@Taintedwisp: Go You know that Unicorns have nothing to do with that logic? I could have say Santa or Flying Spaghetti Monster. (I just like Unicorns)
Actually Rhinoceros is kind of a Unicorn.
Is it possible to break down a hydrogen atom without causing nasty things? I'm asking to understand if it's possible to collapse the universe and still preserve the laws we have now.
What you mean under nasty thing? To break atoms you need insane amount of energies, thats why particle colliders so big. The early universe had the state for about 4 minutes when there was so much energy concentrated into a so small universe that atom nuclei couldnt form. That period of universe cant be calculated by Newtonian laws as its not precise enough, you need to know quantum laws to predict at that scale. Its not that laws change under high energies or at small scale, its just our theories arent precise enough.
Also, the Higgs field, I've always felt there has to be this kind of "sea" where everything "floats". But can you guys explain what this is in a "for dummies" kind of way?
The sea where everything floats is the dummy version. But here is good explanation anyway: (its a nice youtube channel btw)
@Taintedwisp: Go
Higher probability compared to what? If I say you are stupid, than you will be claimed as stupid as long as you prove otherwise? (thats a interesting world you live in)
It's more about answering a disingenuous question in kind.
But I'm not dodging anything. I'm answering your question, repeatedly. Until we ascertain an exception to the "golden rule," our current understanding of life necessitates original life, everywhere, always. I'm invoking the collective public understanding of biology, stop accusing me of "making shit up."
I want to pull you up on this, because this is downright stupidity in motion.
So? Perhaps the Do, Or did at one time. A horse with a horn in its skull.. I mean, Its defiantly possible that one lived at one time.
and if Evolution Was correct, then Unicorns would defiantly exist anyways, due to "Mother Nature" Testing what works and doesnt work for battle of the fittest, so a failed species of Unicorns could happen... So suck that logic.
You demand to see "spontaneous generation of life" before you'll believe
it. However you're quite happy believing in a god without seeing it.
You, sir, are a hypocrite.
I demand to see it because without spontaneous generation, God must exist.
To put it another way, the nature of life itself supplants atheism's self-appointed designation as "the most logical position." It's not stupidity in motion, you're just covering your metaphorical ears and going LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA
@TheZizz: Go
What do you exactly mean under spontaneous generation?
You want to see "aliens" or 1 cell organisms created by lab (which to we are pretty close) or by nature by just watching some geyser for millions of years?
Yeah, it's just a succinct way of saying "life from non-living raw materials." In abstract terms, a torch that was not lit by another torch. A single cell created in a lab would constitute as such.
To put it another way, the nature of life itself supplants atheism's self-appointed designation as "the most logical position." It's not stupidity in motion, you're just covering your metaphorical ears and going LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA
Atheism is nothing. I listen to Christianity's claims, and go "prove it". They can't, so I don't believe them.
And then you must simply ask "Who spontaneously generated God?"
I know. That's the conundrum I was talking about earlier, and the only thing that resolves it is a God that always was. It's not an unassailable argument, it's the only argument (until someone comes up with an alternative). A God-shaped hole, if you will.
How does it follow that understanding the universal order behind rain, tectonic plates, supernovas, et al, confirms that these aren't God's doings? It doesn't.
Quote:
Atheism is nothing. I listen to Christianity's claims, and go "prove
it". They can't, so I don't believe them.
For some reason this has a name.
Atheism isn't nothing. It answers the absence of abiogenesis with the speculation that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." It smacks of rejecting God at all costs, that any theory no matter how baseless is preferable to God. This is why it has a name, because it has all the same warts as any other school of thought devised by imperfect man. They're just located in the private areas.
[...] It smacks of rejecting God at all costs, that any theory no matter how baseless is preferable to God. [...]
A god is not a good scientific hypothesis for very obvious reasons. If i were to blame a phenomena on god, how would i go about conducting experiments to find out? Normally i would try to fit in diffrent models but with a god i would just stand there and say "Meh, god did it." with every experiment, you just kind of give up on curiosity.
[...] It smacks of rejecting God at all costs, that any theory no matter
how baseless is preferable to God. [...]
A god is not a good scientific hypothesis for very obvious reasons. If i
were to blame a phenomena on god, how would i go about conducting
experiments to find out? Normally i would try to fit in diffrent models
but with a god i would just stand there and say "Meh, god did it." with
every experiment, you just kind of give up on curiosity.
How? The same way an atheist would. Contrary to what popular culture says you don't lose your eyes and ears when you become a theist.
I listen to Christianity's claims, and go "prove it". They can't, so I don't believe them.
Ive proved everything. Thanks.
You are not part of some super intelligent sect of humanity called "atheism"..Sigh. On the contrary..
Science cant condemn you of your Sins, but your creator can.
Be receptive of the truth and repent of your folly!, and acknowledge the Creator of heaven and earth.
As it is written in the New Testament God overlooked people's ignorance about these things in earlier times, but now he commands everyone everywhere to repent of their sins and turn to him.Acts 17:30 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2017:16-33&version=NIV
I will say again, The Bible is the word of God. Mankind has forgotten. Science proves the Bible. History does the same. Every other religion is false and an invention of Satan. Satan blinds the world through ignorance and arrogance. We can run through all these aspects as Ive been doing. Not for my sake, but for your own sake. Consider your life and soul even, and the cost of arrogance/foolishness that brings to it. What advantage is that to you?
I will say again, The Bible is the word of God. Mankind has forgotten. Science proves the Bible. Every other religion is false and an invention of Satan. Satan blinds the world through ignorance and arrogance. We can run through all these aspects as Ive been doing. Not for my sake, but for your own sake. Consider your life and soul even, and the cost of arrogance/foolishness that brings to it?
I have to say I'm disappointed. After posting your original thesis it's extremely sad that you would regress to religious zealot blind-repetition mode.
I have to say I'm disappointed. After posting your original thesis it's extremely sad that you would regress to religious zealot blind-repetition mode.
Sigh. :(
Its tempting to forsake the faith in many ways(You would know), but I`ll stick it out. Deep down Im not going to lie to myself and find paltry excuses to reject God and my own salvation. Its hard but the grace is sufficient and the spirit of truth hath revealed enough to me to assure me confidence in my knowledge.
Good point. But god never really come into the picture does he? Only the disapproval of god, never the approval and the disapproval of god is the same as the removal of not knowing, the diffrence is sentiments isn't it? Back to the point of why god makes a terrible hypothesis i would like to add what i have said before; that you can't ask questions about god.
Atheism isn't nothing. It answers the absence of abiogenesis with the speculation that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." It smacks of rejecting God at all costs, that any theory no matter how baseless is preferable to God. This is why it has a name, because it has all the same warts as any other school of thought devised by imperfect man. They're just located in the private areas.
Nonsense. Atheism, evolution and abiogenesis are not linked at all.
Also to think that I reject your god is arrogant. It's your claims that I reject.
You are not part of some super intelligent sect of humanity called "atheism"..Sigh. On the contrary..
Science cant condemn you of your Sins, but your creator can.
Be receptive of the truth and repent of your folly!, and acknowledge the Creator of heaven and earth.
Sure. I'll repent. But to who? Protestantism? Catholicism? Islam? Buddhism? Sikhism? Jainism? Zoroastrianism? Seriously, you're one amoung dozens of religions.
How do you know that Allah isn't waiting for you after you die?
I will say again, The Bible is the word of God. Mankind has forgotten. Science proves the Bible. History does the same. Every other religion is false and an invention of Satan. Satan blinds the world through ignorance and arrogance. We can run through all these aspects as Ive been doing. Not for my sake, but for your own sake. Consider your life and soul even, and the cost of arrogance/foolishness that brings to it. What advantage is that to you?
Let's suppose there's a god. Your god. He gave us the ability to reason. The most reasonable amoung us, the people who's job it is to reason, reject your god with astounding ferocity (93% of elite scientsts reject your god).
So, gives us the ability to reason, but gives no reason to believe in him.
With the above in mind, what exactly makes you think you're on the right side?
Nonsense. Atheism, evolution and abiogenesis are not linked at all.
Also to think that I reject your god is arrogant. It's your claims that
I reject.
Atheism requires abiogenesis for life to exist. The basis of my argument is that as long as there's no reason to subscribe to abiogenesis, there's no reason to subscribe to atheism.
Mind, I'm arguing for the logic of theism, not Christianity. My reasoning for being a Christian is a different matter entirely.
Good point. But god never really come into the picture does he? Only the
disapproval of god, never the approval and the disapproval of god is the
same as the removal of not knowing, the diffrence is sentiments isn't
it? Back to the point of why god makes a terrible hypothesis i would
like to add what i have said before; that you can't ask questions about
god.
The "God hypothesis" is squarely reserved for the beginning of all things, the "question to end all questions." Of course it's useless for everything else because you wouldn't get anything accomplished.
Atheism requires abiogenesis for life to exist. The basis of my argument is that as long as there's no reason to subscribe to abiogenesis, there's no reason to subscribe to atheism.
Mind, I'm arguing for the logic of theism, not Christianity. My reasoning for being a Christian is a different matter entirely.
No, atheism requires nothing. Atheism is not an alternate view of how life came to be. Atheism is the rejection of religious claims.
Early Christians were called atheists because they rejected pagan gods. Are you suggesting early Christians "believed" in abiogenesis too?
The "God hypothesis" is squarely reserved for the beginning of all things, the "question to end all questions." Of course it's useless for everything else because you wouldn't get anything accomplished.
It only delays the question of "What made the universe?" to "What made the creator of the universe?"
Is someone once AGAIN IMPLYING SANTA ISN'T REAL?!
@GnaReffotsirk: Go
I've heard from this that it's like syrup everwhere and diffrent particles have diffrent surfaces that make them more or less easy to move.
What you mean under nasty thing? To break atoms you need insane amount of energies, thats why particle colliders so big. The early universe had the state for about 4 minutes when there was so much energy concentrated into a so small universe that atom nuclei couldnt form. That period of universe cant be calculated by Newtonian laws as its not precise enough, you need to know quantum laws to predict at that scale.
Its not that laws change under high energies or at small scale, its just our theories arent precise enough.
The sea where everything floats is the dummy version. But here is good explanation anyway: (its a nice youtube channel btw)
@Taintedwisp: Go Higher probability compared to what? If I say you are stupid, than you will be claimed as stupid as long as you prove otherwise? (thats a interesting world you live in)
I want to pull you up on this, because this is downright stupidity in motion.
You.
Me.
You demand to see "spontaneous generation of life" before you'll believe it. However you're quite happy believing in a god without seeing it.
You, sir, are a hypocrite.
Homeschool evolution.
I demand to see it because without spontaneous generation, God must exist.
To put it another way, the nature of life itself supplants atheism's self-appointed designation as "the most logical position." It's not stupidity in motion, you're just covering your metaphorical ears and going LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA
@TheZizz: Go What do you exactly mean under spontaneous generation?
You want to see "aliens" or 1 cell organisms created by lab (which to we are pretty close) or by nature by just watching some geyser for millions of years?
@Hookah604: Go
Yeah, it's just a succinct way of saying "life from non-living raw materials." In abstract terms, a torch that was not lit by another torch. A single cell created in a lab would constitute as such.
And then you must simply ask "Who spontaneously generated God?"
Secondly, "I don't know how it happened therefore God" has been wrong throughout history from everything from rain to the Earth's formation.
Atheism is nothing. I listen to Christianity's claims, and go "prove it". They can't, so I don't believe them.
For some reason this has a name.
I know. That's the conundrum I was talking about earlier, and the only thing that resolves it is a God that always was. It's not an unassailable argument, it's the only argument (until someone comes up with an alternative). A God-shaped hole, if you will.
How does it follow that understanding the universal order behind rain, tectonic plates, supernovas, et al, confirms that these aren't God's doings? It doesn't.
Atheism isn't nothing. It answers the absence of abiogenesis with the speculation that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." It smacks of rejecting God at all costs, that any theory no matter how baseless is preferable to God. This is why it has a name, because it has all the same warts as any other school of thought devised by imperfect man. They're just located in the private areas.
A god is not a good scientific hypothesis for very obvious reasons. If i were to blame a phenomena on god, how would i go about conducting experiments to find out? Normally i would try to fit in diffrent models but with a god i would just stand there and say "Meh, god did it." with every experiment, you just kind of give up on curiosity.
How? The same way an atheist would. Contrary to what popular culture says you don't lose your eyes and ears when you become a theist.
@Eiviyn: Go
Eiviyn. What created God?..Come now...
I listen to Christianity's claims, and go "prove it". They can't, so I don't believe them.
Ive proved everything. Thanks.
You are not part of some super intelligent sect of humanity called "atheism"..Sigh. On the contrary..
Science cant condemn you of your Sins, but your creator can.
Be receptive of the truth and repent of your folly!, and acknowledge the Creator of heaven and earth.
As it is written in the New Testament
God overlooked people's ignorance about these things in earlier times, but now he commands everyone everywhere to repent of their sins and turn to him. Acts 17:30
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2017:16-33&version=NIV
I will say again, The Bible is the word of God. Mankind has forgotten. Science proves the Bible. History does the same. Every other religion is false and an invention of Satan. Satan blinds the world through ignorance and arrogance. We can run through all these aspects as Ive been doing. Not for my sake, but for your own sake. Consider your life and soul even, and the cost of arrogance/foolishness that brings to it. What advantage is that to you?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI have to say I'm disappointed. After posting your original thesis it's extremely sad that you would regress to religious zealot blind-repetition mode.
Sigh. :(
Its tempting to forsake the faith in many ways(You would know), but I`ll stick it out. Deep down Im not going to lie to myself and find paltry excuses to reject God and my own salvation. Its hard but the grace is sufficient and the spirit of truth hath revealed enough to me to assure me confidence in my knowledge.
@TheZizz: Go
Good point. But god never really come into the picture does he? Only the disapproval of god, never the approval and the disapproval of god is the same as the removal of not knowing, the diffrence is sentiments isn't it? Back to the point of why god makes a terrible hypothesis i would like to add what i have said before; that you can't ask questions about god.
Nonsense. Atheism, evolution and abiogenesis are not linked at all.
Also to think that I reject your god is arrogant. It's your claims that I reject.
I love how much this question hurts you. You know you have no answer.
You state this every 3rd post, but have yet to provide proof of Christianity's claims.
Sure. I'll repent. But to who? Protestantism? Catholicism? Islam? Buddhism? Sikhism? Jainism? Zoroastrianism? Seriously, you're one amoung dozens of religions.
How do you know that Allah isn't waiting for you after you die?
Let's suppose there's a god. Your god. He gave us the ability to reason. The most reasonable amoung us, the people who's job it is to reason, reject your god with astounding ferocity (93% of elite scientsts reject your god).
So, gives us the ability to reason, but gives no reason to believe in him.
With the above in mind, what exactly makes you think you're on the right side?
Atheism requires abiogenesis for life to exist. The basis of my argument is that as long as there's no reason to subscribe to abiogenesis, there's no reason to subscribe to atheism.
Mind, I'm arguing for the logic of theism, not Christianity. My reasoning for being a Christian is a different matter entirely.
The "God hypothesis" is squarely reserved for the beginning of all things, the "question to end all questions." Of course it's useless for everything else because you wouldn't get anything accomplished.
No, atheism requires nothing. Atheism is not an alternate view of how life came to be. Atheism is the rejection of religious claims.
Early Christians were called atheists because they rejected pagan gods. Are you suggesting early Christians "believed" in abiogenesis too?
It only delays the question of "What made the universe?" to "What made the creator of the universe?"