti matter, all the energy and anti energy in the universe, all the stuff and nothingness add up to exactly zero. As such, if this were true, the universe could have come from a virtual particle that did NOT dissappear as soon as it appeared."

Alright Blaze, if they have no measurable data, how do you know they are there? It would seem that everything that is "real" has to be measurable.
You are creating the same mistake that everyone blames on creationists!
believing in something that is unprovable.

next:

"Time is relative. The idea that there has to be a beginning and end to everything is just the human psychi attempting to simplify things down to a level it can comprehend. For all we know we could be in and endless loop like a circle. However, if you can show me a true beginning and a true end to a perfect circle then I will concede to there having been a beginning."

Layian, =.= how do you know its a circle? there is more proof for the "beginning/end" theory than for this one!

just as your saying: "The idea that there has to be a beginning and end to everything is just the human psychi attempting to simplify things down to a level it can comprehend"

This could be true in the opposite way!

It could be the "Human psyche" is trying to reject the fact that at some point the universe will be no more.

Everything you can touch or see around you (you/plants/people/) will die at some point! can you find one living thing that will live forever? or shrival and die only to sprout again?
It is not implausable to apply this to things we cannot see the end (or beginning) of?

Grumlen:

"Sorry guy, but that supports atheism since you CAN'T produce evidence of god's existence. "

Well, you also can't prove his "unexistence" can you? You cannot provide evidence that he doesn't exist either.

And more to the point:

"Thats why we have the reset button known as The Big Bang. "
Here you claim to be logical, and you can't come up with a better reason for existence than "there was a Big Bang and now here everything is?"
You claim creationists are illogical!

And this "reset" of the universe:
Once mass reaches a certain point it will continue to pull in on itself untill it creates what is called a "blackhole" which even light cannot escape...... >.<
I dont see how everything else can then!

well..... goodnight! and happy argumentation!

Post by **Blaze** » Mon Jul 07, 2003 5:08 am

Alright Blaze, if they have no measurable data, how do you know they are there? It would seem that everything that is "real" has to be measurable.
You are creating the same mistake that everyone blames on creationists!
believing in something that is unprovable.

Acorrding to physics, they HAVE to exist. And just because they have no mass or any such thing doesn't mean they cant affect the rest of the universe. We can't detect them, but we can see the changes they're causing. Read up on them.

Grumlen · Post by **Grumlen** » Mon Jul 07, 2003 7:12 am

Piromaniac, I'll liken what I said to his example of the $2. If he can produce the $2, thereby giving evidence of its existence, then he is right. But if he cannot produce the $2, then that is effectively providing evidence that it doesn't exist. After all, it's burden of proof, not burden of disproof.

As for the big bang theory, I personally believe that the universe is infinite. So while no finite amount of energy would be able to escape such a singularity, an infinite amount of energy would. And besides, I never said that creationism in illogical. As long as god exists, it is quite logical. But if god doesn't exist, then you would have to admit it would be quite illogical. I've chosen to not believe in the existence of a god, so as a result I don't believe in creationism. And it's worth noting that the Catholic Church fully supports the big bang theory, since it really doesn't conflict with creationism.

And as for all that stuff about refusing to admit that there may be an end to everything: I don't see anything wrong with it. One day I'll be dead gone kaput no more. Odds are the universe will still exist at that point, so it really doesn't matter to me.

And blaze, I agree with you. As long as we can measure the changes that something makes in the univers, we are in fact measuring it. Therefor it would exist.

DemitriFlameGG · Post by **DemitriFlameGG** » Mon Jul 07, 2003 8:25 am

Good points all around, except a few.

"Layian, =.= how do you know its a circle? there is more proof for the "beginning/end" theory than for this one!

just as your saying: "The idea that there has to be a beginning and end to everything is just the human psychi attempting to simplify things down to a level it can comprehend" "

YOu have to realize that if there is a beginning and end to everything, then there must have bee a beginning to a God. Who created God, since if what you say is true, he wasn't there from the beginning. Did it jsut go *POOF* and there was a being. Also, if this were true, God is not endless. Thereby he would have to "die" at some point in time.
Also, if creationalist are right, then science is wrong. For science says that everything that has ever existed still exists, in so many words. Creationalists believe that God creates things, so that would be proven wrong by science. We have done pretty well in proving that matter never really disappears or appears, it just breaks down or builds up. So I guess that would be looking at whether you should follow proof or raw faith.

Maybe thats jsut me, but I think that is about right.

Real Life Forums

Is There a God? (Scientifically Speaking)

Is There a God? (Scientifically Speaking)

Re: Is There a God? (Scientifically Speaking)

Who is online