|
crazy christian quote page (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Orbax |
That is like saying the object is neither a duck or a moose, therefore it is a cow. Although it could be a cow, the previous negation of object X having the property of duckness or mooseness does not warrant the addendum of "therefore object X has the property of Cowness".
now what im getting at is:
just because we negate the creation and destruction of energy and matter does not automatically juxtapose "therefore matter and energy have always been" to the first part.
There has to be some kind of process to reaching that decision. im wondering what the process is.
Cheers |
|
|
| Michael Russo |
Hmmm...
Before I start, I have to thank Abject Silver for taking my usual place :)
Even though this thread seems malicious, I know Davinox isn't.
I was cracking up when I read that page.
The things people say... those quotes are taken out of context, but they're funny. I consider it fun, even though, supposedly, I'm one of the people the author of that page is "targeting."
but: I could very, very, very, very easily do the same thing for TA. I read some things on this site that absolutely boggle my mind. I wonder what the reaction would be if I created a website about how dumb TA's are (and then called all TA's idiotic)...
Anyways, the fact of the matter is, that people don't know anything about religion anymore, and what it actually means. If the devout Catholics (let alone the regular Catholics) have no idea what's going on, how can we really criticize the atheists and everyone else that makes a mockery of religion?
I'm really not in the mood to argue.
To the people who scoff at the idea of religion, do me a favour and at least search for some old religion threads.
| quote: | Originally posted by davinox
i also consider Michael Russo very intelligent, although he is on a completely different spectrum than I.
|
:p |
|
|
| Acid Junkie |
| quote: | Originally posted by partyprincess
I'm just saying that this "Big Bang" theory is very far fetched. Who could have created the concept of having a universe? |
this theory is considered the most reliable one of the many because there is considerable evidence that supports it. for example, the existing cosmic microwave background radiation can only be explained by this theory. the radiation tells us that the universe used to be much hotter that it is now, which seems logical because the expanding universe as it is observed today implies that it used to be much denser. for instance, one second later after the big bang, the temperature evrywhere in the univrse (remember the bing bang had no center) was approximately 100 billion degrees kelvin. as it cooled down to 3000 degrees kelvin, the originally formed hot plasma ceased to exist, and phtonos stopped constantly interacting with electrons, causing the clearing of the universe that was absolutely opaque before that. its temperature as of today is only about 3 degrees kelvin. so there must have been some instant when the universe was infinitely dense and hot, and this is what the big bang theory says. also, the universal abundance of hydrogen, helium and deuterium supports the model just as well because, as the big bang theory states, they were the first elements to be synthesized after the formation of spacetime aka gravitational field. in particular, stars could not have made so much helium by themselves during the entire existence of the universe (or at least since the clearing occured), so helium must have been there originally. actually, only 3 minutes after the big bang, the conditions were just perfectly suitable for syntheszing helium from hydrogen. approximately 26% of all the hydrogen turned into helium since that time. any heavier elements couldn't possibly exist under such conditions. in addition, the doppler effect (cosmological/gravitational redshifting) itself and the recent discovery of the so-called cannibalistic stars (aka lithium-depleted stars) also serve as strong evidence of the reliability of the big bang theory. |
|
|
| 'mju:zik |
alright people, please stop arguing...
by the way this is obviously NOT my work...
Here is a pleasant little "proof" of the existence of God which appeared in a paper of Robert K. Meyer ["God exists!", Nous 21 (1987), 345-361]. (Meyer himself says he got the idea from Putnam.) Although the paper is slightly tongue-in-cheek, the argument itself is valid, though of course the question of the correctness of its premisses is non-trivial.
Let S be the set of all entities that exist (or have existed). Define the relation <= on S by saying that x<=y if and only y is a cause of x. By verbal fiat we will define x to be a cause of x for all x in S (if we do not accept this definition, our assumptions will be slightly different; however, it is clear that the existence of x is necessary and sufficient for the existence of x, and that the existence of x is never strictly temporally posterior to that of x, so calling x a cause of itself is not such a bad idea.) Then, <= is transitive, and moreover if x<=y and y<=x, then x=y (i.e., there are no circles of causation). Hence, <= defines a partial ordering on S.
Premiss 1: The set S is a set in a universe of sets satisfying the Axiom of Choice.
Premiss 2: The set S is inductively ordered.
(Definitions will be given below.) Define a God to be an element G of S with the property that if X is another element of S such that G<=X, it must be the case that X=G. Define a divine creator of an element X in S to be a God G such that X<=G. (By definition, each God is a divine creator of itself.)
Theorem: If Premisses 1 and 2 hold, then a God exists and, moreover, any existent entity then has a divine creator.
The Theorem is a deductive consequence of the premisses together with some appropriate axioms of set theory (just use Zorn's Lemma for the proof). No claim is made in the Theorem about uniqueness (or about the divine creator of X being the same for every X other than him).
To specify the premisses further, for Premiss 1 we need an appropriate set theory in which we can embed S. Note that each element of S is to be an ens realis. This is important since if we allowed either an ens mentalis or a potential being to be in S, then it would not be clear that we can embed S in a set theoretic universe (since then the set S might contain all other sets, etc.) And we need that the Axiom of Choice should hold, which means simply that for every set T whose elements are a pairwise disjoint collection of non-empty sets, it is possible to choose a set V which contains precisely one element from each of the sets in T. (If T is finite, this is obviously true. The reason the Axiom of Choice is not completely obvious is that while for each of the sets in T we can choose an element of that set, it is not clear what is meant by making an infinite number of such arbitrary choices. Perhaps after all it might not be possible to specify a rule for making the choice, so that if sets are to be defined by rules deciding if a given element is in the set or not, then it may not be so clear that the Axiom holds.)
Premiss 2, however, is the one which is metaphysically loaded. This premiss is a very strong statement of the principle that each entity has a cause. More precisely, the assumption of inductive ordering says that given a chain T in S, there exists an entity X in S such that X is the cause of every entity in the chain T. By a chain T in S is meant a set of elements of S with the property that if x and y are distinct elements of T, then either x<=y or y<=x, so that T is totally ordered by causation. One might think intuitively that given Premiss 2, it is obvious that there is a first cause for every entity, and so the Theorem is essentially of no significance. However, in point of fact, from Premiss 2 it does not seem to immediately follow that the Theorem holds: one appears to need (unless one can instead make some simplifying assumption like that S is finite, or maybe that S is countable, or some other nice assumption that would have to be metaphysically justified) Premiss 1, and the non-trivial Zorn's Lemma. Given Premiss 1 and Zorn's Lemma, the Theorem follows.
If one is willing to accept S as a set and to accept the Axiom of Choice, then the proof of the existence of a God (and of the claim that each entity has a divine creator) needs only that Premiss 2 should hold. Now, Premiss 2 is stronger than the usual claim of a causal nexus, namely that every element has a cause (in our current setting, this usual claim would be trivial, since each element is a cause of itself). Meyer tries to argue that Premiss 2 is the right way of formulating the intuitive claim "Everything has a cause", because it is the one way of taking into account that explaining the position of a ball at time t in terms of the positions at times t_1>t_2>t_3>... (where t_1
To justify Premiss 2 in full generality would appear to require some metaphysical argument like the one that Aquinas or Aristotle tried to use in their versions of the Cosmological Argument. While one might think that because of this nothing is gained by Meyer over and beyond the position that Aquinas and Aristotle were in, this is not quite so. If Premiss 1 be accepted (and it is not very unreasonable to accept it), then the argument shows beyond Premiss 2 everything in the Cosmological Argument is correct. To prove or disprove Premiss 2, however, is non-trivial. Obviously, until a justification of Premiss 2 is given, the "proof" remains inconclusive.
Final remark: It is interesting to note that Premiss 1, namely the Axiom of Choice, is not needed in the Theorem if we make the additional assumption that there is no causal overdetermination, namely if we assume that if A causes X and B causes X, then it follows that either A causes B or B causes A. For, fix X. Let S be the set of all entities that cause X. Then, by the assumption that there is no causal overdetermination, it follows that S is a chain. But by Premiss 2, it follows that there is an entity G which causes every entity in S. Suppose now that H causes G. Then, because G causes X, it follows that H causes X, and hence H is in S, so that G causes H since G causes every entity in S. Therefore we see that H causes G and G causes H, so that G and H coincide. This proves that G is a God, and indeed a divine creator of X. |
|
|
| mezzir |
holy crap
i got to page 2 and saw all the arguments and guessed it'd be gone by page 4....but i was wrong, all the way to page 7 it continues!
:eyes:
what happened to the mindless fun we were having?
did anyone besides me regard davinox's original comment as simply poking fun, and not having any real emotion behind it?
honestly, lets just crack some more jokes, cause no one's EVER gonna change their religious affiliation because of what someone said in a 2 minute post on an internet forum
i'm agnostic, and i have the tendency to skim over anyone saying stuff about religion
i have my views, and they're not about to change
reading other people's views is sometimes interesting, but this got a little old
~~~
a rabbi and a priest are having a picnic near a lake one afternoon, and they start talking. one of them mentions skinny dipping since neither of them ever has and there's no one around. they leave their clothes by the shore and start swimming
when they're just about to come out of the lake, they notice people settling right near their clothes so they make a bee-line for their stuff. neither one wanting to be seen and recognized, they go as quickly as possible
the priest covers his privates while he runs and the rabbi covers his face, and they grab their stuff and run to their cars
once they're safe and clothed, the priest asks the rabbi why he covered his face
the rabbi replied: "i don't know about you, but my people would recognize my face"
dammit
i did that from memory and the punchline's not exactly phrased right, but its still there
HARRR!!! |
|
|
| tranceaholic |
| well didnt read all of this but couple of things off my mind..firt of all to johnsmith..you talk about the universe always being there as if it is a fact..well if it is then why are we having an argument..u dont have proof of that so doont talk as if it is a fact..second if u do believe that something as energy cannot be created nor destroyed so cant you believe in god too..i mean religious people believe in god and they think that he is neither created nor destroyed..people will laugh at them however you will find them believing in the principle itself. this is one of the oldest debates ever and most people will tell u i dont believe in something i dont see..but yet everyone believe in luck,love and various things that they dont see..it is also funny that if davinox said quotes by jews he would be called anti semite but christians it is cool...finally we are all dumb because we fell into davinox's trick to get us in a relegious debate..Relegion is a set of guideline that u can choose to live by or not..oh and to the person who commented about the cross..well the cross represents christ's sacrefice.. |
|
|
| davinox |
some of you should show your evidence disproving the big bang theory to the scientific community, you'll win a nobel prize for sure.
| quote: | Originally posted by tranceaholic
finally we are all dumb because we fell into davinox's trick to get us in a relegious debate.. |
chuckles...guah guah guah! |
|
|
| occrider |
Hahaha the big bang non-believers are pretty funny. Their arguments consist of ... I just can't conceivably imagine something such as that happening ... everything originating from one point :conf: :conf: .
If you're going to try to discount the thoery of the big bang please become a little bit more educated in the matter first. Take some physics courses, read some early carl sagan works, read a brief history of time, read the universe in a nutshell, and (my favorite) read the whole shebang: a state of the universes report by Timothy Ferris. Then come back and try to argue your points in terms that people educated in this field can argue with.
For those of you concerned about the ultimate origin of the universe, you are thinking strictly in 4 dimensions (Do you even understand the concept of space-time?). Do you not even realize that the concept of time itself is relative? That there may not even be any "beginning"? |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | | For those of you concerned about the ultimate origin of the universe, you are thinking strictly in 4 dimensions (Do you even understand the concept of space-time?). Do you not even realize that the concept of time itself is relative? That there may not even be any "beginning"? |
yeah there is something like 10 dimensions. Super gravity and all that crazy ish...
anyways. I thought a pretty cool answer when people say "oh God has Always existed??!?!?!" is that time is the measure of the decay of matter, and time did not exist until God created matter. This is just a cool food for thought answer, not really tryin to prove something, but i love stuff like that that twists your mind around a bit.
Cheers |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | | Take some physics courses |
have you ever read the counter arguments.
like the probability of the big bang ending up with life on earth? its 10^240 approx
big bang not powerful enpough solid block of matter, too fast vapor forever, to get our solar system two typoes of neutron stars exploding at precise times etc... ends up being approx a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion 0's.1% chance of working.
again food for thought, dav and I already had this discussion hehe
cheers |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
have you ever read the counter arguments.
like the probability of the big bang ending up with life on earth? its 10^240 approx
big bang not powerful enpough solid block of matter, too fast vapor forever, to get our solar system two typoes of neutron stars exploding at precise times etc... ends up being approx a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion 0's.1% chance of working.
again food for thought, dav and I already had this discussion hehe
cheers |
Well to be honest I've never read any counter arguments that that had significant scientific analysis with physics or statistics. If you could provide text detailing how these physicists arrived at these probability figures that would be great.
With what understanding I know, even if the big bang were so powerful that matter would be infinetely increasing at an ever accelerating rate (as new tests of the Hubble constant are indicating) gravity has an effect in local areas such that there is still gravitational attraction despite the fact that the galaxy is expanding. Remember that gravity is the inverse square of distance so even if there is a natural expanding force acting against matter, gravitational forces can still cause matter that are locally oriented to collapse together. Solid block of matter? There is was no such thing in hte early stages of the universe ... everything originated from a gaseous state. Two types of neutron stars? I only know of one type of neutron stars ... neutron stars :). At any rate gas and dust clouds can be disturbed into forming gravitational attractions by anything such as a nearby supernovae explosion. Once enough matter is attracted by gravity and a solar nebulae are formed it naturally begins to spin creating an orbital effect so to speak. Planets then form from the coallescing matter to orbit the newly formed star. From my understaning, the formations of a star is likely to involve a revolving disk of material that eventually form into planets.
The only huge probability factor I'm aware of is the distance/size of these planets from their star. This dictates their atmospheric condition and prediliction towards hosting life. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Two types of neutron stars? I only know of one type of neutron stars ... neutron stars :). |
We consider cooling of neutron stars (NSs) with superfluid cores composed of neutrons, protons, and electrons (assuming singlet-state pairing of protons, and triplet-state pairing of neutrons). We mainly focus on (nonstandard) triplet-state pairing of neutrons with the $|m_J| = 2$ projection of the total angular momentum of Cooper pairs onto quantization axis. The specific feature of this pairing is that it leads to a power-law (nonexponential) reduction of the emissivity of the main neutrino processes by neutron superfluidity. For a wide range of neutron critical temperatures $T_{cn}$, the cooling of NSs with the $|m_J| = 2$ superfluidity is either the same as the cooling with the $m_J = 0$ superfluidity, considered in the majority of papers, or much faster. The cooling of NSs with density dependent critical temperatures $T_{cn}(\rho)$ and $T_{cp}(\rho)$ can be imitated by the cooling of the NSs with some effective critical temperatures $T_{cn}$ and $T_{cp}$ constant over NS cores. The hypothesis of strong neutron superfluidity with $|m_J| = 2$ is inconsistent with current observations of thermal emission from NSs, but the hypothesis of weak neutron superfluidity of any type does not contradict to observations.
:)
Scientists have found that a rare and enigmatic class of neutron stars, of which only five are known, are actually magnetars -- exotic stars with magnetic fields ...
go to google.com and search for "types of neutron stars" :D
and what i meant by too fast is that even local gravity effects wouldnt be able to pull it all together |
|
|
|
|
