[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
My point is that if they aren’t absolute, you can’t use them as a universal standard. You cannot quantify others, or all matter based on perspective based tools. [/quote]
That’s fine, but it is different from what you were claiming earlier. Just because there isn’t a universal standard doesn’t mean it isn’t real.
[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
Really? Which ones? I can think of several that have been tested and yet are still baffling.
The prayer experiment I quoted earlier, for example. Do you have a reference to a peer-reviewed scientific experiment showing that people were able to perform a religious miracle?[/quote]
There are quite few miracles that have been reviewed by scientists many times. I didn’t read all 400 posts.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Once again, saying “always” existed is a perspective based tool. There are things that exist outside of time (photons) that you cannot use terms like that to quantify.
Edit: It’s like you are measuring horse power with a ruler. It just doesn’t make sense to do so.[/quote]
I’m fine with that, but again the point is that to be logically consistent you must admit that matter and energy can exist under the same conditions under which you claim your god exists. The existence of the universe doesn’t require the intervention of a supernatural being.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
LOL, no, not at all. I don’t agree with the Mormons. I’ve just read their books.[/quote]
Oh, ok. Regardless, hopefully you get my point that if someone does make a claim of being able to channel a supernatural power to affect the material world, that claim is subject to scientific scrutiny.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The wave nature of matter does suggest a discontinuous universe though. The x-intercepts of the sin wave of probability are instances where the probability of finding the particle are 0 while it travels. As a particle moves it “jumps” past certain spacial locations.[/quote]
That is a good way of putting it. If the particle can exist in a “discontinuous universe”, again that suggests the possibility that the current universe was not in fact created by a supreme being, and that matter and energy are independent of such an intervention.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Once again, saying “always” existed is a perspective based tool. There are things that exist outside of time (photons) that you cannot use terms like that to quantify.
Edit: It’s like you are measuring horse power with a ruler. It just doesn’t make sense to do so.
I’m fine with that, but again the point is that to be logically consistent you must admit that matter and energy can exist under the same conditions under which you claim your god exists. The existence of the universe doesn’t require the intervention of a supernatural being.[/quote]
I agree it doesn’t explicitly require it. However, I do believe that something had to happen to spawn existence. Science does not rule this out.
You by the way are a very weird atheist. You believe in spiritual non-physical things and are completely opposed to any form of a god.
[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
forlife wrote:
Causality is not the same as exclusive causality. You can have deterministic events within a universe that has randomness as well.
No you can’t.
Why not?
[/quote]
Because determined events are not random.
[quote]
No it doesn’t. Contingency requires the anything that exists, was brought about by something else. That is all.
You seem confused, let me help you out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency[/quote]
No, your fucking confused.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
The wave nature of matter does suggest a discontinuous universe though. The x-intercepts of the sin wave of probability are instances where the probability of finding the particle are 0 while it travels. As a particle moves it “jumps” past certain spacial locations.
That is a good way of putting it. If the particle can exist in a “discontinuous universe”, again that suggests the possibility that the current universe was not in fact created by a supreme being, and that matter and energy are independent of such an intervention.[/quote]
Wow, I don’t follow your thought process on that one at all. Once again all I see is that it raises questions as to whether distances truely exist at all.
[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
Contingency does not require time. It simply requires that one thing comes from another.
Check your logic theory. Contingency is a logical argument mutually exclusive with Necessity. It is not the same as determinism.
Because an infinite regress is circular reasoning and therefore a logical fallacy.
So you think the First Law of Thermodynamics is a logical fallacy?
[/quote]
If it used circular reasoning or and infinate regress then it would be, but it does not, so I don’t see your point.
To acknowledge choice you have to then take a theistic view.
It’s not fucking random…If you shoot it at the screen it will hit the screen through the slits. If you repeat will make a disturbance pattern. What’s random about it?
[quote]pat wrote:
There are quite few miracles that have been reviewed by scientists many times. I didn’t read all 400 posts.[/quote]
How do you review a miracle?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I agree it doesn’t explicitly require it. However, I do believe that something had to happen to spawn existence. Science does not rule this out.[/quote]
Unless existence has always existed.
I’m more of an extreme agnostic than an atheist. I think a god or some other supernatural power is theoretically possible, I just see no evidence for it so far.
I don’t believe in spiritual non-physical things. That is your definition, not mine. I do believe people have attitudes, emotions, thoughts, and values which don’t exist in the physical world, but are a product of the physical world.
[quote]pat wrote:
Because determined events are not random.[/quote]
Which has nothing to do with my point. I never said determined events are random. I said that we don’t know all events in the universe are determined.
[quote]No, your fucking confused.
[/quote]
I like how the first paragraph links to what I sent you earlier. Who’s confused now?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Wow, I don’t follow your thought process on that one at all. Once again all I see is that it raises questions as to whether distances truely exist at all.[/quote]
Again, it’s not a question of whether distance and time exist, but whether they are absolute. My point is that energy and matter can exist in the same way your god is supposed to exist.
The First Law of Thermodynamics requires that energy and matter have always existed, since it is impossible to create something from nothing.
Why not accept the possibility that the First Law is correct?
[quote]pat wrote:
If it used circular reasoning or and infinate regress then it would be, but it does not, so I don’t see your point.[/quote]
If it is impossible for energy/matter to be created or destroyed, obviously energy/matter must have always existed.
Why?
It is random within the pattern itself. Nobody is saying the pattern is random, only the particles that comprise its boundaries.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Wow, I don’t follow your thought process on that one at all. Once again all I see is that it raises questions as to whether distances truely exist at all.
Again, it’s not a question of whether distance and time exist, but whether they are absolute. My point is that energy and matter can exist in the same way your god is supposed to exist.
The First Law of Thermodynamics requires that energy and matter have always existed, since it is impossible to create something from nothing.
Why not accept the possibility that the First Law is correct?[/quote]
Always is a non universal term I thought you agreed not to use it to quantify universal truths.
Let’s put it this way:
You already acknowledged that photons travel at the speed of light, and thus are in a timeless state.
How is that any different from your god being in a timeless state?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Let’s put it this way:
You already acknowledged that photons travel at the speed of light, and thus are in a timeless state.
How is that any different from your god being in a timeless state?[/quote]
No Idea. Can’t say. It does however prove that things can exist in a timeless state, which makes god more scientifically possible.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No Idea. Can’t say. It does however prove that things can exist in a timeless state, which makes god more scientifically possible.[/quote]
The whole point was that the existence of matter/energy in a timeless state makes your god irrelevant. It nullifies the argument that only a god could have created a universe, because only a god exists outside of the universe.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
No Idea. Can’t say. It does however prove that things can exist in a timeless state, which makes god more scientifically possible.
The whole point was that the existence of matter/energy in a timeless state makes your god irrelevant. It nullifies the argument that only a god could have created a universe, because only a god exists outside of the universe.[/quote]
I’ve never made the claim that god is the only thing that exist outside this universe. Photons only kind of exist in it. If you believe in angels and the sort, more than god exists beyond this physical world.
Edit: even humans are though to have a timeless portion outside the universe, called a soul.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’ve never made the claim that god is the only thing that exist outside this universe. Photons only kind of exist in it. If you believe in angels and the sort, more than god exists beyond this physical world. [/quote]
That’s fine, but again the point is that the existence of matter/energy outside this universe proves matter/energy didn’t require a supernatural being to create it out of nothing.